[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14096-14107]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT THE PHYSICAL 
              DESECRATION OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The unfinished business is 
the further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 33) 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
flag of the United States.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on 
Wednesday, June 23, 1999, pursuant to the previous order of the House, 
all time for debate on the joint resolution had expired.


 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Watt of North 
                                Carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, and as 
the designee of the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which has 
been made in order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina is the 
designee of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  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:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Watt 
     of North Carolina:
       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 217, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, we engaged in an exciting debate yesterday, and today 
is the culmination and continuation of that debate in which we have an 
opportunity to make it explicitly clear that whatever amendment we pass 
in this body will be subject to the first amendment to the United 
States Constitution.
  My amendment in the nature of a substitute simply says, 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. That simply makes this proposed 
constitutional amendment subject to the provisions that have stood us 
in good stead for 200 years, and shapes and focuses the value of this 
debate.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I urge support of the 
amendment that has just been offered. The gentleman from North Carolina 
has, in his service here, distinguished himself by the careful thought 
he brings to difficult issues, and this amendment today is an example 
of that.
  I am one of those who questioned whether there was a need for any 
amendment at all. I thought there was not. We have had people say, 
well, but desecrating the flag is not simply an expression of opinion, 
as crude and as stupid an expression as it is, and, of course, the 
first amendment protects crudeness and stupidity in expression; but 
people have said there is something about the desecration which as a 
physical act could go beyond expression.
  Well, the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina is very 
carefully drawn so as to say, to the extent that one is simply engaging 
in an expression of opinion by desecrating the flag, one is protected, 
but if there are elements involved in that desecration that go beyond 
expression, we will leave that to the courts to decide in the specific 
circumstances. I think that is a reasonable compromise.
  I want to address, therefore, the part of the amendment that says, to 
the extent this desecration is an expression of opinion, we should not 
make it illegal.
  I understand, all of us do, the motivation of those who want to make 
it illegal. The flag is a very powerful symbol. The flag symbolizes the 
greatness of this country. Yes, there are veterans who saw their 
comrades lose their lives, who lost their health, who sacrificed years 
when they could have been with their families, and they did it under a 
flag which they understandably want to protect. But we have to look at 
the implications of what we do.
  In the first place, passing the amendment as originally presented 
says that there are times when one can express oneself in ways that we 
find so offensive that we will make it illegal. That is a great breach 
in a wall that we have had between the rights of individuals and the 
government. And I am surprised that many of my friends who are 
conservative, who want to limit government, want to put this forward, 
because what this amendment says, without the refinement added by the 
gentleman from North Carolina, is there are things that one does to 
one's property, we are talking about now people who own a flag; 
remember, this applies to people who own a flag and who desecrate the 
flag they have bought, the physical flag; no one owns the symbol, but 
they have bought the physical material, they have desecrated it by 
writing outrageous words on it, by physically mistreating it. Remember, 
desecration covers things one would write on the flag that would be 
abusive and offensive, and we are saying we are so offended by what you 
have done to your property, on your property; you can be standing in 
your yard with a flag you own and desecrate it, we are so offended by 
that, that we will make that illegal. We will perhaps send you to 
prison.
  That is a fundamental line that has been crossed. No one is affecting 
your property; no one is disrupting your peace of mind; no one is 
making noise

[[Page 14097]]

and interfering with your right to privacy. Someone on his or her own 
property, with his or her own physical property, is doing something you 
find outrageous. But it does not affect you in any material or physical 
way.
  That is a great expansion in the power of government in and of 
itself.
  I was very impressed with the Special Order I heard the night before 
last by our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), when he 
talked about and said correctly, the purpose of a first amendment 
freedom of speech clause is precisely to protect people's right to be 
obnoxious and offensive, and we do that not because we think 
obnoxiousness is a virtue, although sometimes, watching this House, 
people might fall into the assumption that we do; we do it because we 
fear government. We do it because there is no neutral, impersonal 
arbiter that can decide which expressions are so offensive as to ban 
them and which ones should be allowed. We will do it. Elected officials 
will do it. Politicians a couple of months before an election will do 
it. Elected judges will do it.
  And we have said, we think the danger of discriminatory and arbitrary 
interference with freedom of expression is so great that we would 
rather put up with the occasional obnoxious jerk than to empower the 
government to decide what is acceptable and what is not.
  Of course, we have not had many flag burnings lately. My guess is 
that this debate will probably increase the number of flag 
desecrations, because it will put ideas in people's heads. But the fact 
is, to most of us, the fact that some fool wants to desecrate the flag 
as a way to get attention ordinarily would not work.
  There is one other aspect of this that I want to address. There is no 
logical way that one can say, if one adopts this principle, that 
someone who has expressed himself or herself obnoxiously should be 
banned. How can we limit it to the flag? Because once we have said, 
look, if we care enough about something, we will make it illegal to 
desecrate, what are we then saying about people who desecrate venerated 
religious symbols? What about people who burn crosses? Because the 
Supreme Court said, and I agree, burning a cross on your own land 
should not be a crime.
  This is a principle it is impossible to limit, because if we say 
burning a flag, desecrating a flag, writing rude words on a flag is so 
offensive that we are going to make it illegal, then what we are 
apparently saying is, but it is okay to do this with anything else. I 
do not think it will stop. We will ratify this amendment, if we do, and 
we will soon after be asked to protect important religious symbols, the 
Constitution, other important symbols of our unity.
  We choose here, if we pass this amendment without the gentleman from 
North Carolina's proposal, to break a very important line, and we say 
that we, the government, will say what is too offensive to express, and 
that is a terrible step to take.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the 
substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina. 
While I understand and respect the gentleman's intention in offering 
this substitute, I must point out that the adoption of the substitute 
would produce a measure that is, quite frankly, meaningless. The 
fundamental flaw in the gentleman's proposal arises from the fact that 
the present Supreme Court would declare that any legislation 
prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag is inconsistent with 
the first amendment to the Constitution.
  The reason we are here today considering this constitutional 
amendment is that the Supreme Court has made it clear beyond any doubt 
in the Johnson and Eichmann cases that, under the Court's current view 
of the Constitution, individuals who physically desecrate the flag of 
the United States enjoy the protection of the first amendment.
  The decisions of the Court demonstrate that any law which prohibits 
the physical desecration of the flag will be held to involve an 
impermissible suppression of free expression. The Court is committed to 
this position, which I can only view as mistaken, that trampling, 
shredding, defacing, burning, or otherwise desecrating the flag is 
protected expression under the first amendment. Everyone understands 
that this is the Court's view of the issue, and there is really no 
debate on that.
  I would like to quote again what the representative of the Department 
of Justice said back in 1995 on an earlier constitutional amendment on 
this subject. Mr. Dellinger wrote on behalf of the Department of 
Justice that the Supreme Court's decision in Eichmann, invalidating the 
Federal Flag Protection Act, appears to foreclose legislative efforts 
to prohibit flag burning. There is really no dispute about that. 
Everyone has acknowledged that any meaningful legislation to protect 
the flag would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That is 
beyond dispute.
  Once we understand that basic point, I think we can all see that the 
amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) travels in a 
circle to nowhere. How would the Supreme Court interpret the power of 
Congress under the gentleman's amendment? What statutory provision 
would the Court be bound to uphold under the Watt amendment? It is 
obvious that the Court would find that the introductory phrase of the 
amendment, not inconsistent with the first article of amendment to this 
Constitution, is the language that the gentleman uses, and the Court 
would find that to be the crucial operative language in the measure. 
The introductory phrase would limit and restrict the clause that 
follows, and this is no great revelation. That is, I am sure, the very 
clear intent of the gentleman from North Carolina in offering this 
substitute.
  But the fact remains that, given the Court's interpretation of the 
first amendment, the introductory language of the amendment of the 
gentleman would rob the clause granting Congress power to protect the 
flag of any force or meaning.

                              {time}  1045

  Under the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) 
the court would continue to strike down any laws protecting the flag 
from desecration. As the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) well 
knows, when he adds ``not inconsistent with the first article of 
amendment to the Constitution,'' he simply ratifies the constitutional 
status quo.
  But we are here today because the status quo created by the Supreme 
Court is unacceptable. We are here today because, a decade ago, the 
Supreme Court imposed novel and flawed interpretation of the First 
Amendment. We are here today because the Supreme Court, in its mistaken 
interpretation of the First Amendment, stripped our flag of the 
protection to which it is entitled. We are not here to ratify that 
mistaken interpretation. We are here to repudiate it.
  It is important for us all to understand that this was something that 
was new, prior to these decisions about a decade ago, the flag had 
enjoyed protection against desecration. It was the virtually universal 
view that such legislative restrictions protecting the flag were 
constitutional.
  Indeed, as I pointed out in my statement yesterday, some of the 
greatest civil libertarians of this century who have served on the 
Supreme Court, recognized the power of the government to protect our 
national symbol from acts of desecration. Justice Hugo Black, Justice 
Earl Warren, Justice Abe Fortas, all clearly expressed their view that 
it was not inconsistent with the First Amendment to protect the flag 
from acts of desecration.
  Let me also address the point that has been made by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts that somehow the First Amendment provides absolute 
protection for expression in any form, in any circumstance. That is 
simply not so.

[[Page 14098]]

  We know that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity, for 
instance. That is carved out by the Supreme Court's interpretation of 
the First Amendment, and I think it is a proper interpretation. I do 
not believe the First Amendment was ever intended to protect that sort 
of expression.
  We also know that certain conduct, which may have an expressive 
element in it, and that is what we are really talking about here when 
we talk about the desecration of the flag, it is conduct which 
admittedly can have an expressive element is not always protected under 
the First Amendment simply because of the expressive element.
  There are certain indecent things that people will not be permitted 
to do in public simply because they have chosen to use that indecent 
act as a way of expressing themselves.
  People may wish to parade through the streets unclothed as a way of 
expressing a particular viewpoint. Now, that conduct may have an 
expressive element in it, but the fact that the people engage in that 
conduct have chosen that means to express a particular viewpoint or 
idea does not mean that the indecent public conduct has a protection of 
the First Amendment.
  It is the same point here with the flag. We are not limiting anyone 
who wishes to express any idea about anything. They can say whatever 
they choose about the flag, about the leaders of this country, about 
our Constitution, about the Congress. The list goes on and on.
  Free and full public debate can go forward without any restriction 
under this proposal. All we are saying is that, when people choose to 
engage in conduct that involves the physical desecration of the flag, 
they have gone too far, they have transgressed a limit into behavior 
that is not acceptable, and behavior that is not, like obscenity, 
expression which is not protected by the First Amendment of our 
Constitution.
  That is why we are here on the underlying proposal. The amendment of 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) would simply undo what we 
are trying to accomplish through the underlying proposal.
  So I would submit to the House that the amendment of the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) should be rejected by the House and that 
we should proceed with the passage of the proposal of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham), and we should proceed with the 
important work of restoring the legal protection for the flag of the 
United States of America.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the flag symbolizes our Nation, 
its history, and its values. We all love the flag, I think, equally.
  That is not what this debate is about. The flag is our national 
symbol of pride, of unity, and of freedom. Many of us have family or 
friends who died defending it, and so we have to be heard on this. So 
this becomes deeply personal.
  I think what they really died for were the freedoms embodied in the 
Bill of Rights that the flag represents. We can and should be incensed 
when the flag is burned or defaced. We have a responsibility to protect 
the flag.
  That is why I have cosponsored the Flag Protection Act which was 
introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). This 
legislation would protect the flag by punishing those that burned or 
defaced it. This bill would also punish any person who steals our flag 
or commits trespass in order to do damage to one.
  The Bill of Rights is one of America's greatest gifts to mankind. For 
over 200 years, the First Amendment, which protects our freedom of 
speech and expression, has never been amended. Amending the 
Constitution, I think, is the wrong way to protect the flag.
  I urge my colleagues to support a statutory approach which would 
protect the flag without doing violence to what it stands for. We need 
a tough law consistent with our Constitutional responsibilities that 
can be enacted in a timely fashion and can accomplish what we want 
without compromising the integrity of our Constitution and Bill of 
Rights.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, I want to address this issue about a limited statutory 
approach to protecting the flag. I think the emphasis there should be 
on the ``limited.'' I have looked at the proposal that has been brought 
forward as an alternative to the constitutional amendment; and the 
truth of the matter is, it does nothing to protect the flag from 
physical desecration. The only thing that that statute does is prohibit 
some actions that are already crimes, like destroying government 
property. It prohibits things that would be prohibited under laws that 
impose penalties for disorderly conduct.
  But the bottom line is, it does not protect the flag from physical 
desecration. There is a very good reason that the statute does not do 
that. The reason is that the Supreme Court has made very clear that any 
statute which does that, under their interpretation of the First 
Amendment, would be struck down. That is the dilemma that those face 
who wish to talk about offering a statute. It just does not work.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Canady) for yielding to me.
  I also want to say to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), 
he is offering this amendment, he is a true gentleman, he is a friend, 
and he is an American, but we look at it differently. We can have a 
difference of opinion without having a difference of principle.
  This weekend, I am going to be speaking to the State American Legion 
Convention in Tennessee in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. I will tell my 
colleagues that I am proud of those veterans. I am proud of the fact of 
what they have meant to this country. I am proud of the fact that they 
were willing to lay their life on the line in order for us to be free.
  I rise today in strong support of the flag protection amendment to 
the Constitution. As one who served in the U.S. Army, and who currently 
serves as a colonel in the Tennessee Army National Guard, my colleagues 
do not have to tell me about the significance of the flag.
  To me, the flag represents the many sacrifices our veterans have made 
throughout history to protect our precious freedoms and to preserve our 
democracy. Historically, the flag has served as a sacred emblem of the 
principles on which our Nation was founded. The flag is a national 
asset which I believe deserves our respect and protection.
  While I fully support an individual's right to express himself or 
herself freely, when it comes to the American flag and such a gross 
disrespect for something so precious as our national symbol of freedom, 
I feel it is necessary for Congress to take action.
  I believe the ideas flag burners want to communicate can be expressed 
just as effectively without burning our national symbol. We should not 
protect such horrendous behavior when our forefathers, our veterans, 
and many patriotic citizens of this great land sacrificed and fought to 
protect the freedom it symbolizes.
  Madam Speaker, I stand up here, not as a legal scholar, but I say 
that, if the Supreme Court holds that our Constitution permits flag 
burning, it is time to change our Constitution.
  As we prepare to celebrate the independence of this great Nation, I 
urge my colleagues to join me in saying thank you to every veteran that 
fought and every soldier that died to defend this flag and the country 
for which it stands by voting for the flag protection amendment.
  A lot of people may not have thought about this, but we celebrated 
our 200th birthday in 1976. We are now 223 years old. But do my 
colleagues know what the average longevity of the great democracies of 
the past is? Two hundred years.

[[Page 14099]]

  If we want to rededicate and recommit ourselves, we need to fight for 
this country in order to make sure that we have that opportunity to 
celebrate our 300th birthday. Vote for the flag protection amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for yielding to me. I also want to thank 
the gentleman for all of his good work. He is a good friend, and he is 
a great American.
  Our flag is worthy of the emotion it stirs deep within us. It is 
worthy of reverence. I love the flag. We all love the flag. Our flag is 
worthy to stand, by itself, against the attacks of those who seek to 
denigrate it and all that it stands for.
  Is our flag so weak that it cannot withstand public desecration and 
attack? Is our flag so weak that we must pass a constitutional 
amendment to protect it? No, our flag is greater than that.
  America, our America, is the free-est Nation on earth. In our 
America, we have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of 
press, freedom of religion. Our Constitution guarantees each of these 
freedoms.
  The Constitution is a sacred document. It is the foundation of our 
democracy. It is the foundation of our freedom.
  Our flag, Old Glory, is worthy of every word of praise and respect 
that will be spoken here today, tomorrow, and years to come. Throughout 
the world, the American flag symbolizes freedom, liberty, and the glory 
of democracy. Old Glory has served as a beacon of hope and opportunity 
for generation upon generation, not just in the United States, but 
throughout the world.
  But above Old Glory, above a symbol of our liberty, is our sacred 
Constitution. The Constitution guarantees that we have the freedom to 
have political belief and express those beliefs openly.
  An amendment to our Constitution will not protect Old Glory, it will 
destroy Old Glory. Because Old Glory is nothing without freedom. When 
freedom is strong, Old Glory is strong. When we persecute our citizens 
for expressing political belief, yes, even the burning or desecration 
of the flag, we weaken our freedom. When freedom is denied, Old Glory 
dies.
  My colleagues, if Old Glory could speak to us today, she would cry 
for us. She would weep. Today, on the floor of this House, we are 
attacking freedom. We are attacking the liberties guaranteed in the 
Bill of Rights.

                              {time}  1100

  To honor our flag and all that it stands for, we must reject a 
constitutional amendment. We must embrace not just a symbol of freedom, 
but freedom itself. To suppress freedom by passing a constitutional 
amendment is to make a flag stronger than the people and the Nation it 
represents.
  For the sake of our people, our freedoms and our Constitution, I urge 
my colleagues to reject this well-meaning but unnecessary 
constitutional amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and as I listened to the debate, I could not help but come to the 
floor to talk about this very important bill.
  I have the greatest amount of respect for the gentleman from Georgia 
who preceded me. He is certainly a hero. He has served his country 
well. And certainly in this Nation where we have freedom of speech and 
the freedom to disagree, I must respectfully disagree with his opinion 
on this very important issue.
  I also greatly respect the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), and people like him who not only can talk 
about liberty and patriotism and wave that flag, but actually, when it 
came time to serve his country, he did so greatly. He, too, is a great 
American hero.
  Many of my colleagues that are new to this Congress may not know that 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) was the inspiration for 
the movie Top Gun. I think all those military scenes and those kinds of 
things he certainly stood for and was representative of many of those 
actual events, and during Vietnam was a top gun pilot himself. I think 
some of the other scenes he did not represent, but certainly as a 
military man he is one of our true American heroes, and it is a 
privilege to serve in Congress with him.
  I think people like the gentleman from California, who have fought 
over the years, and we have heard it argued they fought for the freedom 
to burn the flag, I do not think that was the case. They fought for the 
freedom that is in the Constitution, but they stood for that flag. At 
Iwo Jima they raised those flags, and those marines certainly did not 
intend for that flag to be burned.
  But I think what this comes down to can be boiled down to this. Very 
simply, the overwhelming majority of the American people, whom we 
represent in Congress, we are elected to represent these people 
throughout the country, the majority of the American people want this 
protection of the American flag. They believe, like I do, that it is 
the symbol of this country and deserves to be protected, deserves that 
constitutional protection.
  It takes an amendment to the Constitution, because the courts have, 
over the years, declared any law, any statute, any simple bill that we 
pass as unconstitutional. But in the end we have had as many as 48 
States at one time who had their own individual State laws against 
burning flags. Right now this Congress has, I believe, resolutions from 
49 of the 50 States asking us to pass a constitutional amendment to 
protect the flag.
  And, yes, there are limitations to the first amendment freedom of 
speech. We have probably heard them argued many times on this floor 
already. We cannot yell fire in a crowded theater; we cannot slander or 
libel somebody; and in most places we cannot walk around without 
clothes on, if that is someone's way of freedom of speech. It is 
against the law to do that. So we have, as a lawful society, placed 
some restrictions on freedom of speech. This would simply be another 
that the people want. Three-fourths of the States have to ratify it. We 
are simply setting forth that process today that allows them to make 
that choice.
  Madam Speaker, I ask support for this bill.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I love our flag. It stirs my 
heart every time I recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but the 
Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging our freedom of 
speech. We also know that the Supreme Court twice has ruled that flag 
burning, as upsetting and despicable as it is to many of us, comes 
under the protection of the first amendment.
  I believe that the patriotic thing to do is to condemn flag burning 
whenever and wherever it happens, but not to ban it. The right thing to 
do is to leave well enough alone with the Constitution. That means 
leaving the Constitution the way it is by keeping the first amendment 
intact.
  Cutting into the first amendment, the cornerstone of our great 
democracy, would curtail what our beautiful flag stands for: freedom, 
the very freedom that each of us holds so near and dear, the very 
freedom that so many brave Americans have courageously fought to 
protect throughout history.
  I am so very proud of our veterans, but I believe the best way to 
honor our veterans is to defend the Constitution. Let us show respect 
for our precious flag by pledging allegiance to the flag for which it 
stands and upholding the integrity of the Constitution.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair 
concerning the amount of time remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady) has 15 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from North

[[Page 14100]]

Carolina (Mr. Watt) has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I wanted to respond again to the point that has been made that here 
we are attempting to change the first amendment. That is not what we 
are attempting to do, and that is not what we would do here. We are 
simply responding here to a flawed and novel interpretation of the 
first amendment that the Supreme Court imposed a decade ago.
  Let me quote once more what Justice Black said back in 1969. He said, 
``It passes my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars 
making the deliberate burning of the American flag an offense.'' And 
Chief Justice Earl Warren said this: ``I believe that the States and 
the Federal Government do have power to protect the flag from acts of 
desecration and disgrace.''
  That was the understanding of the first amendment until the Supreme 
Court 10 years ago changed direction and created this right to 
desecrate the flag which previously had not been recognized. I think 
the Supreme Court was wrong, and that is why we are here with this 
amendment today.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I have to speak out today on this issue 
because the first amendment means so much to me, and I want to thank 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for yielding me this time 
and for his hard work on this issue.
  As an African American woman, the right to free speech has allowed me 
to challenge the inequities in the society based on race, gender, age, 
sexual orientation and disabilities. The proposal to amend the first 
amendment's guarantee of free speech for the first time in the 
Constitution's history will have a chilling effect on those who fight 
for freedom and justice.
  Madam Speaker, this amendment will weaken one of our most fundamental 
rights. Our government cannot, must not, prohibit freedom of expression 
simply because it disagrees with its message. We condemn other 
countries for stifling dissent. We condemn the lack of freedom of 
speech. In fact, we impose blockades against countries which we believe 
crack down on citizens who oppose their own government. This Congress 
needs to stop its hypocrisy.
  I implore my colleagues not to be superficial and to stand for the 
freedom, yes, the liberty and the justice that the flag represents.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I just want to point out that what we are talking about here is 
conduct which attacks our national symbol. What this amendment 
represents is the view that the people of the United States have a 
compelling interest in protecting our national symbol from that sort of 
physical act which is intended to desecrate it.
  Let me refer again to something that Justice Stevens said in his 
dissent in the Eichmann case where he started off by acknowledging that 
we all understand that the government should not attempt to suppress 
ideas because we find them to be objectionable. I certainly accept that 
the government should not be in the business of suppressing debate 
about public issues in this country. That is not the purpose of the 
government. That does contravene the first amendment of the 
Constitution. But that does not mean that there are no limitations on 
the type of conduct that people can engage in in this country in the 
name of freedom of expression.
  Justice Stevens said in his dissent that, ``In addition to being well 
settled that we should not attempt to suppress disagreeable or 
offensive ideas, it is equally well settled that certain methods of 
expression may be prohibited if, A, the prohibition is supported by a 
legitimate societal interest that is unrelated to the suppression of 
the ideas the speaker desires to express; B, the prohibition does not 
entail any interference with the speaker's freedom to express those 
ideas by other means; and, C, the interest in allowing the speaker 
complete freedom of choice among alternative methods of expression is 
less important than the societal interest supporting the prohibition.''
  Now, I believe if we look at this test, which is a very responsible 
test, and a test which is quite protective of freedom of expression, we 
will see that prohibitions on the desecration of the flag are not 
objectionable. The prohibition is supported by a legitimate societal 
interest that is unrelated to the suppression of the idea the speaker 
desires to express.
  We are not attempting to express any idea when we protect the flag 
from desecration. The truth of the matter is, desecration of the flag 
is conduct which is used by people who are trying to express a whole 
range of different ideas in a very inarticulate way. The Chief Justice, 
I think, has aptly described this as more like an inarticulate grunt or 
roar as opposed to real articulate expression.
  But what we are doing is not related to the expression of any idea, 
and we are not interfering, under the second part of this test, with 
the speaker's freedom to express those ideas by other means. People can 
choose any other means to express whatever idea they wish to express. 
We are simply saying that they cross the line and they will not be 
permitted to use the one means to express their view, which is the 
desecration of the flag of our Nation, which I believe is the property 
of the people of the United States and is not to be used for 
desecration by any one individual.
  I believe that that interest of the people of the United States, in 
protecting the symbol of our Nation, of our national unity, is more 
important than whatever marginal value some individual might derive 
from using the particular means of flag desecration to express some 
viewpoint. I believe that full and robust and free public debate will 
go forward. There is no question that that will take place. It took 
place before the Supreme Court decided those cases 10 years ago. There 
was wide-open debate on public issues. Nobody's opinion was suppressed 
even though the flag was, before that decision and for many years, had 
been protected under the laws of the United States and the laws of the 
various States of the Union.
  So looking at this all in context, I think we see how reasonable what 
we are asking is, and it is just another reason for opposing the 
gentleman's amendment, which would render the underlying proposal by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) meaningless.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me again put in context what this debate is all 
about. First of all, we all abhor the desecration of the flag, and the 
proposed constitutional amendment that my colleague the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Canady) and my colleague the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham) have put forward express that abhorrence for the 
desecration of the flag in the precise wording of their proposed 
amendment. It says, ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag of the United States.''

                              {time}  1115

  My proposed substitute amendment expresses that same abhorrence for 
the desecration of the flag, but at the same time it expresses a higher 
commitment to the command of the First Amendment that is already in the 
Constitution of the United States that has stood our Nation so well for 
over 200 years.
  My proposed substitute to their amendment simply says, not 
inconsistent with the First Amendment, not inconsistent with the First 
Amendment, the Congress shall still have the power to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag of the United States. So we have got 
two clear options.
  Now, their defense to my proposal is, on the one hand, that it is 
meaningless and, on the other hand, that it is too

[[Page 14101]]

meaningful. Now, they have got to make a choice. And my colleagues must 
make a choice.
  First of all, they say they are not doing anything to the First 
Amendment by proposing to protect the flag from physical desecration 
under the amendment that they have offered. If that is the case, if 
that is the case, the language that I have proposed to insert here in 
this amendment is meaningless.
  Well, it might be meaningless. But if it is, I want to be on record 
as saying that I support the First Amendment to the Constitution.
  The other side of their argument is, well, it is so powerful this 
language that I have proposed in my amendment that it undermines 
completely the amendment that they have offered. That is the opposite 
side of their argument. And if that is what they are saying, what I 
want my colleagues to know is that that is exactly what should be the 
case. I am not backing away from that.
  But if their proposed constitutional amendment is inconsistent in any 
respect with the First Amendment to the Constitution, which they say it 
is not and which I do not know because we do not know how it will be 
interpreted, but if it is, then I want to go on record right now as 
saying I want the First Amendment to rule in this conflict. And that is 
really what this debate is all about.
  We talked a lot yesterday about things that the debate is not about, 
and I want to go through those things one more time. We all agree that 
this is not about patriotism. There are patriots on every side, both 
sides of this issue. In the committee, the patriot the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) came. Another patriot came from the 
Republican side who was on our side of this issue.
  So second, it is not even about partisan politics. Is that not 
wonderful that we have something on the floor of the House of 
Representatives that we can debate that we can all stand up and say to 
America, this is not about partisan politics? We have agreed on that.
  Third, we have agreed that it is not a liberal versus conservative 
issue. Because if we read the opinions of the court, we have got 
conservative justices and liberal justices on both sides of the Supreme 
Court's opinion. So it is not a liberal-conservative issue.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and I even agreed that it is 
not even about where we went to law school. Because both of us went to 
law school at the same place. He is on one side of this issue. I am on 
the other side of it. So it is not even about that.
  I want to talk to my colleagues about one other thing that this 
amendment is not about. It is not about burning the flag. Let me repeat 
that. This is not about burning the flag. We have heard all this 
discussion about burning of the flag, but this is not about burning of 
the flag.
  There is a reason that my colleagues decided not to use the word 
``burning'' in this proposed constitutional amendment. The reason is 
that the appropriate way to dispose of a flag is to burn it. The court 
has acknowledged that. Where is the language here that I can just point 
that out and be explicit? I had it right here. Well, I cannot find it 
right now. But it will come back to me. Here it is. This is from the 
underlying case that was decided by the Supreme Court.
  ``The Defendant Johnson was prosecuted because he knew that his 
politically charged expression would cause serious offense. If he had 
burned the flag as a means of disposing of it because it was dirty or 
torn, he would not have been convicted of flag desecration under this 
Texas law. Federal law designates burning as the preferred means of 
disposing of a flag when it is in such condition that it is no longer a 
fitting emblem to display.''
  So we have got a Federal law that says we can burn the flag. So what 
is this about? What is this word ``desecration'' all about? It is about 
expression of an opinion. Because if we burn the flag in reverence to 
the flag as an honorable way to put that flag to bed, to end the use of 
that flag, the Federal statute protects us. But if we go out and we 
burn that same flag as an expression of our disgust with some idea that 
our constitutional government has not lived up to or some disgust with 
the principles for which that flag stands, it is, at that point, 
desecration, which has a different connotation than burning, kicks into 
this equation.
  So this is not about burning the flag. This is about what they are 
thinking about, what they are saying, what they are expressing when 
they burn that flag. That is what this debate is about. The case law 
clearly says they can have antiburning statutes at the local level. 
Sure they can have antiburning statutes. But they cannot single out the 
flag and say they cannot burn the flag as a process for expressing 
themselves. That is what the underlying amendment does. That is why the 
word ``desecration'' is used instead of ``burning.''
  Just think about it. That is a little subtle difference. I know some 
of my colleagues are just going to say, well, he is just playing on 
words. But think about why they did not use the word ``burning'' in the 
statute, in the proposed constitutional amendment. Because the law 
already allows the flag to be burned as long as they are thinking good 
thoughts and supportive thoughts when they burn it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair 
concerning the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady) has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Canady) has the right to close.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt) on the role that he has played in the debate. I think the 
gentleman from North Carolina has made the best case that can be made 
against the amendment. I do not think it is a strong case, and I 
disagree with it. But I think the gentleman has made the case that can 
be made.
  The problem that I think underlies the attack on this proposal is it 
does not come to terms with the fact that we in this proposal are not 
preventing anyone from expressing any idea or opinion they wish to 
express. This is simply a restriction on the means that they have 
chosen. And this is a point I have made before. But I think this is a 
fundamental flaw in the argument that is used by those against this 
amendment who claim that somehow we are undoing the First Amendment or 
that we are acting in a way that is inconsistent with the purpose of 
the First Amendment.
  It is true that we are acting in a way that is inconsistent with the 
interpretation of the First Amendment that has come down from the 
Supreme Court. That is why we are here. But the substitute, in my view, 
does not, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) said, express 
a higher commitment to the command of the First Amendment.
  What the substitute of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) 
does instead is express a higher commitment to the command of the 
Supreme Court. I would just remind the gentleman that, under our 
Constitution, the Congress also has a role to play and under Article V, 
we are playing the role that we have in the constitutional amendment 
process.
  That was put in the Constitution for a purpose. I believe that one of 
the reasons it was put there is to make certain that the people's 
representatives and the people themselves ultimately could address 
mistakes that might be made by the Supreme Court.
  Now, the gentleman has also argued that we are claiming that his 
amendment is meaningful in one sense but not meaningful in another. 
Well, we are claiming that. I will confess to that. Now, the change 
that the gentleman is making by his amendment in the amendment that has 
been offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the 
underlying constitutional amendment, is quite meaningful.

[[Page 14102]]

  There is no question that the change that the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) is attempting to make to the amendment of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is extraordinarily 
meaningful. It is so meaningful that it destroys the Cunningham 
proposal. That is true. But another way of looking at that is saying 
that the end result of making the change that the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) would have us make is a constitutional amendment 
that is meaningless because it would ratify the constitutional status 
quo, which has been established not by the First Amendment itself but 
by the Supreme Court of the United States.
  So the amendment that the gentleman offers is meaningful in that it 
changes the proposal that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) has brought forward, and it is meaningless in that the end 
result of adopting the Watt amendment would be a constitutional 
amendment that simply ratifies the status quo and, thus, does nothing. 
And I do not know why anyone would want to do that.
  I would have to candidly suggest that I find it hard to believe that 
the gentleman or any of the other opponents of the Cunningham amendment 
would actually want to adopt the substitute as a part of the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Now, I know they do not want to adopt the amendment of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham) either, but I really have a hard time 
believing that they would support adoption of the substitute. Because 
they understand, of course, that it is a proposal that would simply 
endorse what the Supreme Court has already said.

                              {time}  1130

  For that reason, I think we need to move on, vote down the amendment 
of the gentleman from North Carolina, and then go on to the important 
business of passing the resolution that has been brought to this House 
by the gentleman from California, whose leadership on this has been 
outstanding.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Madam Speaker, first I want to associate 
myself with the words of the gentleman from North Carolina.
  The Constitution has been amended only 27 times over 200 years, and 
this was to expand our freedom. Why should we amend our Constitution to 
limit a person's freedom? This Nation stands for freedom, not for 
enslavement of one's views. The ultimate demonstration of a Nation's 
commitment to freedom of expression is to allow its symbol of freedom 
to be used for individual expression.
  Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental rights we as United 
States citizens have. What makes the United States different from Iran, 
China, Cuba and other countries is that we can voice our concerns 
freely under the first amendment without the penalty of being fined or 
going to jail. If we strip our citizens of this right, we will be 
taking a step backwards to the practices that are pervasive in many 
tyrannical countries.
  I am not for flag burning. As the gentleman from North Carolina has 
indicated, this is not about flag burning, but this amendment would 
infringe on a person's right to express what they feel. For example, I 
am against the practices of the Ku Klux Klan, but they still have the 
right to their freedom of expression.
  The 1st Amendment protects all people and their opinions--if their 
opinions disagree with your beliefs--that is what makes this country 
unique--the environment of discourse and the ability to pick and choose 
what you believe in.
  As we debate many beliefs in this great House, let us not forget that 
each and everyone of us has the opportunity to hear both sides and make 
an individual decision on what is right and wrong for their 
constituents. But, the wrong decision would be to limit a person's 
freedom of expression by penalizing how they feel.
  The First Amendment makes the U.S. unique from all other countries. 
Let us continue to be a world leader in preserving our citizen's right 
under the 1st Amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, the people of my district are conflicted 
on this issue. They and I have a special feeling towards our flag. I 
represent Fort McHenry in which Francis Scott Key saw the flag that 
inspired the National Anthem, the symbol of our freedom. But they and I 
also understand that protecting the first amendment of the Bill of 
Rights, we must do. It is part of the founding principles of our 
country, the right to speak out even when it is not popular.
  I want to applaud the gentleman from North Carolina for giving us the 
opportunity to both protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and 
putting this issue in proper context. Yes, we want to protect the flag 
from desecration, but we also want to protect our Bill of Rights.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from North 
Carolina is recognized for 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, the words keep resonating 
in my head from my senior law partner that I talked about yesterday, 
when I was sent to represent people who had demonstrated on an issue 
that was on the opposite side of a position that I held, and I called 
my senior law partner and said, ``Why would you send me here to 
represent these demonstrators that are demonstrating against something 
that I believe in?'' And his simple words to me were, ``Don't you 
believe in the first amendment?''
  That is what I ask my colleagues today: ``Don't you believe in the 
first amendment?''
  This is what Justice Kennedy said in his concurring opinion in the 
Supreme Court case:

       For we are presented with a clear and simple statute to be 
     judged against a pure command of the Constitution. The 
     outcome can be laid at no door but ours. The hard fact is 
     that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make 
     them because they are right, right in the sense that the law 
     and the Constitution compel the result.

  I call on my colleagues today to make the decision that they know is 
right. It is a difficult political decision. It was not easy for the 
Supreme Court. But they stood and upheld the first amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States. I ask my colleagues in this House to 
do the same in the face of this adversity.

                                     American Bar Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 1999.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Bar 
     Association, I write to urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 33, the 
     proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical 
     desecration of the flag of the United States.
       The Association deplores any desecration of the flag, but 
     we must not forget that the flag is a symbol of both national 
     unity and sovereignty and the individual freedoms we so 
     uniquely enjoy in this country--freedom to think one's own 
     thoughts, to express one's beliefs, and to associate freely 
     with those of like mind. As important as the flag is to all 
     of us, we must never protect it at the expense of the 
     precious freedoms it symbolizes.
       Proponents of this measure argue that it would merely 
     restore 200 years of ``tradition'' of protecting our flag. In 
     fact, the amendment would actually violate our nation's true 
     tradition of preserving and expanding individual freedoms. 
     The Bill of Rights has endured intact since its adoption in 
     1791. Previous amendments to the Constitution have acted only 
     to expand the individual liberties guaranteed in the Bill of 
     Rights, not to limit them. As Acting Assistant Attorney 
     General Randolph Moss noted, ``[p]art of the unique force, 
     security, and stature of our Bill of Rights derives from the 
     widely-shared belief that it is permanent and enduring.''
       In a recent statement, Keith A. Kreul, a U.S. Army veteran 
     and former National Commander of the American Legion, warns 
     that this amendment ``will neither protect the flag nor 
     promote true patriotism.'' He goes on to say that, ``Our 
     nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on 
     principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution 
     and the Bill of Rights.'' Mr. Kreul cautioned Congress 
     against attempting to impose patriotism by legislative fiat. 
     ``We must not delegate to government our responsibility of 
     citizenship lest we endanger our most precious freedoms . . . 
     Respect for our beautiful flag can only come from the hearts 
     of the people. Attempts to bestow honor by government decree 
     upon the flag are idle myths and must not prevail.''

[[Page 14103]]

       Arguments that this amendment is needed in order to address 
     moral malaise in this country are misdirected. Moral malaise 
     did not begin ten years ago with the Supreme Court's ruling 
     in Texas v. Johnson. The notion of drawing a line in the sand 
     on this issue in order to send a message on morality diverts 
     attention and resources from real and serious problems. The 
     issues of concern facing our nation today--violence in our 
     streets and schools, economic security, questions of race, 
     and armed conflict abroad--will have a far greater impact on 
     the shape of our society than a constitutional amendment on 
     flag desecration. It would better serve our nation if the 
     time and effort Congress is expending on the flag amendment 
     would be directed toward those and other critical issues.
       Proponents of the amendment argue that flag desecration is 
     a serious national problem. They cite 72 incidents that have 
     taken place over the past five years and claim that 
     ``hundreds'' more have occurred but remain unreported. First, 
     if they have been unreported, how can the proponents possibly 
     affirm they have occurred? What evidence of the ``hundreds'' 
     of cases has been offered? None. Second, of the 72 specific 
     incidents they do cite, almost \2/3\ involved actions that 
     are already punishable under existing law.
       Amending our Constitution is a serious endeavor that must 
     be reserved for issues of the fundamental structure of 
     American government and social order. As James Madison once 
     stated, amending the Constitution should be reserved for 
     ``great and extraordinary occasions.'' Infrequent incidents 
     of flag desecration do not warrant this unprecedented action 
     to undermine the freedom of speech guaranteed under the First 
     Amendment.
       In the more than 200 years since the adoption of the Bill 
     of Rights, we have seen that our institutions cannot be 
     destroyed by the exercise of the First Amendment freedoms, 
     only strengthened. Do we really want or need to go to the 
     extreme of tampering with the First Amendment to deal with 
     the rare actions of a few individuals? Walter Cronkite, a 
     highly respected journalist and one who has personally 
     witnessed and recorded for history some of our nation's most 
     difficult challenges, says emphatically ``no.'' In his own 
     words;
       ``This tiny band of malcontents has inspired a threat by 
     otherwise thoughtful, serious citizens to amend the very 
     foundation of our liberties, which has stood solid and 
     unshaken through political and economic crises, through 
     insurrection and civil war, through assaults by foreign 
     ideologies. Even if the flag desecrators were of far greater 
     numbers and represented a cause of some significance, they 
     still would cause no threat to the integrity of our national 
     emblem. But those who would amend the Constitution do 
     threaten the integrity of that far more precious of our 
     possessions--our freedom of thought and speech.''
       The American Bar Association urges you to oppose the 
     amendment and vote ``no'' to protect the American flag by 
     preserving one of the most precious constitutional principles 
     it represents--the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of 
     expression.
           Sincerely,
     Robert D. Evans.
                                  ____

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 1999.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

       (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the 
     concerned agencies.)


    H.J. Res. 33--Constitutional Amendment Against Flag Desecration

             (Cunningham (R) California and 279 cosponsors)

       The President is deeply committed to protection of the 
     United States flag and will continue to condemn those who 
     show it any form of disrespect. The Administration believes, 
     however, that efforts to limit the First Amendment to make a 
     narrow exception for flag desecration are misguided. The 
     Congress should be deeply reluctant to tamper with the First 
     Amendment.
                                  ____

                                               American Society of


                                            Newspaper Editors,

                                          Reston, VA, May 5, 1999.

   American Society of Newspaper Editors Statement on Flag Amendment

       In order to defend the foremost symbol of freedom, the 
     American flag, proponents of this amendment are prepared to 
     diminish freedom itself.
       For more than two centuries, our Bill of Rights has guarded 
     individual liberties against the awesome power of government. 
     It has been the blueprint for freedom around the world, as 
     other societies seek to establish and emulate the democratic 
     traditions they so admire here.
       And now, with the Cold War won and liberty blossoming in 
     soil once ruled by tyranny, Congress is considering a 
     proposal to trim back the Bill of Rights for the first time 
     in our history and give itself the power to punish offensive 
     speech.
       What urgent national interest demands that America turn 
     even slightly away from its singular heritage of freedom and 
     liberty? Is it public order? Does violence against the flag 
     create a climate of physical violence, even chaos among the 
     public as a whole?
       No, it does not. Even the proponents of this amendment cite 
     only a handful of flag-burning and other disrespectful acts 
     each year, and those episodes hardly constitute a pressing 
     threat to public order. Thirty years ago, this country 
     weathered a thunderstorm of political turmoil and civil 
     unrest. These current acts of flag-desecration cannot begin 
     to test our democratic resilience and resolve.
       To the contrary, this amendment would likely encourage the 
     very acts it seeks to punish. Criminal prosecution would 
     provide the attention that those who set the flag on fire 
     most crave.
       Is common decency, then, the reason to erode the liberties 
     established by the Bill of Rights? Does even a single act of 
     flag-burning so offend the patriotic spirit that we must 
     outlaw this particular expression?
       Such disrespect does offend all who honor the values the 
     flag symbolizes and the heroic sacrifices made defending 
     them. But offensive speech comes in many varieties beyond 
     desecration of the flag. Is flag desecration a special 
     category of speech, clearly more hateful than other brands of 
     offensive expression?
       Does the person who sets fire to a flag, for example, 
     clearly do greater damage to the public good than the person 
     who advocates racism or other bigotry? and if not, how will 
     the rest of us know where to stop, once we start putting 
     limits on the things that may be said and defining some ideas 
     that cannot find voice?
       That is the great threat posed by this amendment, a threat 
     that far exceeds the harm it is supposed to prevent. The 
     occasional act of disrespect for the American flag creates 
     but a flickering insult to the values of democracy--unless it 
     provokes America into limiting the freedoms that are its 
     hallmark.
       The architects of the Constitution were themselves veterans 
     of a war that began as a revolution against the power of 
     government. To guarantee the liberties for which they risked 
     everything, those authors of America drafted the Bill of 
     Rights, and they put the freedom of expression first.
       After more than 200 years, we must not diminish their 
     enduring promise of freedom by putting this footnote on the 
     First Amendment.

                                          Paul C. Tash, Chair,

                                 Freedom of Information Committee,
                                    St. Petersburg Times, Florida.

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, this is a very difficult issue for 
many of us. I would like to thank my friend the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt), and he is my friend. I would also like to thank 
Mr. Solomon who I am just the torch bearer of a long evolution, as well 
as Major General Patrick Brady who is President of the Citizens Flag 
Alliance that put most of this whole effort together in the grassroots. 
I would say to my friend that I laud him. It would be very difficult 
for me to represent David Duke or the KKK or anybody of that kind, but 
I would support him in the same manner on the first amendment.
  Nothing in this amendment prevents anyone from expressing themselves 
in writing, speech, or any other way except for the desecration of the 
flag. For over 200 years, all the Supreme Courts in the United States, 
the Congress and the American people agreed. It does not violate the 
first amendment. That is why 48 States had laws to protect the flag 
from desecration. One bad, in my opinion, Supreme Court voted against 
200 years of tradition. My friend's amendment would throw this whole 
amendment back to that pack of wolves, that particular Supreme Court, 
and it would destroy this whole process, or the amendment. We think 
that is wrong.
  The Massachusetts' 54th Regiment, a regiment of African American 
soldiers who fought for the Union for freedom. Among its leaders was 
Frederick Douglass. The movie ``Glory'' was produced about this whole 
episode. It was a suicide mission, these African Americans knew it, but 
they were fighting for freedom and their country, and the Constitution 
of the United States. Colonel Robert Shaw, commander of the 54th asked 
these men, he said, ``I will carry the flag into battle, but when the 
flag falls, who will carry it for me?''
  There have been people given the Medal of Honor specifically for 
protecting the flag. Article 5 of the Constitution allowed us to have 
the first

[[Page 14104]]

amendment to give us the freedom for speech. I was amazed at my 
colleague from California (Mr. Bilbray) that brought up the fact that 
article 5 also used in the Dred Scott decision that said African 
Americans were only property, they could not be citizens of this great 
country. The Supreme Court ruled that. And quite often, as the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) pointed out, the Supreme Court 
has been wrong. Fortunately, Congress enacted the 14th amendment which 
protected those rights.
  I would say to my friend, if I felt the first amendment was abridged, 
as much anger as I felt for Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War when she 
wanted to open a sports store, I was there protecting her right to do 
that. I think she stepped over the line in that particular issue. But I 
would support every issue and my friend, but to support this amendment 
would kill everything that we are trying to do as far as this bill that 
the gentleman from North Carolina has offered.
  Many of us were moved by the speech of the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. McCarthy) last week, deeply moved, because we knew that she was 
speaking from the heart. But many of us disagreed on that issue because 
of a second amendment right.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the gentleman be granted 1 additional minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But many of us disagreed with the gentlewoman, not 
because of special interest groups but because we have a strong belief 
in the second amendment, and we thought it would be violated. In the 
same vein, my friend feels that the first amendment would be violated. 
We disagree. Two hundred years of Supreme Courts disagree with my 
friend.
  I am not worried if God is on the side that we are portraying, 
because God is always on the right side. I think we need to ask 
ourselves, are we on the side of God?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, two pictures of the 
American flag are etched in our minds, and they embody the kind of 
nation we are: one is of the U.S. Marines planting the flag at Iwo Jima 
and the other is Neil Armstrong standing next to the flag on the moon. 
Those visions move us because they show the commitment and courage of 
our people, representing what we can overcome and what we can achieve 
as a nation working together.
  I do not understand people who are unmoved by these visions, or the 
even smaller minority who, for whatever reasons, feel compelled to 
desecrate our flag. These people do not reflect my values or the values 
of our people. To me, the American flag is a symbol of our nation's 
greatness, of our aspiration toward ``liberty and justice for all,'' 
and of the Constitutional protections that we offer our citizens.
  I don't think any of us would disagree with the goals we are 
discussing today, protecting our flag and honoring the values it stands 
for. But we do have significant disagreement about the means by which 
this can best be accomplished.
  Along with a bipartisan group of members, I am cosponsoring the Flag 
Protection Act, which would protect the flag without compromising or 
changing the Constitutional protections which the flag symbolizes. I am 
reluctant to base a change in the Bill of Rights--something we have not 
done in over 200 years--on the misguided actions of a small group of 
people who choose to express themselves by desecrating the flag. The 
Flag Protection Act would let us honor and protect both the flag and 
the Constitution, which is what I believe most of our fellow citizens 
and most of us here today wish to accomplish.
  The alternative Constitutional amendment offered by my friend from 
North Carolina would leave the Bill of Rights intact and is consistent 
with the approach I am advocating. It would state simply that ``not 
inconsistent with the First Amendment, the Congress shall have the 
power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States.'' I believe this is the proper and appropriate way to prevent 
the desecration of the American flag. We don't need to change the Bill 
of Rights to protect our nation's most powerful symbol.
  I urge passage of the Watt substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 217, 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 of North Carolina. 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 115, 
nays 310, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 251]

                               YEAS--115

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                               NAYS--310

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt

[[Page 14105]]


     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barton
     Brown (CA)
     Davis (VA)
     Gilchrest
     Hefley
     Kasich
     Millender-McDonald
     Rangel
     Towns

                              {time}  1203

  Mrs. KELLY, and Messrs. PEASE, GOODLING, MATSUI, SAXTON, SHAYS, 
DOGGETT, HOBSON, and HILLIARD changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida and Mrs. MALONEY of New York 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:
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote no. 251 
on June 24, 1999, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. 
Res. 33, ``The Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment.'' This 
constitutional amendment would undermine the very principles for which 
the flag stands--freedom and democracy.
  The First Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows: ``Congress 
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to 
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''
  Those who founded our nation recognized that the First Amendment to 
the Constitution must protect citizens from their objections to the 
workings of their government. Freedom of expression is what makes the 
United States of America strong and great--it is the bedrock of our 
nation and has kept our democracy strong for over 200 years.
  In an effort to overturn two Supreme Court decisions that upheld flag 
burning as symbolic speech protected by the Constitution, the Flag 
Desecration Amendment would be the first to amend the Bill of Rights 
and limit Americans' freedom of expression.
  It would also open the door to other ``well-intentioned'' limits on 
our free speech. Just last week this Congress debated an amendment that 
would have barred the sale of films, books, pictures, and sculptures 
that qualify as ``patently offensive'' or lack ``serious literacy, 
artistic, political or scientific value.''
  Who is to decide what is offensive, what is desecration, and what is 
free expression? While the idea of someone burning or destroying an 
American flag is upsetting, the thought of police arresting peaceful 
protesters is even more so. Our government's toleration of criticism is 
one of America's greatest strengths.
  This is not an issue of patriotism, it is an issue of preserving 
every American's protected right to dissent. Our commitment to freedom 
can best be displayed with a vote against this misguided constitutional 
amendment.
  Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, as has been the case in past Congresses, 
this amendment is being brought forward in an attempt to affirm all 
that is good about our great country. This is an honorable motive and I 
am reluctant to oppose it.
  Moreover, as in the past this amendment is championed by 
organizations--particularly the American Legion, VFW and DAV--which 
represent those without whose sacrifices this country and its values 
would not exist. Had it not been for our nation's veterans, the only 
competition in the world today would be between totalitarianism of the 
Left and totalitarianism of the Right.
  These are honorable men and women, and I am reluctant to oppose them.
  Yet I remain unable to support this amendment because I remain 
convinced that to do so is to undercut the very essence of the system 
of governance for which the flag itself stands.
  At the heart of our democracy is a struggle, an ongoing conflict of 
ideas for which the Constitution provides the rules. It is in this 
conflict that the e pluribus unum--the ``one out of many,'' as the 
motto borne on the ribbon held in the mouth of the American bald eagle 
on The Great Seal of the United States puts it--arises. And it is 
precisely this unity in multiplicity for which our flag with its 50 
stars and 13 stripes stands.
  The genius of our Constitution lies in the way in which it structures 
and ensures the continuity of this conflict of ideas which is our 
democracy. It does so through the system of checks and balances and 
separation of powers with which it structures our government on the one 
hand, and the protection of freedom of expression it provides in the 
First Amendment on the other. the former ensures that the fight is 
always a fair one and that no momentary majority uses its temporary 
advantage to destroy its opponents; the latter ensures that no idea, 
however obnoxious, is excluded from consideration in the debate.
  It should be stressed that the protection provided by the First 
Amendment is a two-edged sword. In fact, the Bill of Rights does not 
exempt ideas and the actions that embody them from criticism, but 
ensures they are exposed to it. As Jefferson put it in his ``Act for 
Establishing Religious Freedom'' in Virginia:

       Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; . . . 
     she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has 
     nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human 
     interposition disarmed of her natural weapon, free argument 
     and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is 
     permitted freely to contradict them.

  Thus any abridgment of the protections provided by the First 
Amendment, no matter how nobly motivated, would diminish freedom and in 
all likelihood precipitate, in this instance, more symbolic incidents 
tarnishing the flag than would otherwise be the case. Accordingly, 
great care must be taken not to take actions in the name of protecting 
the flag that have the effect of misinterpreting the meaning of the 
flag.
  In making this assessment, the distinction between liberties to 
protect and symbols to rally behind remains essential. Freedom of 
speech and freedom of religion require constitutional protection. The 
flag, on the other hand, demands respect for what it is--the greatest 
symbol of the greatest country on the face of the earth. It is 
appropriate to pass laws expressing reverence for the flag and applying 
penalties, wherever possible, to those who would desecrate it, but I 
have grave doubts the Constitution is the right place to address these 
issues.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the authors of the Constitution and 
the Bill of Rights gave us a wise and enduring framework, one that has 
guided this Nation for over 200 years. We should but rarely and in 
moments of absolute necessity alter their work. I can say 
unequivocally, that this flag burning amendment does not meet that 
test.
  Americans cherish their flag and all it represents. It is fitting and 
proper to honor this symbol. This proposed constitutional amendment 
however, is the wrong way to attempt to protect the flag. Ironically, 
the fastest way to take the very rare occurrences of flag burning and 
make them more frequent would be to pass this amendment.
  Once it is illegal, and after all the publicity surrounding 
ratification by the states occurs, we will have made our flag the 
target for every publicity-seeking kook in America. Burning the flag 
will be the fastest way to go to court, to jail and onto the evening 
news.
  Regardless of how distasteful burning or otherwise desecrating the 
flag is to most Americans--it is important to note that flag burning is 
not a major problem today. What is clear is that making flag burning 
illegal would backfire.
  The First Amendment doesn't need any help from this Congress.
  Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, Congress enacted the first Federal flag 
protection act in the midst of the Vietnam War protests. However, Madam 
Speaker, I was not here to see these protests, I was in Vietnam, 
fighting for the very freedoms some are seeking to limit today. The 
flag is a special symbol for our country, but it is certainly no more 
than the Constitution itself. Embodied in our Constitution is the First 
Amendment.
  The First Amendment is no small part of the protections that make our 
country unique in

[[Page 14106]]

the history of civilization and no small part of the freedoms others 
and I fought to protect. Freedom of speech protects both those with 
whom we agree and those with whom we disagree.
  What we are debating today is a proposal to chip away at the First 
Amendment and I cannot support that. I would like to see the 
intellectual prowess of this institution brought to bear upon the task 
of drafting legislation would make it illegal to desecrate the flag of 
the United States and still meet the Constitutional standard. However, 
taking the simplistic but dangerous task of amending the Constitution 
to accomplish this end is neither agreeable nor advisable. I ask my 
colleagues to consider the monumental implications of today's proposal. 
We are toying with a right we all hold dear: that of free speech.
  Though this Amendment may sound reasonable on the surface, I implore 
you to look beyond the superficial. Recall that in the 1975 case of 
Spence v. Washington, taping a peace symbol to the flag was at issue. 
Do you really believe imprisonment is the appropriate punishment for 
such an act? The fundamental issue is public protest--that is what gave 
rise to this issue and that is also the heart of First Amendment 
protection.
  The Supreme Court articulated a standard in the 1989 case of Texas v. 
Johnson by which each of us should consider this issue. In that flag 
desecration case, the Court said: the First Amendment stops the 
government from prohibiting expression of an idea merely because 
society finds the idea offensive, even when the flag is involved. Can 
anyone stand before us with intellectual honesty and deny that this is 
precisely what we aim to do? Consider the language of the 1990 flag 
case of U.S. v. Eichman:

       The Government's desire to preserve the flag as a symbol 
     for certain national ideals is implicated ``only when a 
     person's treatment of the flag communicates [a] message'' to 
     others that is inconsistent with those ideals.

  To me freedom is greater than any symbol can encapsulate. How can we 
possibly promote freedom by restricting an object that is so clearly 
identified as a symbol of freedom? What should give all of us pause is 
that we stand in the Capitol of the government and debate outlawing 
speech with which we disagree. I cannot support such an Orwellian piece 
of legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the Flag 
Desecration Constitutional Amendment.
  I find it abhorrent anyone would burn our flag. It's a symbol of all 
the values we cherish--freedom, democracy and tolerance for others.
  When I think of the flag I think about the men and women who died 
defending it. What they really were defending was the Constitution of 
the United States and the rights it guarantees.
  The Constitution has been amended only 17 times since the Bill of 
Rights was passed in 1791. This is the same Constitution that 
guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and that 
eventually outlawed slavery and gave blacks and women the right to 
vote.
  These are monumental, historic issues--issues that directly affect 
people's lives. Amending the Constitution is a very serious matter. I 
don't think we should allow a few obnoxious attention-seekers to push 
us into a corner, especially since no one is burning the flag now, and 
there is no constitutional amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I love the flag for all that it represents, but I love 
the Constitution even more. The Constitution is not just a symbol. It's 
the very principles on which our nation was founded.
  Mr. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 33, a 
bill to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States of America.
  Since our nation was born in battle 223 years ago, hundreds of 
thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, and Marines 
have fought and died across the globe to preserve the great American 
experiment in freedom and democracy. One of the cornerstones of our 
freedom is our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The Bill of 
Rights, including the First Amendment protections for speech and 
political expression, has been the envy of the world for more than two 
hundred years.
  Our democracy has withstood many tests over time, and has been 
strengthened as a result. The occasional, random, despicable acts of 
public desecration of our flag by a few malcontents presents another 
such test. There is no more important protection provided by the First 
Amendment than its protection of political expression.
  I love our country. I love our flag--and the principles for which it 
stands. The American flag is a symbol for liberty and justice, for 
freedom of speech and expression and all of the other rights we cherish 
which are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. But as important as the 
symbol may be, more important are the ideals and principles which the 
symbol represents.
  That our nation can tolerate dissension and even disrespect for our 
flag is proof positive of the strength of our nation. It would be a 
hollow victory to preserve the symbol of freedom by chipping away at 
the freedoms we hold sacred.
  As one who served with the U.S. Army and the Army Reserves, I know 
how deeply our veterans love and revere our flag. I share those 
feelings for our flag and all that it represents. I have absolute faith 
and every confidence that even without amending our Bill of Rights, our 
nation and our flag are strong and will survive and continue to be a 
source of hope and inspiration to all Americans and freedom loving 
people around the world.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, as an issue, the flag-desecration 
amendment is, of course, entirely symbolic. Its sponsors believe that 
support is, symbolically speaking, tantamount to being a patriotic 
American.
  But what is true patriotism in the context of the American 
experiment? At its heart, I believe, is an abiding tolerance--a 
tolerance so deep and so pervasive that it easily absorbs all insults. 
The American saga is, in essence, a tale of ever-expanding realms of 
acceptance and inclusion.
  Tolerance of extraordinary diversity is the mystery that lies at the 
heart of our origins and our destiny, the magnificent quality that 
renders the American project unique in human experience--diversity in 
ethnic and religious origins; diversity in language and lifestyle; 
diversity in aptitude and ambition; and, yes, diversity in behavior, 
including the bizarre, the distasteful, and even the contemptuous.
  We Americans are most patriotically American when we display our 
tolerance of virtually all behavior short, of course, of crimes against 
people and property. Simply turning away from even such objectional 
behavior as the burning of the flag is, then, a true test of our 
tolerance, a measure of our patriotism, a demonstration of our 
Americanism.
  E Pluribus Unum!
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on 
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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 305, 
noes 124, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 252]

                               AYES--305

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam

[[Page 14107]]


     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--124

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown (CA)
     Gilchrest
     Kasich
     Millender-McDonald
     Towns

                              {time}  1221

  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 against:
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 252 
on June 24, 1999, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________