[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13484-13510]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 13484]]

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

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 189, I 
call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 36) proposing an amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
189, the joint resolution is considered read for amendment.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 36 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 36

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds 
     of each House concurring therein),

     SECTION 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

       The following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to 
     all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within seven years after the date of its submission 
     for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical 
     desecration of the flag of the United States.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After two hours of debate on the joint 
resolution, it shall be in order to consider an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute, if offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), or his designee, which shall be considered read and debatable 
for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 1 hour of debate on the 
joint resolution.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 36.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 36 proposes to amend the United 
States Constitution to allow Congress to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the flag of the United States. The proposed amendment 
reads, ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the flag of the United States.''
  The amendment itself does not prohibit flag desecration; it merely 
empowers Congress to enact legislation to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the flag and establishes boundaries within which it may 
legislate.
  The American flag serves as a unique symbol of the ideas upon which 
America was founded. It is a national asset that helps preserve our 
unity, our freedom, and our liberty as Americans. This symbol 
represents our country's many hard-won freedoms, paid for with the 
lives of thousands of young men and women. The American people want 
their elected representatives to protect this cherished symbol.
  Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in 1989 in Texas v. Johnson, 48 
States and the Federal Government had laws prohibiting desecration of 
the flag. Since that ruling, however, neither the States nor the 
Federal Government have been able to prohibit its desecration. In 
Johnson, the court, by a 5 to 4 vote, held that burning an American 
flag as part of a political demonstration was expressive conduct 
protected by the first amendment.
  In response to Johnson, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Flag 
Protection Act of 1989, which amended the Federal flag statute to focus 
exclusively on the conduct of the actor, irrespective of any expressive 
message he or she might be intending to convey.
  In 1990, the Supreme Court, in another 5 to 4 ruling, in U.S. v. 
Eichman, struck down that act as an infringement of expressive conduct 
protected by the first amendment, despite having also concluded that 
the statute was content-neutral. According to the Court, the 
Government's desire to protect the flag ``is implicated only when the 
person's treatment of the flag communicates a message to others.'' 
Therefore, any flag desecration statute, by definition, will be related 
to the suppression of free speech, and, thus, run afoul of the first 
amendment.
  Prohibiting physical desecration of the American flag is not 
inconsistent with first amendment principles. Until the Johnson and 
Eichman cases, punishing flag desecration had been viewed as compatible 
with both the letter and spirit of the first amendment, and both Thomas 
Jefferson and James Madison strongly supported government actions to 
prohibit flag desecration.
  The first amendment does not grant individuals an unlimited right to 
engage in any form of desired conduct. Urinating in public or parading 
through the streets naked may both be done by a person hoping to 
communicate a message; yet both are examples of illegal conduct during 
which political debate or a robust exchange occurs.

                              {time}  1245

  As a result of the Court's misguided conclusions in Johnson and 
Eichman, however, flag desecration, or what Justice Rehnquist described 
as a ``grunt,'' now receives first amendment protection similar to that 
of the pure political speech that the first amendment speech clause was 
created to enhance.
  In the years since the Johnson and Eichman rulings were handed down, 
49 States have passed resolutions calling upon Congress to pass a 
constitutional amendment to protect the flag and send it back to the 
States for ratification. Although a constitutional amendment should 
only be approached after much reflection, the Supreme Court's 
conclusions in Johnson and Eichman have left the American people with 
no other alternative but to amend the Constitution to provide Congress 
the authority to prohibit the physical desecration of the American 
flag.
  In a compelling dissent from the Johnson majority's conclusion, Chief 
Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices O'Connor and White stated: ``The 
American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has 
come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not 
represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not 
represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply 
another `idea' or `point of view' competing for recognition in the 
marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with 
almost mystical reverence, regardless of what sort of social, 
political, or philosophical beliefs they may have.''
  Mr. Speaker, this proposed amendment is bipartisan legislation 
supported by Americans from all walks of life because they know the 
importance of this cherished national symbol. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important constitutional amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if one does not have much to do today, this is a great 
way to spend the afternoon, discussing for the fifth time whether the 
Congress should amend the Constitution with reference to flag 
desecration. Now, the answer has been ``no'' all of these other times. 
So I ask the House rhetorically, why does not the other body take this 
measure up first, for once, instead of us? Is there some protocol not 
known to the ranking member of the committee? There are many other 
things that could be done in the interest of furthering the democratic 
spirit of the United States.
  Now, on behalf of everybody in the House, I would like to be the 
first to assert the boilerplate language so that my colleagues will not 
all have to repeat it again. I deplore desecration of the flag in any 
form, but I am strongly

[[Page 13485]]

opposed to this resolution because it goes against the ideals and 
elevates a symbol of freedom over freedom itself.
  I would like unanimous consent to say that for everybody that is 
going to want to say that, to make sure that everybody understands that 
those who oppose this measure are patriotic and are not by implication, 
direct or otherwise, supporting any kind of desecration of the flag. We 
do not do that. That is not what we are here for.
  So that leaves two other points to be made, the same ones made 
before. The first is Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. This is 1929: ``The 
Constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression 
we agree with, but freedom for the thought we hate.'' Okay, got that? 
All right. That is five times in my career that we go through this.
  Then the final point that should be made is that, in 1989, the 
Supreme Court said that all the State laws in the country banning flag-
burning and making it illegal are themselves illegal. Then the Congress 
tried to do it. And the Supreme Court, not the most progressive part of 
the Federal system, said, no, you cannot do it, Congress.
  And now, for the fifth time, we do not even agree on it ourselves. We 
do not want to do it. Basically, the legislative body of the United 
States of America does not want to make an amendment to our 
Constitution appropriate to accomplish what State laws tried and what 
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes talked about, and many others.
  In effect, what we are trying to do is not to punish those who feel 
differently about these matters. The better course is to persuade them 
that they are wrong. We can imagine no more appropriate response to 
burning a flag than waving our own flag; no way to counter a flag-
burner's message than by saluting the flag. We do not consecrate the 
flag by punishing its desecration because, in doing so, we dilute the 
freedom that this cherished emblem represents.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham), the principal author of this very 
important resolution.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the primary threat 
to our country comes from a bomb, or hostile nation. I do believe that 
the threat to this Nation comes from within, from those that would 
taint the values of this country of religion and our beliefs and our 
flag. Mr. Speaker, 23 nations, 23 civilizations have been destroyed 
from within for this very type and form of demagoguery; degradation of 
values.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not political to us that support the flag. I 
have lists here of every single ethnic group in the United States, 
gender groups, children, senior citizens that support the amendment.
  The other side just stated, there is not much to do today, if one 
wants to listen to this, to trivialize the event. To us, to every 
single veterans' group, to 80 percent of the American people, 49 States 
that had laws on the books was overruled of 200 years of history, 200 
years of tradition, by a one-vote margin in our courts. Is it wrong 
because nine people in a 5 to 4 decision decided otherwise? Yes. That 
is why we are here today. We believe that it is wrong.
  It is not hard to make this decision when one knows what their values 
are, and one cannot rule by ``but.'' People say, well, I deplore the 
burning of the American flag, but. It is not hard to make the decision 
when one knows their values and what they are by deed heart; mind.
  I have in this folder literally hundreds of letters from third 
graders, from fourth graders, from fifth graders about what the flag 
means to them. This is more than just a piece of cloth. It is something 
that our children, our grandchildren, our grandparents have thought and 
talk about what it means to them. To watch somebody burn the American 
flag represents a destruction of those values, of those ideas and of 
those thoughts. That is why we are opposed to it.
  I was witness to a young Hispanic that was protesting proposition 
187. He was opposed to the proposition. But in his midst, there was a 
group of Hispanics that turned to burn the American flag. This young 
Hispanic grabbed the flag and protected it and was beaten by the group 
that was burning the American flag.
  If we take a look at our Nation, every ethnic group stood behind this 
flag, every veterans' group. Mr. Speaker, 372 Members of this body, 
372, voted for this amendment, and it will pass today. But yet, there 
is a group out there that would fight against it.
  Mr. Speaker, if one has nothing more to do, watch us today? I hear 
that in disgust.
  Mr. Speaker, as an example of what the flag means, I was overseas and 
there was a friend of mine that was a prisoner of war for 7 years. It 
took him 5 years to knit an American flag on the inside of his shirt, 
and he would share that flag with his comrades until the Vietnamese 
guards broke in, and they saw the POW without his shirt. They ripped 
the flag to pieces, and they threw it on the ground. They took him out, 
and they beat this POW for hours, and they brought him back, 
unconscious to the point where his comrades thought that he was not 
going to survive. His comrades comforted him as much as they could, and 
they went about their work. A few moments later, they saw this broken, 
bodied POW crawl to the center of the floor and watched him as he 
started gathering those bits of thread to knit another flag.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not here just to waste time. This is what this 
country stands for, its flag, whether it is the right to be able to say 
a prayer, to honor our flag, or to honor our traditions.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my distinguished friend from 
California, I hope that his moving plea is taken over to the other 
body, which every year turns back this work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my esteemed and 
honorable friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), his 
cause is extremely noble. I honor him as I honor those who have served 
in the United States military and those who sit as Americans with the 
privilege and freedom of pledging allegiance to the flag of the United 
States, a nation representing the freest persons in the world.
  Humbly I say in debate that I love America and I love the flag. I 
come from a generation that required the pledge of allegiance every 
single morning, and through the process of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, I have come to understand the value of the Constitution of 
the United States and the privileges that are given.
  Might I say that I also stand here as an American who did not come to 
this Nation free. I realize the importance of changing laws, for this 
Constitution declared me as three-fifths of a person, and the early 
history of this flag had slavery.
  In spite of all of that, in a tumultuous civil rights movement, I can 
frankly say, I love America. But I am warned and cautious about what 
America stands for. I believe that America stands for freedom of 
expression, freedom of choices, freedom of the ability to express one's 
religion, and, as well, to express one's opposition.
  In the last 20 years, I do not think any one of us could count a time 
that we have seen a flag-burning. I would simply say that the very 
moving story of my colleague suggested that, in fact, there might be 
question as to whether or not desecrating a flag includes sewing it 
into one's pocket.
  This Constitution and the symbol of the flag represents who we are as 
a nation. The flag is a symbol. This legislation which would require, 
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States counter what our 
Constitution stands for. If we just think about it, it counters what 
the flag stands for freedom and justice.
  Let me read very briefly the words of a veteran, a constituent of 
mine who

[[Page 13486]]

writes to urge us to oppose House Joint Resolution 36, the proposed 
constitutional amendment to outlaw desecration of the United States 
flag.
  He agrees with other veterans, such as General Colin Powell and 
Senator John Glenn, that ``. . . such legislation is an unnecessary 
intrusion and a threat to the rights and liberties I chose to defend 
during my military service. Those who favor the proposed amendment say 
they do so in honor of the flag, but in proposing to unravel the first 
amendment, they desecrate what the flag represents and what I swore to 
defend and risked dying for when I took my military oath of office, the 
Constitution and the principles of liberty and freedom.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I am here on the floor of the House, not to 
desecrate the flag or disrespect it, but to defend the principles of 
liberty and freedom. Do we need language to tell us how cherished and 
precious our flag is? Do we need to deny someone else their right to 
the opposition?
  I am reminded of the tenets of Christianity. It is not by the word we 
speak, but by our deeds. And if, in fact, our deeds are honoring the 
flag of the United States, then it will counter those deeds of someone 
else who we believe dishonors that flag, because we have the right to 
express our freedom and our beliefs, and they likewise have the right 
to express theirs.
  I call upon this Congress, though I know this House has repeatedly 
voted three or four times on this particular resolution and it has not 
prevailed, but the Supreme Court, with which I have agreed and 
disagreed, twice has said the rules to eliminate the desecration of the 
symbol of the flag take away the rights under this Constitution and the 
principles we hold so dear.
  I would much rather defend, if I was given the privilege, the 
gentleman's right to speak in opposition to me, as opposed to upholding 
a cloth which I believe stands brightly and boldly on its own without 
intrusion by legislation which denies the privilege of the rights of 
freedom and dignity.
  I submit for the Record the letter to which I referred earlier, as 
follows:

                                                  Houston, TX,

                                                     June 6, 2001.
     Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
     Cannon House Office Building, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Representative Jackson Lee: As your constituent, I strongly 
     urge you to oppose HJ Res. 36/SJ Res. 7, the proposed 
     constitutional amendment to outlaw desecration of the United 
     States flag. I agree with other veterans such as General 
     Colin Powell and Senator John Glenn that such legislation is 
     an unnecessary intrusion and a threat to the rights and 
     liberties I chose to defend during my military service. Those 
     who favor the proposed amendment say they do so in honor of 
     the flag. But in proposing to unravel the First Amendment, 
     they desecrate what the flag represents, and what I swore to 
     defend--and risked dying for--when I took my military oath of 
     office: the Constitution and its principles of liberty and 
     freedom.
       While flag burning is rare, it can be a powerful and 
     important form of speech. As a patriotic American, I may be 
     deeply troubled by the content of this political speech.
       However, it is a far worse crime against this country and 
     dishonors veterans that Congress annually attempts to take 
     away our right to freedom of expression.
       Again, I urge you to oppose HJ Res. 36/SJ Res. 7. Of the 
     gallant Americans who fought and died in the service of our 
     country within the last 200 years, I tell you this: They did 
     not die defending the flag. They died defending our freedom 
     and the ideals upon which our country was founded. Don't 
     cheapen their sacrifice by supporting this misguided 
     amendment.
       I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this proposed 
     constitutional amendment.
           Respectfully,
                                             Charles A. Spain, Jr.

  Mr. Speaker, I rise, once again, in opposition to this amendment to 
the Constitution to prohibit physical desecration of the flag of the 
United States because it is unnecessary and is a flagrant chilling of 
free speech protected by the First Amendment.
  Supporters of this constitutional amendment are responding to the 
1989 and 1990 Supreme Court decisions that struck down state and 
federal statutes that barred flag desecration on constitutional grounds 
that they chilled our First Amendment right to free speech and 
expression. The Court was right then, and we should follow its example 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it: this amendment compromises the 
Bill of Rights, which is fundamental to our freedom of speech and 
expression. These are, perhaps, our most basic tenets and pillars of 
our American democratic system.
  In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), 
esteemed Justice Jackson wrote the following warning for those in 
government who would seek to force their thoughts upon the citizenry: 
``If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is 
that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox 
in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force 
citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.'' Id., at 642. 
The resolution on the floor today amends the Bill of Rights for the 
first time in 210 years, and would set a dangerous precedent by opening 
the floodgates for the restructuring of our democracy by eroding the 
basic tenets of freedom and liberty that define our Nation.
  Furthermore, this amendment would open the door to excessive 
litigation because the wording is vague on its face. For example, the 
amendment fails to define ``flag'' and ``desecration'' which are at the 
very heart of the amendment. These alone are reason enough to strike 
down the amendment on vagueness grounds.
  Supporters of this amendment to constrain speech and dissent based on 
its content have read United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), as 
meaning that sweepingly general language is somehow less of an affront 
to free speech than specific prohibitions like those in the repealed 
``Flag Protection Act of 1989.'' The opposite is true: the amendment is 
overbroad, giving Congress the power to criminalize political and 
expressive acts of speech and expression that fall short of flag 
burning. Thus, the amendment we discuss today will result in a sweeping 
abridgment of the whole Bill of Rights. This body cannot be responsible 
for such a reckless act.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that our flag is a symbol of our freedom, our 
liberty, and our system of justice. I personally find flag burning and 
desecration to be offensive and disgraceful. But I stand with the 
Supreme Court in my belief such conduct falls within the scope of the 
First Amendment, the lynchpin of our democracy. So while it hurts to 
watch a few individuals who publicly desecrate our flag, the fact that 
we allow such speech is what makes us free and what makes us great as a 
nation.
  If we are truly concerned about honoring the flag and the millions of 
Americans who have fought under it for the freedom that it represents, 
we must, above all else, protect the Constitution and the Bill of 
Rights, and oppose such efforts to diminish the historical precedent 
that they represent. As one of our nation's greatest patriots, Colin 
Powell, recently stated about this amendment, ``I would not amend that 
great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be 
flying proudly long after they have slunk away.''
  Mr. Speaker, our flag is a symbol of our freedom, not freedom itself. 
I encourage my colleagues to avoid the unwise path of unnecessarily 
amending the Constitution, and I urge them to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 
36.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for his leadership in pushing for this amendment to be 
argued and debated today on the floor of the House.
  I also want to thank the principal sponsor of this constitutional 
amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who spoke 
with such emotion and so eloquently just a few moments ago. No one is 
more qualified in actually putting his life on the line for his country 
than the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). I want to thank 
him for that.
  The flag is the most powerful symbol of the ideals upon which America 
was founded. It is a national asset that helps to protect and preserve 
our unity, our freedom, and our liberty as Americans.
  As our country has grown and welcomed those from diverse religious 
and cultural backgrounds, the flag's power to unify our Nation has 
become even more evident, bringing together all Americans, young and 
old, to champion those principles upon which this country was built, 
principles for which our servicemen and women have fought and died, and 
principles that have moved so many individuals throughout history to 
leave their homes and families and travel to America to build a new 
life. A

[[Page 13487]]

symbol that binds a nation together, as our flag does, already fulfills 
a unique role in our democratic process.
  Since 1994, however, there have been at least 86 reported incidences 
of flag desecration. These incidences have occurred in 29 States. They 
have occurred here in the District of Columbia. They have occurred in 
Puerto Rico. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson 
that burning an American flag as part of a political demonstration was 
expressive conduct protected by the first amendment to the United 
States Constitution, the States have been powerless to prevent the 
physical desecration of this most valued symbol.
  In response to Johnson in September, 1989, Congress overwhelmingly 
passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which amended the Federal Flag 
Statute to focus exclusively on the conduct of the act, irrespective of 
any expressive message he or she might be intending to convey.
  Later that year, however, in another five to four ruling in the U.S. 
Supreme Court, United States v. Eichman, they struck down that act as 
an infringement of expressive conduct protected by the first amendment.
  Because of the Johnson and Eichman decisions, the only remedy left to 
Congress to protect the flag from acts of desecration is a 
constitutional amendment. Many would argue that we should not amend the 
Constitution for this purpose. This is the only way that we can protect 
the flag.
  The amendment before the House would restore to Congress the 
authority to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. The 
amendment, as the chairman stated, itself does not prohibit flag 
desecration. It merely empowers Congress to enact legislation to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag, and establishes 
boundaries within which it may legislate. Work on a statute will come 
at a later date, after the amendment is ratified by three-fourths of 
the States.
  Vigilant protection of freedom of speech and, in particular, 
political speech is central to our political system. Until the Johnson 
and Eichman cases, however, punishing flag desecration had been viewed 
as compatible with both the letter and the spirit of the first 
amendment.
  The first amendment freedoms do not extend and should not be extended 
to grant an individual an unlimited right to engage in any form of 
desired conduct under the cloak of free expression. Both State and 
Federal criminal codes are full of examples of conduct that is 
prohibited in our country, regardless of whether it is cloaked in the 
first amendment.
  Furthermore, obscenity laws, libel and slander laws, copyright laws, 
and even perjury laws, they all reflect the fact that some forms of 
expression and sometimes even the content of that expression may be 
regulated and even prohibited without violating the first amendment.
  We cannot burn our draft cards. We cannot burn money. There are many 
acts we cannot perform. The flag protection amendment simply reflects 
society's interest in maintaining the flag as a national symbol by 
protecting it from acts of physical desecration. It will not interfere 
with an individual's ability to express his or her ideas, whatever they 
may be, by any other means.
  This amendment has been approved by this Chamber twice and enjoys the 
support of a supermajority of the House of Representatives. It is 
supported by a majority of the United States Senators and 49 out of 50 
State legislatures, which have passed resolutions calling on Congress 
to pass the amendment and send it back to the States for ratification.
  Perhaps, most importantly, the amendment is supported by an 
overwhelming majority of the American people. It is time for Congress 
to answer their calls to preserve and protect the one symbol that 
embodies all that our Nation represents.
  For the veterans who risked their lives for our country and our 
freedoms, for our children who view our flag with admiration and 
devotion, and for every American who believes that our flag deserves 
protection, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), an able 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us have had this experience 
walking into the Capitol, especially at night when we are in session, 
and we see our beautiful American flag flying over the Capitol of the 
freest country in the world, and it is so moving it is almost hard to 
keep walking by.
  I think no matter where one comes down on this amendment, there is 
not a single Member of Congress who thinks it is good or right to 
deface or in any way dishonor the flag of the United States. If we felt 
that, we would not be elected to Congress. We would not be here serving 
the Nation in the freest legislative body in the world.
  Every day, we start our legislative session with these words: ``I 
pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to 
the Republic, for which it stands, one Nation, under God, with liberty 
and justice for all.''
  The flag stands for something. It stands for the freest country in 
the world. Our country is free for a lot of reasons. It is free because 
brave men and women went out and heard the call to protect us, to take 
up arms, and to protect us over the decades and centuries when our 
country was attacked by those who would not allow us to have our 
freedom.
  But we are also free because we live under the rule of law. One of 
the most important aspects of that is the first amendment. Let me just 
refresh our memory on what the first amendment says.
  It says: ``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 of the right of the people 
peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of 
grievances.''
  The Supreme Court, which has been the interpreter of our Constitution 
since the beginning of our Republic, has said that destruction or 
wrongdoing towards our flag is protected by the first amendment. These 
are not liberal, wild-eyed justices, but Justice Scalia, probably the 
most conservative member of the Supreme Court, signed the opinion 
saying that flag-burning is protected by the first amendment.
  All of us, when we became Members of this body, took an oath of 
office. We said: ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 
in this case domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to 
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental 
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully 
discharge the duties of the office in which I am about to enter,'' and 
then we say, ``so help me God.''
  I am not going to turn my back on the Constitution today.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, the Old Glory Condom Corporation lost the 
decision. They were not allowed to sell red, white, and blue condoms, 
so they appealed. They said their red, white, and blue condoms were a 
patriotic symbol, and, yes, Members guessed it, the U.S. Trademark 
Office of Appeals agreed. The panel said the Old Glory condom is not 
unconstitutional. One can wear it.
  If that is not enough to constipate our veterans, two men from 
Columbus, Ohio, were recently charged with burning a gay pride flag 
during a parade. Think about it. It is illegal to burn leaves and trash 
in America. It is illegal to damage a mailbox. Now it is illegal to 
burn a gay pride flag. And it is completely legal and patriotic to wear 
a red, white, and blue condom.
  Beam me up, Mr. Speaker. I think if American citizens want to make a 
political statement, they should burn their brassieres, burn their 
boxer shorts, but leave Old Glory alone, period.

[[Page 13488]]

  I support this resolution. It is about time. A people that do not 
honor and respect their flag do not honor and respect their neighbors 
nor their country. This is more than about a flag. The gentlewoman from 
California is right, we pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Nation 
for which the flag stands; the flag, which our veterans carried in the 
war, those who were shot down, only to have it picked up by somebody 
else, surely to be shot down again. It should not be treated like an 
Old Glory condom.

                              {time}  1315

  I also urge this House to take up H.R. 2242 that would make June 14, 
Flag Day, a national holiday. I think the flag should be set apart, and 
it is certainly not going to violate anybody's first amendment rights 
to do so.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a senior 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio give 
us a chance to deal with the common misapprehension and 
misunderstanding that somehow we have more rights to burn a flag than 
we have to burn other things. That simply is not true; and indeed, 
presumably the person who burned a gay pride flag had burned someone 
else's gay pride flag. It is entirely legal, I am sure, for someone to 
burn their own gay pride flag. It is not legal to burn someone else's 
flag. If, in fact, we burn someone else's American flag, we are guilty 
of theft, destruction of property, vandalism; and that, of course, can 
be punished.
  We had an incident described where someone disrupted the funeral of a 
man who had been shot by a police officer and burned a flag. That was a 
violation of law on many counts. So we are not here advocating a policy 
whereby we can burn a flag when we cannot burn anything else. Yes, 
there are many cities and States and communities that have laws against 
burning in certain seasons. No, the flag is not an exemption to that. 
So let us put that to rest. It is not a case where we have more 
protection to burn other things. Any law against vandalism, disturbing 
the peace, theft, destruction of someone else's property, that applies 
whether it is a flag or anything else.


  What we are opposed to, those who oppose this amendment, is the 
notion that because some people seek to express views that almost all 
of us find terribly obnoxious, in the most offensive possible way, 
namely, by burning a flag, that we should make it illegal. And here is 
why: first, this takes what I would have thought was a very 
unconservative position. It takes a very expansive view of government. 
What it says is, that which the Government does not prohibit it 
condones.
  We are told that if we do not make it illegal for people to burn the 
flag, we are somehow allowing that and maybe even showing it is okay. 
No, I hope we live in a society in which we make laws to protect people 
from being interfered with by others; but we do not take the view that 
whatever the Government does not outlaw, it is somehow condoning. That 
is an extraordinarily expansive view of government that would erode 
liberty. So we ought to be clear that the absence of a law that says 
something is illegal is in no sense an approval of it.
  People who say, yes, but still this is so offensive, burning a flag, 
desecrating a flag to express oneself, that we have to make it illegal. 
Okay, this is then the theory. The theory is that if we do not make it 
illegal to destroy or desecrate a particular symbol, we are devaluing 
that symbol. The problem with that is that it does not go far enough. 
The flag is a very dear symbol to many Americans; perhaps to most it is 
the most important symbol. But are there not people in this society who 
we admire because they think some other symbol is more important? What 
about religious symbols? Must people be told in their hierarchy of 
symbolic value that State comes above church; that the embodiment of 
the Government somehow is entitled to more protection than the 
embodiment of their religious faith?
  The Supreme Court did not just say we could burn a flag; it said also 
that we could burn a cross. There was a Supreme Court decision in which 
a conviction was overturned of someone who burned a cross. Now, once 
again, it had better have been his cross on his property. We cannot go 
burning someone else's cross. But the Supreme Court said the symbolic 
act of burning a cross is constitutionally protected.
  What we will do today if we ratify this amendment, or send it for 
ratification, is to say we will protect the American flag but not the 
cross. Because once we have put forward the principle that, if the 
Government thinks something is terrible it should outlaw it, then what 
do we say to people who think it is terrible to burn a cross? The cross 
is a symbol of a powerful religion, a religion that has, undoubtedly, 
had more impact on humanity than any other; and people who burn it are 
turning this profound religious symbol of all of man's best instincts, 
of man's tribute to the best in the universe, people are turning it 
into a symbol of racism, because the burning of the cross has become 
associated with racism.
  Now, the Supreme Court said that is okay. Do those of us who support 
that decision think it is okay? No, we think it is despicable. But we 
think it is a mark of a free society that despicable people are allowed 
to express themselves in despicable ways, as long as they have not 
taken anybody else's property or otherwise injured anybody. We do not 
simply punish expression. But for those who want to ratify this 
amendment, do we now get an amendment that overturns the decision that 
says it is okay to burn a cross? Or do we say that we, the Government 
of the United States, protect the flag because that is a symbol of our 
Nationhood, but the cross, that symbol of some of the most profound 
values human beings are capable of conceiving, it is okay to burn that? 
It is not only okay to burn that, it is okay to take that wonderful 
symbol and turn it into a reminder of the worst aspect of American 
history: racism.
  So that is what we are dealing with today. We have a choice of saying 
that we will continue the situation in which we believe in limited 
government, in which government intervenes when one individual's rights 
are threatened by another, in which we protect private property and we 
prevent disruption of the peace, but in which we say if some 
individual, choosing to be as vile as can be and give offense by his or 
her means of expression, chooses to burn his or her own flag on his or 
her own property, that we are going to penalize that criminally. But if 
that individual decides to burn a cross to symbolize racism, if that 
individual decides to destroy or deface any other symbol, no matter how 
profound, that is okay.
  It seems to me that leaves us in an untenable position. Because 
either we believe that what an individual does to express himself or 
herself is not a matter for the law, or we say we value this one symbol 
but we devalue all the others. I think we are better off as a society 
letting people express themselves as freely as possible and having the 
rest of us argue against it. The alternative is to set the principle 
that if the Government does not outlaw something, it is somehow 
condoning it. And if it does not outlaw the desecration of a particular 
symbol, it somehow devalues that symbol.
  I think that will do more damage because it will leave more valuable 
symbols in fact devalued by being excluded from this new form of 
protection. So I hope the amendment is defeated.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 36, to give 
Congress the power to outlaw flag burning.
  As a veteran, this issue is very important and close to my heart. As 
we look at it not only as a veteran but as we look at what has been 
said right now, people have talked about the constitutional amendment 
dealing with expression, freedom of expression, the right to liberty. 
We also have the right to interpret, when we look at the Constitution, 
to examine what our forefathers, who wrote the legislation

[[Page 13489]]

sometime ago, actually meant. And sometimes there is time for a change, 
and this is a time for a change that we have to realize.
  As a symbol, many of our veterans have fought for our country. 
Because of the sacrifices they have made, we enjoy peace and freedom 
today. Because of that symbol many individuals have died. When we look 
at someone who has been buried and the flag is turned over to the 
family, it is that symbol that is turned over. When I turn around and 
look at the flag behind me, it is that symbol I salute. When I attend a 
service, it is that symbol I salute. When I see the changing of the 
colors, it is that symbol, it is what America is. It is what this 
country was founded on.
  To everyone who has fought for us, from the beginning to now, in each 
and every one of our wars, it is a form of expression. It is one we 
should have. We should never ever desecrate the flag.
  When we look at many of the veterans that are willing to sacrifice 
and stand up and fight for us, what have they done? Are we going to say 
that they have gone out and fought in every war and that we do not 
realize there is a symbol? When someone fell with that flag and someone 
else picked it up and they charged, why did they do that? Because it is 
a symbol of freedom, freedom of expression for our area.
  We must stand up and protect the flag. And let me tell my colleagues, 
anyone who desecrates the flag, shame on us, shame on them. It is time 
for a change. We have to make the change to protect what America was 
built on; those freedoms that are very important to us. That flag is 
part of that freedom and that symbol and represents every American, 
every individual in this country.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member 
on the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided 
constitutional amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  We are faced today with a choice that will be, for many Members of 
this body, a difficult one. The choice, put simply, is between a 
symbol, a revered symbol, and the fundamental values it represents. The 
flag of the United States is a symbol. It is a symbol that has the 
power to move people deeply. When we see the picture of the flag being 
raised by the Marines over Mt. Suribachi or when we see it draped over 
a casket or when we see it being carried in the streets as a symbol of 
the fight for social justice, as it was by Dr. King and so many other 
courageous individuals over the years who fought to ensure that America 
would one day live up to its promise, it is hard not to be moved.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today debating what would be 
the very first amendment to the Bill of Rights, I feel humbled to look 
at the flag hanging behind you in this Chamber and know that a very 
heavy responsibility weighs on every Member of this House.
  We have heard and will hear many moving arguments about the 
sacrifices made for the flag, of the people who died for the flag, the 
soldiers, of the importance of the flag to so many Americans. But the 
real significance of the flag is those important values, the 
fundamental freedoms, and the way of life it represents. That is why so 
many have sacrificed so much. Not for the peace of colored cloth, but 
for those values. And we dishonor their sacrifice, we ensure that those 
sacrifices were made in vain if we now start down the road to undermine 
the freedoms the flag represents, allegedly to protect the flag.
  Let us not revere the symbol over what it represents. Let us not 
render our flag a hollow symbol. It has been said that the sin of 
idolatry is the sin of elevating the symbol over the substance. The 
substance we are talking about is liberty and freedom of expression. It 
is that that we must protect, and it is that which this amendment 
jeopardizes.
  Mr. Speaker, veterans, General Colin Powell, religious leaders, and 
many other Americans understand how important our freedom of expression 
really is, even if that expression is sometimes politically unpopular, 
even if it may offend people, even if it makes people angry, even if it 
costs votes. If those who came before us were willing to place their 
lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for those freedoms, I 
think we can risk some votes to secure their continuance.
  We have debated this amendment many times. We all know the arguments. 
It might be easy to trivialize the question we have debated so many 
times, but this is serious business because we are talking about 
amending the first amendment, the queen of the amendments that have 
protected our freedoms since the beginning of our Nation.
  If any Member has any doubts about whether this amendment is about 
protecting the flag or is really about constraining freedom of 
expression, they should ask themselves, what is the difference between 
burning an old tattered flag, which U.S. law and the American Legion 
tell us is the appropriate, respectful way to dispose of a flag, and 
burning it at a protest rally? There is only one difference, and that 
is the opinion, the political opinion, the message being conveyed, and 
we are criminalizing the message.
  We have all seen, I would assume everyone in this Chamber has watched 
movies over the years, and we have seen movies in which actors play 
enemy soldiers, Nazi soldiers, Chinese Communist soldiers in Korea; and 
during that movie they desecrate the American flag, they tear it to 
bits or trample upon it or spit upon it or burn it. No one suggests we 
ought to arrest the actors. No one suggests the actors have committed a 
crime because they are playing a role. The only crime this amendment 
seeks to create is not for those actors to destroy the flag in some 
future movie, it is for someone to burn the flag or otherwise 
disrespect it in the course of a political protest.
  That is why the Supreme Court, quite rightly, said we cannot make 
that illegal because it is the core political speech that we would be 
making illegal. It is not the flag at issue; it is the opinion being 
expressed.
  Do my colleagues know current Federal law makes it a crime to use the 
flag in advertising, including political advertising? That is current 
law because Congress thought it was disrespectful to use the flag in 
advertisements. If this amendment passes, that law will be enforceable. 
Now it is not because it is unconstitutional. Yet I would venture to 
say that most Members of this Congress have violated that law by using 
the flag in political ads. Is it the intent of the sponsors to crack 
down on that form of flag desecration?
  Mr. Speaker, our freedoms are more important than any one individual 
who wants to make a point by burning a flag. Our country has survived 
those few individuals who want to burn the flag.

                              {time}  1330

  Our country will rise above it in the future.
  The real damage to the flag is that too many people may be willing to 
desecrate our Bill of Rights to make a political point. That is 
something that will be very hard for this Nation to rise above, and 
that is why this amendment must be defeated.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pledge my enthusiastic 
support for the flag protection amendment. I will be darned if I am 
going to accept the technicalities that we talk about and we have heard 
this afternoon.
  I know the law is technical, but we are bogged down in 
technicalities. There is a breeze, a gentle breeze going through these 
Chambers today. Seven hundred thousand brave men and women gave their 
lives since the beginning of this Republic. We ought to seize back the 
responsibilities given to us by the voters. We should never kowtow to 
any other branch of government, regardless of their decision.
  The Supreme Court is not absolute. Only God is absolute on any 
decision. The fact that we quote Justice Scalia

[[Page 13490]]

makes me stronger in my conviction that we must pass this.
  This is not just any other symbol to my colleagues and brothers. I am 
sorry. This is not just any other symbol. This is the symbol of 
democracy, Mr. Speaker. We are here to uphold that symbol. I am proud 
to stand with those who support this resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, at the end of this month I have a law review 
article coming out in a University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law 
Review on the congressional oath of office. It is a rambling discussion 
probably guaranteed to put the reader to sleep, but it pulls together 
some of the history of the Congressional oath of office. I intend to 
distribute it to all Members next month and seek out their thoughts and 
criticisms.
  In the course of that research, I ran across some vignettes from 
history that I think are relevant to this debate today. Let me share 
with you some news stories taken from the New York Times in years of 
great strife worldwide.
  The first one I would like to read is from April 7, 1917. Headline: 
Diners Resent Slight to the Anthem. Attack a Man and Two Women Who 
Refuse to Stand When It Is Played.
  There was much excitement in the main dining room at Rector's last 
night following the playing of the ``Star Spangled Banner.'' Frederick 
S. Boyd, a former reporter on the New York Call, a Socialist newspaper, 
was dining with Miss Jessie Ashley and Miss May R. Towle, both lawyers 
and suffragists.
  The three alone of those in the room remained seated. There were 
quiet, then loud and vehement protests, but they kept their chairs. The 
angry diners surrounded Boyd and the two women and blows were struck 
back and forth, the women fighting valiantly to defend Boyd. He cried 
out he was an Englishman and did not have to get up, but the crowd 
would not listen to explanation.
  Boyd was beaten severely when Albert Dasburg, a head waiter, 
succeeded in reaching his side. Other waiters closed in and the fray 
was stopped. The guests insisted upon the ejection of Boyd and his 
companions, and they were asked to leave. They refused to do so and 
they were escorted to the street and turned over to a policeman who 
took Boyd to the West 47th Street Station, charged with disorderly 
conduct.
  Before Magistrate Corrigan in Night Court Boyd repeated that he did 
not have to rise at the playing of the national anthem, but the court 
told him that while there was no legal obligation, it was neither 
prudent nor courteous not to do so in these tense times. Boyd was found 
guilty of disorderly conduct and was released on suspended sentence.
  Another one, July 2, 1917. Headline: Boston ``Peace'' Parade Mobbed. 
Soldiers and Sailors Break Up Socialist Demonstration and Rescue Flag. 
Socialist Headquarters Ransacked and Contents Burned, Many Arrests for 
Fighting.
  Riotous scenes attended a Socialist parade today which was announced 
as a peace demonstration. The ranks of the marchers were broke up by 
self-organized squads of uniformed soldiers and sailors, red flags and 
banners bearing socialistic mottos were trampled on, and literature and 
furnishings in the Socialist headquarters in Park Square were thrown 
into the street and burned.
  At Scollay Square there was a similar scene. The American flag at the 
head of the line was seized by the attacking party, and the band, which 
had been playing ``The Marseillaise,'' with some interruptions, was 
forced to play ``The Star Spangled Banner,'' while cheers were given 
for the flag.
  From April 5, 1912. Headline: Forced to Kiss the Flag. 100 Anarchists 
Are Then Driven from San Diego.
  Nearly 100 industrial workers of the world, all of whom admitted they 
were anarchists, knelt on the ground and kissed the folds of an 
American flag at dawn today near San Onofre, a small settlement a short 
distance this side of the Orange County boundary line.
  The ceremony, which was most unwillingly performed, was witnessed by 
45 deputy constables and a large body of armed citizens of San Diego.
  And the last one from March 26, 1918: Pro-Germans Mobbed in Middle 
West. Disturbances Start in Ohio and are Renewed in Illinois, Woman 
Among Victims.
  Five businessmen of Delphos, a German settlement in western Allen 
County near here, accused of pro-Germanism, were hunted out by a 
volunteer vigilance committee of 400 men and 50 women of the town, 
taken into a brilliantly lighted downtown street and forced to kiss the 
American flag tonight under pain of being hanged from nearby telephone 
poles.
  What do these stories have to do with this very important and 
heartfelt debate today so ably conducted by the chairman and ranking 
member?
  The decision we make today, it seems to me, is a balancing, a 
weighing, of what best preserves freedom for Americans. There may well 
be a decrease in public deliberate incidents of flag desecration, acts 
that we all deplore, if this amendment becomes part of our 
Constitution, although they are already quite rare.
  On the other side of the ledger, if this amendment becomes part of 
our Constitution, in my opinion it will become a constitutionally 
sanctioned tool for the majority to tyrannize the minority. As 
evidenced by these anecdotes from a time of great divisiveness in our 
Nation's history, a time much different from today, government, which 
ultimately is human beings with all of our strengths and weaknesses, 
will use this amendment to question the patriotism of vocal minorities, 
will use it to find excuses to legally attack demonstrations which 
utilize the flag in an otherwise appropriate manner, except for the 
fact that the flag is carried by those speaking for an unpopular 
minority.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think our Constitution will be improved nor our 
freedoms protected by placing within it enhanced opportunity for 
minority views to be legally attacked ostensibly because of their 
misuse of the flag, but in reality because of views that many consider 
out of the mainstream.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this proposed amendment and for 
the same reasons a ``no'' vote on the substitute.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint 
Resolution 36, which would outlaw the physical desecration of the 
American flag.
  Our flag represents the cherished freedoms Americans enjoy to the 
envy of other Nations. To our Nation's veterans and military retirees, 
it is a constant reminder of the ultimate sacrifice they have made. 
Destroying our flag is an affront to all Americans, but to veterans and 
military retirees it is much more than that. Our veterans and military 
retirees have put their lives on the line for our country, and the 
American flag is one thing they can hold and say, ``This is what I have 
defended with my life.''
  My father was a prisoner of war in World War II, captured at the 
Battle of the Bulge. He fought to protect our democratic freedoms. If I 
did not vote for this resolution today, he would whip me, and I am 54 
years old.
  Mr. Speaker, he did not fight to let Americans destroy the very 
symbol of their very freedoms that he was willing to die for. 
Destroying the flag is tantamount to physically assaulting those heroes 
who would lay down their lives for their country. It is against the law 
for one American to assault another, and so should it be against the 
law for one American to assault an entire class of American heroes.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to honor America's heroes and pass the 
resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Ackerman).
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Founding Fathers must be very puzzled 
looking down on us today. Instead of seeing us dealing with the very 
real challenges that face our Nation, they see us laboring again under 
this compulsion to amend the document that

[[Page 13491]]

underpins our democracy. They see a house of dwarfs trying to give this 
government a great new power at the expense of the people and, for the 
first time, to stifle dissenters and the way in which they dissent.
  The threat must be great, they must be saying, to justify changing 
the Bill of Rights for the first time and decreasing rather than 
increasing the rights of the people. They see our beloved Bill of 
Rights being eroded into the Bill of Rights and Restrictions.
  What is the threat? What is the threat, Mr. Speaker? I ask again, 
what is the threat? Is our democracy at risk? What is the crisis to the 
Republic? What is the challenge to our way of life? Where is our belief 
system being threatened? Are people jumping from behind parked cars, 
waving burning flags at us, trying to prevent us from getting to work 
and causing America to grind to a halt?
  Mr. Speaker, do we really believe that we are under such a siege 
because of a few lose cannons? Do we need to change our Constitution to 
save our democracy, or are we simply offended?
  The real threat to our society is not the occasional burning of a 
flag, but the permanent banning of the burners. The real threat is that 
some of us have now mistaken the flag for a religious icon to be 
worshipped as pagans would, rather than to be kept as the beloved 
symbol of our freedom that is to be cherished.
  These rare but vile acts of desecration that have been cited by those 
who would propose changing our founding document do not threaten 
anybody. If a jerk burns a flag, America is not threatened. If a jerk 
burns a flag, democracy is not under siege. If a jerk burns a flag, 
freedom is not at risk and we are not threatened. My colleagues, we are 
offended; and to change our Constitution because someone offends us is 
in itself unconscionable.
  Mr. Speaker, the courts have said that the flag stands for the right 
to burn the flag. The Nazis and the Fascists and the Imperial Japanese 
Army combined could not diminish the constitutional right of even one 
single American. Yet, in an act of cowardice, we are about to do what 
they could not.
  Mr. Speaker, where are the patriots? Where are the patriots? Whatever 
happened to fighting to the death for the rights of someone with whom 
we disagree? We now choose, instead, to react by taking away the right 
to protest. Even a despicable low-life malcontent has a right to 
disagree, and he has the right to disagree in an obnoxious fashion if 
he wishes. That is the true test of free expression, and we are about 
to fail that test.
  Real patriots choose freedom over symbolism. That is the ultimate 
contest between substance and form. Why does the flag need protecting? 
Is it an endangered species? Burning one flag or burning 1,000 flags 
does not endanger it. It is but a symbol. But change just one word of 
the Constitution of this great Nation, and it and we will never be the 
same.
  We cannot destroy a symbol. Yes, people have burnt the flag, but, Mr. 
Speaker, it still exists. There it is, hanging right in back of us. It 
represents our beliefs.
  Poets and patriots will tell us men have died for the flag, but that 
language itself is symbolic language. People do not die for symbols. 
They fight and they die for freedom. They fight and they die for 
democracy. They fight and they die for values. To fight and die for the 
flag is to fight and die for the cause in which we believe. Today some 
would have us change all of that.
  We love and we honor and respect our flag for that which it 
represents. It is different from all other flags. I notice in the 
amendment that we do not make it illegal to burn someone else's flag in 
someone else's country, and that is because our flag is different.

                              {time}  1345

  No, not because of the colors or the shape or the design. They mostly 
have stars and some have stripes and scores and dozens are red, white, 
and blue.
  Our flag is unique because it represents our unique values. It 
represents tolerance for dissent. This country was founded by 
dissenters that others found obnoxious.
  What is a dissenter? In this case it is a social protester who feels 
so strongly about an issue that he would stoop so low as to try to get 
under our skin, to try to rile us up to prove his point, and to have us 
react by making this great Nation less than it was.
  How do we react? Dictators and dictatorships make political prisoners 
of those who burn their Nation's flags, not democracies. We tolerate 
dissent and dissenters, even the despicable dissenters.
  What is the flag, Mr. Speaker? The American flag? Yes, it is a piece 
of cloth. It is red, it is white and blue. It has 50 stars and 13 
stripes. But if we pass this amendment and desecrators decide to start 
a cottage industry and make flags with 55 stars and burn them, will we 
rush to the floor to amend the Constitution again?
  If they add a stripe or two and set it ablaze, surely it would look 
like our flag, but is it? Do we rush in and count the stripes before we 
determine whether or not we are constitutionally offended? What if the 
stripes are orange instead of red? How do we interpret that? What 
mischief do we do here? If it is a full color, full-sized picture of a 
flag that they burn, is it a crime to desecrate a symbol of a symbol? 
What are we doing?
  Our beloved flag represents this great Nation, Mr. Speaker. We love 
our flag because there is a republic for which it stands, made great by 
a Constitution that we have sworn to protect, a Constitution given to 
our care by giants and about to be nibbled to death by dwarfs.
  Mr. Speaker, I call upon the patriots of the House to rise and to 
defend the Constitution, to resist the temptation to drape ourselves in 
the flag and to hold sacred the Bill of Rights. Defend our 
Constitution. I urge the defeat of this ill-conceived amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished former chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to ascribe cowardice or lack 
of patriotism to people who disagree with me, although I listened to 
the last speaker ask, where are the patriots? I could direct him to 
some. Try Bob Stump who lied about his age so he could enlist in the 
Navy in World War II. There are plenty of patriots around. I have 
earned the right to stand here and debate this issue because I fought 
in combat in the South Pacific in World War II. I like to think I am 
almost as patriotic as the gentleman named Ackerman. 
  I heard rights, rights, rights. Not one word about responsibility. 
Responsibility. But that is part of this debate. This is a good debate. 
We ought to once in a while look at our core principles and see if 
there is anything that distinguishes us from the rest of the world.
  We look around this Chamber and we see the splendid diversity of 
America. We see men and women whose great grandparents came from 
virtually every corner of the globe. What holds this democratic 
community together? A common commitment to certain moral norms. That is 
the foundation of our democratic experiment.
  Human beings do not live by abstract ideas alone. Those ideas are 
embodied in symbols. And what is a symbol? A symbol is more than a 
sign. A sign conveys information. A symbol is much more richly 
textured. A symbol is material reality that makes a spiritual reality 
present among us. An octagonal piece of red metal on a street corner is 
a sign. The flag is a symbol. Vandalizing a No Parking sign is a 
misdemeanor, but burning the flag is a hate crime, because burning the 
flag is an expression of contempt for the moral unity of the American 
people that the flag symbolically makes present to us every day.
  Why do we need this amendment now? Is there a rash of flag burning 
going on? Certainly not. But we live in a time of growing disunity. Our 
society is pulled apart by the powerful centrifugal force of racism, 
ethnicity, language, culture, gender, and religion. Diversity can be a 
source of strength, but disunity can be a source of peril. If

[[Page 13492]]

you stop and think, the world is torn by religious and ethnic divisions 
that make war and killing and death and terror the norm in so many 
countries: Ireland, the Middle East, the Balkans, Rwanda. Look around 
the globe and see what hate can do to drive fellow human beings apart.
  This legislation makes a statement that needs to be made, that our 
flag is the transcendent symbol of all that America stands for and 
aspires to be and hence deserves special protection of the law.
  We Americans share a moral unity expressed so profoundly in our 
country's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence. ``We hold 
these truths to be self-evident,'' Jefferson wrote. The truth that all 
are equal before the law. We share that, across race, gender, religion. 
The truth that the right to life and liberty is inalienable and 
inviolable. The truth that government is intended to facilitate and not 
impede the people's pursuit of happiness.
  Adherence to these truths is the foundation of civil society, of 
democratic culture in America.
  And what is the symbol of our moral unity amidst our racial, ethnic, 
and religious diversity? Old Glory, the stars and stripes.
  In seeking to provide constitutional protection for the flag, we are 
seeking to protect the moral unity that makes American democracy 
possible. We have spent the better part of the last 30 years telling 
each other, shouting to each other, all the things that divide us. It 
is time to start talking about the things that unite us, that make us 
all, together, Americans. The flag is the embodiment of the unity of 
the American people, a unity built on those ``self-evident'' truths on 
which the American experiment rests, the truths which are our Nation's 
claim to be a just society.
  Let us take a step toward national reconciliation, and toward 
constitutional sanity, by adopting this amendment. The flag is our 
connection to the past and proclaims our hopes and aspirations for the 
future.
  Too many Americans have marched behind it, too many have come home in 
a box covered by the flag, too many parents and widows have clutched 
the flag to their hearts as the last remembrance of their beloved to 
treat that flag with anything less than reverence and respect.
  One hundred eighty-seven years ago during the British bombardment of 
Baltimore, Francis Scott Key looked toward Fort McHenry in the early 
dawn and asked his famous question. To his joy he saw our flag was 
still there. And how surprised he would be to learn our flag is even 
planted on the Moon.
  But, most especially, it is planted in the hearts of every loyal 
American. Four Supreme Court justices agreed with us. A ton of 
professors agree with us. This is not a settled issue. Five to four 
Supreme Court justices come down on the side of the flag.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think what we are doing here today is a contest 
between who is the most patriotic. I do not think that is it at all. 
Nobody here in the debate is unpatriotic. But I think the debate is 
possibly defining patriotism.
  But I am concerned that we are going to do something here today that 
Castro did in Cuba for 40 years. There is a prohibition against flag 
burning in Cuba. And one of the very first things that Red China did 
when it took over Hong Kong was to pass an amendment similar to this, 
to make sure there is no desecration of the Red Chinese flag. That is 
some of the company that we are keeping if we pass this amendment.
  A gentleman earlier on said that he fears more of what is happening 
from within our country than from without. I agree with that. But I 
also come down on the side that is saying that the threat of this 
amendment is a threat to me and, therefore, we should not be so anxious 
to do this. I do not think you can force patriotism.
  I also agree with the former speaker who talked about responsibility. 
I agree it is about responsibility. But it also has something to do 
with rights. You cannot reject rights and say it is all responsibility 
and therefore we have to write another law. Responsibility implies a 
voluntary approach. You cannot achieve patriotism by authoritarianism, 
and that is what we are talking about here.
  I think we all agree with respect to the flag and respect for our 
country. It is all in how we intend to do this. And also this idea 
about veterans, because you are a veteran that you have more wisdom. I 
do not think so. I am a veteran, but I disagree with other veterans. 
Keith Kruel, who was a past national commander of the American Legion 
had this to say:
  ``Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on 
principles, beliefs, and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its 
Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in 
battle have not done so to protect a `golden calf.' A patriot cannot be 
created by legislation.''
  He was the national commander of the American Legion. So I am not 
less patriotic because I take this different position.
  Another Member earlier mentioned that this could possibly be a 
property rights issue. I think it has something to do with the first 
amendment and freedom of expression. That certainly is important, but I 
think property rights are very important here. If you have your own 
flag and what you do with it, there should be some recognition of that. 
But the retort to that is, oh, no, the flag belongs to the country. The 
flag belongs to everybody. Not really. If you say that, you are a 
collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. Who 
would manufacture the flags? Who would buy the flags? Who would take 
care of them? So there is an ownership. If the Federal Government owns 
a flag and you are on Federal property, even, without this amendment, 
you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing 
civil disturbances, that is handled another way. But this whole idea 
that there could be a collective ownership of the flag, I think, is 
erroneous.
  The first amendment, we must remember, is not there to protect 
noncontroversial speech. It is to do exactly the opposite. So, 
therefore, if you are looking for controversy protection it is found in 
the first amendment. But let me just look at the words of the 
amendment. Congress, more power to the Congress. Congress will get 
power, not the States. That is the opposite of everything we believe in 
or at least profess to believe in on this side of the aisle.
  To prohibit. How do you prohibit something? You would need an army on 
every street corner in the country. You cannot possibly prevent flag 
burning. You can punish it but you cannot prohibit it. That word needs 
to be changed eventually if you ever think you are going to get this 
amendment passed.
  Physical desecration. Physical, what does it mean? If one sits on it? 
Do you arrest them and put them in jail? Desecration is a word that was 
used for religious symbols. In other words, you are either going to 
lower the religious symbols to the state or you are going to uphold the 
state symbol to that of religion. So, therefore, the whole word of 
desecration is a word that was taken from religious symbols, not state 
symbols. Maybe it harks back to the time when the state and the church 
was one and the same.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, loyalty and conviction are admirable traits, but when 
misplaced both can lead to serious problems.
  More than a decade ago, an obnoxious man in Dallas decided to perform 
an ugly act: the desecration of an American flag in public. His action 
violated a little-known state law prohibiting desecration of the flag. 
He was tried in state court and found guilty.
  As always seems to be the case, though, the federal government 
intervened. After winding through the federal system, the Supreme 
Court--in direct contradiction to the Constitution's 10th Amendment--
finally ruled against the state law.
  Since then Congress has twice tried to overturn more than 213 years 
of history and legal

[[Page 13493]]

tradition by making flag desecration a federal crime. Just as surely as 
the Court was wrong in its disregard for the Tenth Amendment by 
improperly assigning the restrictions of the First Amendment to the 
states, so are attempts to federally restrict the odious (and very 
rare) practice of Americans desecrating the flag.
  After all, the First Amendment clearly states that it is Congress 
that may ``make no laws'' and is prohibited from ``abridging'' the 
freedom of speech and expression. While some may not like it, under our 
Constitution state governments are free to restrict speech, expression, 
the press and even religious activities. The states are restrained, in 
our federal system, by their own constitutions and electorate.
  This system has served us well for more than two centuries. After 
all, our founding fathers correctly recognized that the federal 
government should be severely limited, and especially in matters of 
expression. They revolted against a government that prevented them from 
voicing their politically unpopular views regarding taxation, liberty 
and property rights. As a result, the founders wanted to ensure that a 
future monolithic federal government would not exist, and that no 
federal government of the United States would ever be able to restrict 
what government officials might find obnoxious, unpopular or 
unpatriotic. After all, the great patriots of our nation--George 
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin--
were all considered disloyal pests by the British government.
  Too often in this debate, the issue of patriotism is misplaced. This 
is well addressed by Keith Kruel, an Army veteran and a past national 
commander of the American Legion. He has said that, ``Our nation was 
not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs 
and ideals expressed in the constitution and its Bill of Rights. 
American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done 
so to protect a `golden calf.' . . . A patriot cannot be created by 
legislation.''
  Our nation would be far better served that if instead of loyalty to 
an object--what Mr. Kruel calls the ``golden calf''--we had more 
Members of Congress who were loyal to the Constitution and principles 
of liberty. If more people demonstrated a strong conviction to the 
Tenth Amendment, rather than creating even more federal powers, this 
issue would be far better handled.
  For more than two centuries, it was the states that correctly handled 
the issue of flag desecration in a manner consistent with the principle 
of federalism. When the federal courts improperly intervened, many 
people understandably sought a solution to a very emotional issue. But 
the proposed solution to enlarge the federal government and tread down 
the path of restricting unpopular political expression, is incorrect, 
and even frightening.
  The correct solution is to reassert the 10th Amendment. The states 
should be unshackled from unconstitutional federal restrictions.
  As a proud Air Force veteran, my stomach turns when I think of those 
who defile our flag. But I grow even more nauseous, though, at the 
thought of those who would defile our precious constitutional 
traditions and liberties.
  Loyalty to individual liberty, combined with a conviction to uphold 
the Constitution, is the best of what our flag can represent.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, after surviving the bloodiest battlefield since 
Gettysburg, a brave platoon of Marines trudged up Mount Suribachi on 
Sulfur Island with a simple task, to raise the flag above the 
devastation below. When the flag was raised by Sergeant Mike Strank and 
his platoon, history records that a thunderous cheer rose from our 
troops on land and on sea, in foxholes and on stretchers. Hope returned 
to that field of battle when the American flag began flapping in the 
wind.
  It is written that without a vision, the people perish. The flag, Mr. 
Speaker, was the vision that inspired and rallied our troops at Iwo 
Jima. The flag is still the vision for all Americans who still cherish 
those who stood ready to make the necessary sacrifices.
  Mr. Speaker, by adopting this flag protection amendment, we will 
raise Old Glory yet again. We will raise her above the decisions of a 
judiciary wrong on both the law and the history. And in some small way, 
we will raise the flag above the cynicism of our times, saying to my 
generation of Americans those most unwelcome of words, ``There are 
limits.'' To say to my generation of Americans, out of respect for all 
those who serve beneath it and some who died within the sight of it, 
that there are boundaries necessary to the survival of freedom.

                              {time}  1400

  C.S. Lewis said, ``We laugh at honor, and we are shocked to find 
traitors in our midst.'' Leave us this day to cease to laugh at honor, 
to elevate to dishonor of our unique national symbol to some sacred 
right, and let us pass this amendment to restore Old Glory the modest 
protections of the law that those who venerate her so richly deserve.
  Vote yes to the resolution and raise the American flag to her Old 
Glory again.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson) who, previous to her 
congressional experience, worked in the field of labor with my late 
father.
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the honorable 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me time. I did have 
the benefit of working for his father as an international 
representative when John was still running around trying to find out 
whether or not he was going to Congress. So it is a pleasure to come, 
Mr. Speaker, to the floor and benefit from all of this historic and 
intellectual dialogue that preceded me.
  I come here today to exercise a constitutional right granted to me as 
a citizen of the United States, and that is freedom of speech. I have a 
great deal of reverence for the United States flag. I wave it at my 
residence every opportunity, and am very saddened by those flags that 
are often lowered over capitols and buildings in commemoration of some 
fallen hero, if you will.
  My adoration and respect, however, does not exceed my commitment to 
the integrity of the first amendment of the United States Constitution. 
Many of us learned in our educational experience of Patrick Henry, who 
said, ``I may not agree with the words that you say, but certainly 
would defend your right to say it.'' As I recall, Patrick Henry was in 
fact one of the signers of the Constitution.
  One of my first and foremost commitments as a Member here is on 
behalf of our country's veterans. My name, Julia Carson, is derived 
from a Korean War Marine, 100 percent service-connected veteran, who 
struggles now to even gain any type of mobility. I am very supportive 
of veterans and recognize their interests in preserving this flag. My 
son, Sam Carson, is a former member of the United States Marine Corps.
  So, as a ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, I am working hard to 
address the needs of our veterans, to assure that the fight for freedom 
does not go unappreciated or uncompensated.
  Great Americans such as Vietnam veteran and former Senator Kerry, 
former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our current Secretary of 
State, the Honorable Colin Powell, have expressed their opposition to 
this amendment. These are great men who served this country with 
distinction.
  General Powell has stated, ``If they are destroying a flag that 
belongs to someone else, that is a prosecutable crime. But if it is a 
flag they own, I really don't want to amend the Constitution to 
prosecute someone for foolishly desecrating their own property. We 
should condemn them and pity them instead.''
  These men feel that in spite of their own commitment to the integrity 
of the American flag, they do not want their personal views to infringe 
on the rights of free speech of other Americans.
  Francis Scott Key wrote, and we all recall that tune, ``O'er the 
ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming. And the rockets' red 
glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our 
flag was still there. O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave, 
o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?''
  It does still wave, Mr. Speaker, despite House Resolution 36. Our 
flag will still be there. The constitutional amendment proposed here 
today is totally unnecessary. That is why I am going to vote against 
it.

[[Page 13494]]


  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous honor for 
me to be here today to support the protection of our American heritage, 
a symbol and a reminder of our cherished freedom, the American flag. 
The flag is a symbol of the birth of this great Nation and the many 
wars fought to win our freedom.
  I spent 7 long years as a POW in Vietnam, half of that in solitary 
confinement. I think you heard the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) relate earlier the story of Mike Christian, who was beaten 
for making a flag. He sewed that flag to remind himself of home and the 
freedom that it stands for. It was a symbol and great comfort to all of 
us. As POWs, we would pledge allegiance and salute it each day. That 
tiny, tiny flag sewn together meant so much to us, far, far away from 
home, more than words can describe.
  I stand here today to honor all our military men and women who have 
fought throughout the years for this great Nation.
  How about the Marine memorial, the Iwo Jima Memorial? Does that not 
mean something to you? I think that flag meant something to those boys 
that put it up there.
  The Middlekauff Ford dealership in Plano, Texas built a huge flagpole 
and put an oversized flag on it. Do you know what? Some of the people 
said, It makes too much noise when the wind blows. It keeps us awake at 
night.
  Do you know what Rick Middlekauff said? He said, ladies and 
gentlemen, that is the sound of freedom. And he left it up there, and 
they quit griping about it.
  It is something that I think that we must respect. We must treat it 
with respect and protect it from desecration.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud and patriotic 
American to oppose this resolution. Here is what some of the veterans 
have said about this amendment.
  Jack Heyman, Fort Myers Beach, Florida, a Korean War veteran, said, 
``I know of no American veteran who put his or her life on the line to 
protect the sanctity of the flag. That is not why we fulfilled our 
patriotic duty. We did so and still do to protect our country and our 
way of life and to ensure that our children enjoy the same freedoms for 
which we fought.''
  Mr. Heyman's great grandfather was a Pennsylvania Regular during the 
Civil War; his father served in the Navy during World War I; his 
brother fought in World War II; and one of his children served in the 
Army following the Vietnam War.
  Bill McCloskey, a Vietnam War veteran from Bethesda, Maryland, said, 
``Ultimately, Americans and our representatives on Capitol Hill must 
realize that when a flag goes up in flames, only a multi-colored cloth 
is destroyed. If our freedoms are lost, the true fabric of our Nation 
is frayed and weakened.''
  Brad Bustany, West Hollywood, California, a Gulf War veteran, said, 
``My military service was not about protecting the flag; it was about 
protecting the freedoms behind it. The flag amendment curtails free 
speech and expression in a way that should frighten us all.''
  And how will Congress begin defining what the flag and desecration 
even mean? Our flag is ubiquitous. It is found in such places as 
commerce, art and memorials. Will Congress bar display of the flag on 
brand-name apparel, defining it as desecration? Will flag bathing suits 
be desecration, and thus prohibited? How will Congress enforce such an 
amendment? Where will this begin and where will it end?
  Freedom of speech, even when it hurts, and it does hurt many of us, 
is the truest test of our dedication to the principles that our flag 
represents. Punishing desecration of the flag deludes the very freedom 
that makes this emblem so precious, so revered, and worth revering.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and yes to 
upholding our Constitution and our democracy.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time and for his 
leadership on this issue as we once again try to set the record 
straight.
  This has been a great debate, but I have been appalled by some on the 
other side who have suggested that the flag amendment is going to 
change the Bill of Rights to our Constitution. It does nothing of the 
sort.
  Our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, including the first 
amendment, exactly right; and this amendment does not change that in 
any way. What did change the first amendment was a misinterpretation of 
that amendment by a 5 to 4 decision of the Supreme Court. One vote 
changed 200 years of American history. One vote changed 48 States' and 
the Federal Government's flag protection anti-desecration laws, and all 
we are trying to do is set the record straight. We have been asked to 
do that by 49 State legislatures; 80 percent of the American people in 
poll after poll show their support for this amendment, and this is a 
bipartisan effort.
  The U.S. Supreme Court has historically shared our view. Such great 
champions of civil liberty and free expression as Hugo Black and Earl 
Warren when they served on the Supreme Court made clear their beliefs 
that flag desecration was not protected by the first amendment. As 
Justice Black stated, ``It passes my belief that anything in the 
Federal Constitution bars making the deliberate burning of the American 
flag an offense.''
  So we are simply setting the record straight. As Chief Justice 
William Rehnquist said in his dissenting opinion, ``Surely one of the 
high purposes of a democratic society is to legislate against conduct 
that is regarded as evil and profoundly offensive to the majority of 
people, whether it be murder, embezzlement, pollution or flag 
burning.''
  Burning the flag is not speech deserving protection. It is a 
despicable act. I urge my colleagues to support this constitutional 
amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I might say, the people of New York would 
be proud of you up there today.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) very 
much. The gentleman has served the State of Michigan in such an 
exemplary way for so many years. And I might say about him too, I used 
to live in the State of Michigan, even though it did not change my 
accent.
  This bill is not about one's freedom of speech; it is about one's 
respect for our country and the rights provided by it.
  As a veteran of the U.S. Army and serving 29 years in the Army 
National Guard, I do not have to be told about the need to respect our 
flag. But there are many out there who take this symbol for granted. It 
seems as though they fail to recognize what has been sacrificed over 
the past 225 years of our existence.
  The flag not only serves as a sacred symbol of the principles upon 
which our Nation was founded, it also represents the many sacrifices 
our veterans have made throughout the history of our Nation to protect 
our precious freedoms and preserve our democracy.
  I fully support one's right to express himself or herself freely, but 
when it comes to Old Glory and displaying such a gross disrespect for 
something as precious as our national symbol of freedom, I feel it is 
necessary for Congress to draw the line.
  In this country, whatever idea a flag burner wants to communicate, 
can be expressed just as effectively in many other ways. Burning our 
flag communicates nothing but a lack of respect. We should not protect 
such horrendous behavior, when our forefathers, our veterans and many 
patriotic citizens of our great land sacrificed and fought to protect 
the freedom it symbolizes.
  This amendment to protect our flag is an appropriate and powerful 
``thank

[[Page 13495]]

you'' to every veteran who fought and died to defend this flag and the 
country for which it stands. This flag is a national asset.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The time of the gentleman from 
Tennessee has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, that is very gracious of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), knowing the gentleman does not necessarily 
agree with my position totally, but he has always been fair as one of 
the great leaders in the House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1415

  This flag is a national asset, and I strongly believe it deserves our 
unquestioned respect and protection.
  I pledge my full support for this amendment, and I hope that my 
colleagues will vote to support its passage.
  I have heard from a lot of veterans at home, but not just veterans. I 
have heard from people from all walks of life. Mr. Speaker, we have a 
lot to be proud of in this country. We celebrated our 200th birthday in 
1976. I would ask my colleagues, do they know what the average 
longevity of the great democracies of the past is? It is 200 years. We 
celebrated our 200th birthday in 1976. But if we want to celebrate our 
300th birthday, we have to rededicate and recommit ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, what I said a while ago is the way I feel. Yes, one can 
protest. Yes, one can disagree. Yes, one can feel strongly on a 
particular issue. But one does not have to burn ``Old Glory.'' One can 
show one's protest, one can show one's frustration in other ways. 
Support this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents and my late father, Judge 
Platts, an Army veteran who felt very strongly about protecting the 
American flag from desecration, I rise in full support of this 
proposal.
  House Joint Resolution 36 is important for many reasons. The American 
flag is of great importance not only to the men and women of the United 
States of America but also to the citizens of the world.
  Every time we raise or lower the many flags flown all over the world, 
we have given thanks and shown appreciation not only to our veterans 
who fought and gave their lives to ensure the freedoms we know today 
but to the many citizens who work daily to preserve those freedoms. 
Desecration of this commanding symbol, whether it is by burning, 
tearing, or other mutilation, undermines the powerful sense of 
patriotism that Americans feel whenever they see the red, white and 
blue. To many, desecrating the American flag not only destroys the 
cloth, it also destroys the memories and destroys the memories and 
devotion thousands of veterans and others carry with them throughout 
their daily lives.
  In this day of world conflict, we must remember that the Stars and 
Stripes has been a force that holds communities together. Mr. Speaker, 
I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) that ``The 
American flag is a national treasure. It is the ultimate symbol of 
freedom, equal opportunity, and religious tolerance. Amending our 
Constitution to protect the flag is a necessity.''
  Mr. Speaker, I look to our Founding Fathers and how they treated the 
flag as to whether they thought the first amendment should protect 
burning the flag, desecrating the flag. When they went into battle, a 
soldier would carry the flag; and if that soldier fell, another soldier 
would put down their weapon and pick up the flag. That is a pretty 
clear indication that they did not intend the first amendment to 
protect desecration of the flag.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote and hope that we will have a very 
strong bipartisan vote in favor of this proposal.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this proposed constitutional 
amendment. The need for such an amendment arises from a Supreme Court 
that has persistently stated that we must tolerate flag desecration as 
protected speech. Clearly, I believe the Supreme Court has it wrong.
  The flag is a unique symbol that merits our special recognition. I 
find it ironic that the Federal Government can compel men and women 
into the Armed Forces where they may die under the flag but, evidently, 
may not prohibit the desecration of the very symbol for which they 
fight.
  This proposed amendment places the debate exactly where our framers 
intended for it to take place: in the town halls across America. It is 
the American people, not the Supreme Court, that have the ultimate 
responsibility to answer constitutional questions.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the flag is a unique symbol. When those who 
have given the last full measure of devotion are given the respect they 
deserve, we honor them by draping their coffin with the flag. They 
honor our country with their sacrifice, and we honor them with the 
flag.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I find the words of the Pledge of Allegiance 
telling. Just last week, President Bush had the opportunity to visit 
Ellis Island and to lead the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance, just as 
so many immigrants have done before: ``I pledge allegiance to the flag 
of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it 
stands.'' I would underscore that this simple phrase recited every 
morning in this very Chamber pledges our allegiance to the flag itself, 
not only to the Republic. The ``and'' separates the two phrases so that 
we pledge our devotion both to the flag and to our Republic.
  Mr. Speaker, some argue that the ideals of the flag are the only 
things that matter. I find the words of the pledge enlightening, and I 
respectfully disagree.
  The flag itself occupies a unique place in our Republic. It is the 
one symbol that merits our allegiance. Why do we continue to pledge our 
devotion and support to a flag if we are not willing to protect it from 
desecration?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the proposed amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 
of House Joint Resolution 36 proposing a constitutional amendment that 
would grant Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of 
the United States flag.
  The American flag is a revered symbol of our country and of the 
principles of freedom and liberty we hold dear. I know for America's 
war veterans the flag is valued as a symbol of the sacrifices they and 
their fellow servicemen made to defend our land. Indeed, hundreds of 
thousands of servicemen gave their lives defending our country, and we 
must never forget the price they paid for the freedoms we enjoy.
  As a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, it is our 
priority to restore our military's readiness and strength and also 
ensure that our veterans are treated with the respect and gratitude 
that is due them. That includes standing with them to defend the honor 
due to our national colors.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
resolution.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
important piece of legislation and I applaud the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) for his tireless advocacy on this issue.
  Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the Supreme Court minority 
opinion in the United States v. Eichman in 1990 stated, ``Thus, the 
government may, indeed, it should, protect the symbolic value of the 
flag without regard to the specific content of the flag

[[Page 13496]]

burner's speech. It is, moreover, equally clear that prohibition does 
not entail any interference with the speaker's freedom to express his 
or her ideals by other means. It may well be true that other means of 
expression may be less effective in drawing attention to those ideas, 
but that is not itself a sufficient reason for immunizing rising flag 
burning. Presumably, a gigantic fireworks display or a parade of nude 
models in a public park might draw even more attention to a 
controversial message, but such methods of expression are nonetheless 
subject to regulation.''
  There is a lot of talk about free speech, but passage of this will 
not prevent anyone from saying anything more than our law already does. 
If one does not like what the country is doing, or if one is upset 
about anything at all, one can stand on the street corner and say 
whatever comes to one's mind, and that right is protected. It is part 
of what makes this country great that we have this freedom; that, 
despite differences of opinion, we still manage to move on and respect 
what other people have to say.
  But while we enjoy this freedom of speech today, there are still 
certain things we cannot do or say by law. We have laws against libel, 
slander, perjury, obscenity and indecent exposure in public. Just as it 
is within the realms of the Federal Government to limit this kind of 
conduct, it is also right for it to regulate a clear attack on its 
sovereignty and dignity by protecting our flag.
  To me, our flag represents not only the sacrifices of those who came 
before us, but also the hope for our future generations. It is both the 
past and the present which makes us a great people and what so many 
Americans have fought so hard to preserve.
  I am privileged to serve on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and to 
have such constructive interaction with so many current and retired 
members of our Armed Forces. We have more than 350,000 veterans in the 
State of South Carolina, many of whom are in my district. If I can go 
back home and tell them anything, I would say that I voted to make sure 
that their sacrifices were not forgotten. That the flag that serves as 
our national symbol of unity--and a symbol of what so many of their 
brethren gave their lives for--shall be revered, not desecrated.
  Again, I urge you all to vote for this legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Grucci).
  Mr. GRUCCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the 
flag protection amendment, and I ask all of my colleagues to join 250 
cosponsors and support the passage of H.J. Res. 36, this important 
measure.
  The American flag embodies the hopes, sacrifices, and freedoms of 
this great Nation and its people. The American flag is more than just a 
symbol, it is the fabric that binds our Nation, its citizens, and those 
brave individuals who have sacrificed to preserve our unity and our 
independence.
  I remember June 29 of last year when I was joined by more than 75 
Long Island veterans and high school students and we called upon our 
Federal officials to pass a similar measure. The meaning of the 
American flag could easily be seen in the eyes of these veterans. It is 
in the eyes of our children, who every day look upon our flag as they 
recite the Pledge of Allegiance as they start each and every school 
day.
  There is not a place, a setting, or an event where the American flag 
is flown where its true meaning is not understood. To those in need, 
when they see the Stars and Stripes, they know America has arrived to 
help. To our neighbors around the world, the flag means an ally is not 
far away. Our flag is the symbol of America's compassion, perseverance, 
and values. The American flag is America. It is a part of the tapestry 
that makes America so great.
  Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to, once again, in 
overwhelming numbers, support and pass H.J. Res. 36, the flag 
protection amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for yielding me this time.
  I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 36, which would amend the 
Constitution to allow Congress to pass laws banning the desecration of 
the flag. I find it absolutely abhorrent that anyone would burn our 
flag, and that is why I voted for the Flag Protection Act of 1989, 
which the Supreme Court overturned in a 5-to-4 decision in 1990.
  If I saw someone desecrating the flag, I would do what I could to 
stop them at risk of personal injury or even incarceration. For me, 
that would be a badge of honor.
  But I think this constitutional amendment is an overreaction to a 
nonexistent problem. Keep in mind, the Constitution has been amended 17 
times since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791. This is the same 
Constitution that eventually outlawed slavery, gave blacks and women 
the right to vote, and guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of 
religion.
  Mr. Speaker, amending the Constitution is a very serious matter. I do 
not think we should allow a few obnoxious attention-seekers to push us 
into a corner, especially since no one is burning the flag now, without 
an amendment.
  I agree with Colin Powell, who at the time was Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and is now the Secretary of State. General Powell wrote 
that it was a mistake to amend the Constitution, ``that great shield of 
democracy, to hammer a few miscreants.''
  When I think about the flag, I think about the men and women who died 
defending it and the families they left behind.

                              {time}  1430

  What they were defending was the Constitution of the United States 
and the rights it guarantees, as embodied by the flag.
  I love the flag for all it represents, but I love the Constitution 
even more. The Constitution is not just a symbol, it is the very 
principles on which our Nation was founded. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we have had a very vigorous debate that talks 
about the pros and cons of the flag protection constitutional 
amendment. I believe that all of the arguments that have been sincerely 
placed against this amendment really do not have merit and should be 
ignored, and this amendment should be passed.
  First, we have had the argument that this amendment amends the Bill 
of Rights. It does no such thing. There is no statement in the text of 
the amendment that the first amendment is modified in any way, amended 
in any way, or repealed in any way.
  Secondly, we have heard the argument that this should be protected 
free speech under the Constitution of the United States. But what we 
are talking about here is not speech, we are talking about actions and 
burning or otherwise desecrating the flag of the United States of 
America.
  Nobody is right to express themselves on any issue facing our 
country, on any candidate for office, on the performance or voting 
record of any incumbent officeholder this way. No one is in any way 
diminished by this constitutional amendment. What this constitutional 
amendment does is to give Congress the power to prohibit actions, not 
speech, that desecrates the flag of the United States of America.
  Some also believe that the right to free speech is unlimited as a 
result of the first amendment. That is not the case at all. No one can 
shout ``fire'' in a crowded theater. No one can issue defamatory 
statements, whether verbally or in writing, without being called to 
account. There are limits on free speech, and 80 percent of the 
American people believe that a flag desecration constitutional 
amendment is a limit that we ought to have, not on speech but on 
actions.
  Then we have heard that the Supreme Court of the United States, on a 
five-to-four decision, has said that this is protected political 
expression. We have heard that we should not amend

[[Page 13497]]

the Constitution because we disagree with a Supreme Court decision.
  Our Constitution has been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights 
was ratified in 1791. Three of those 17 amendments overturned Supreme 
Court decisions that two-thirds of the Congress and three-quarters of 
the State legislatures decided were not good law.
  The 11th amendment construing the judicial power of the United States 
overturned such a Supreme Court decision. The 14th amendment granting 
equal protection under the law in the eyes of both the Federal and 
State government overturned the Dred Scott decision. The sixteenth 
amendment, which allowed the Congress to impose an income tax, 
overturned a decision that said that the Federal income tax violated 
the constitutional prohibition on not having proportional allocation of 
taxes among the States.
  So when the Supreme Court is wrong, one of the remedies that the 
Congress and the States have is to amend the Constitution of the United 
States to correct the errors of the Supreme Court.
  Those nine people across the street, in a co-equal branch of 
government, are entitled deference to their decisions, but they are not 
infallible, and they do make mistakes. In the case of both the Johnson 
and the Eichman case, they have made a mistake.
  One of the checks and balances that the Framers of the Constitution 
placed on the judicial branch of government is to authorize the 
Congress and the States to amend the Constitution of the United States. 
This should not be done lightly, and it has not been done lightly.
  But given the fact that the Supreme Court twice has said that any 
statute, Federal or State, proposing criminal penalties for the 
physical desecration of the flag of the United States of America is 
unconstitutional, the only alternative we have as a nation is for us 
today, by a two-thirds vote, to approve this amendment for the other 
body to follow suit and three-quarters of the States to ratify this 
amendment.
  Today we have an opportunity to correct a wrong of the Supreme Court. 
The House should do the right thing, Mr. Speaker, and pass this 
constitutional amendment.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support in 
protecting the sanctity of our Nation's greatest symbol of freedom and 
liberty: the American flag. Regretfully, prior obligations to my 
constituents in St. Louis keep me from being present to debate this 
bill on the floor. I therefore submit this statement for the record.
  In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute that 
provided criminal sanctions for the burning of an American flag. In a 
5-4 decision, the Court provided that the desecration of the flag was 
an act of free expression, a freedom protected under the first 
amendment of our Constitution.
  On behalf of all the men and women who fought and died for this 
nation, for their families, and for all Americans, I join my colleagues 
in supporting H.J. Res. 36, the Flag Protection Constitutional 
Amendment. My support of this amendment is consistent with my votes 
cast in favor of past successful attempts in the House of 
Representatives to protect this American treasure.
  I often meet with the many veterans from my district, those who 
served our Nation courageously in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. To 
them, the flag symbolizes their struggle and triumph, flying as a 
constant reminder of their bravery and our gratitude. I believe the 
desecration of our flag jeopardizes that symbolic value, and undermines 
the courage that we must forever salute.
  I support this amendment not as a Republican or Democrat, but as an 
American. I call on all members, from both sides of the aisle, to join 
together in a bipartisan fashion to support this amendment and keep the 
symbol of our American dream alive.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of our constitution should 
be to establish the structure of government and to protect the 
fundamental rights of citizens. We have amended the constitution only 
17 times since the establishment of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The 
proposed amendment is not a fundamental right or an alteration of the 
structure of government. Abandoning that principle leads us to a 
slippery slope, which potentially cheapens the process of amendments 
and could weaken the constitutional framework.
  I also oppose this amendment because of the same reasons some of my 
friends support it: because I respect the flag of the United States of 
America. I find it abhorrent, distasteful, and sad when it is 
desecrated. Since I've been in Congress, to my knowledge, there has not 
been a single flag burning in my community, and probably in my whole 
state. Certainly no one has brought it to my attention. I will 
guarantee you the second we raise the act of expression of political 
protest by burning the flag to status of a crime, we will have 
explosion of instances where in fact the flag is burned. Perversely, 
the reaction to this amendment would lead to what supporters want to 
avoid, the desecration of the American flag.
  Because its not needed, because it's contrary to the principles of 
the Constitutional action, and because, sadly, it would encourage 
desecration of our flag, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues 
to do likewise.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise today in support of the 
Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the 
flag. I believe our Nation's flag is the centerpiece of our Nation's 
sovereignty and a symbol that separates the United States from other 
nations. It is important to remember the ideals our flag represents--
freedom, democracy, and national pride. And one must also remember the 
men and women, who loved the freedom and liberty the flag represents so 
much, they were willing to risk their lives defending it and the values 
it embodies.
  I am proud to once again to be an original cosponsor of this 
legislation to amend the Constitution to prohibit the desecration of 
the flag--which the brave men and women of our armed forces have 
repeatedly fought to defend. All too often desecration of the flag is 
used as a vehicle to voice differing opinions between American citizens 
and our government. Our brothers, fathers, sisters and mothers fought 
and died for our flag in the name of free speech. I believe the right 
to deface that symbol of freedom is not what they were fighting to 
protect. Let our nation be unified in the fact that there are some 
things too important to defile, too important to sully, and chief among 
them is our flag.
  From the hands of Betsy Ross, through the eyes of Francis Scott Key 
during the bombardment of Fort McHenry, to the raising at Iwo Jima, our 
flag has represented the hopes and beliefs of generations of Americans. 
It symbolizes resolve. It symbolizes freedom. It symbolizes democracy. 
It symbolizes America, and it deserves to be protected.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this Constitutional 
Amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House 
Joint Resolution 36, legislation I have cosponsored to amend the 
Constitution of the United States to authorize Congress to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
  Ol' Glory has served to remind American citizens of our soldiers who 
fought for freedom, liberty, and democracy here on our own shores and 
throughout the world since the Continental Congress adopted the Flag 
Resolution of 1777. The very sight of the American flag flying high has 
the ability to rouse unparalleled pride and patriotism not only in the 
people of the United States of America but in freedom loving people 
throughout the world. Countless men and women have put the good of our 
country ahead of their own lives to protect the sanctity of liberty and 
democracy, which our flag represents. We must never allow ourselves to 
forget that the flag that flies here in this chamber, above this great 
building, and throughout our nation is a reminder of the enduring 
values for which these American service men and women fought and may 
have died.
  Not only does our great flag symbolize the tireless struggle of our 
armed services for democracy both here and abroad, but it also serves 
as a bright beacon of hope to oppressed people throughout the world who 
dream of living under a democratic government as great and as resilient 
as out own. The American flag flies for all Americans, regardless of 
race, creed, or religion. It is a symbol of the American dream, of 
honor, justice, and equality. The flag is a commitment to our children 
and grandchildren that they will have the same freedoms, liberties, and 
opportunities that we have. The Stars and Stripes inspires pride in the 
accomplishments of our noble country, and it should be regarded with 
respect and admiration for the important role it plays in the lives of 
Americans. When the desecration of Ol' Glory is used as a protest, far 
more than a single flag is being violated. The devotion of American 
citizens to our great nation is being battered. Many Americans have 
died defending our flag and what it represents.
  Mr. Speaker, may the American flag forever soar proudly above our 
glorious nation. May it always be a source of courage and inspiration

[[Page 13498]]

for those who carry it into battle, a symbol of hope for the 
downtrodden of foreign lands, and a reminder that we are the land of 
the free only because we are the home of the brave.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint 
Resolution 36--The Flag Protection Constitutional Amendment.
  In doing so, I rise to defend and protect the very symbol of our 
nation's unyielding promise of hope and opportunity.
  I rise to defend the memory of countless Americans, both men and 
women, who sacrificed their lives fighting for their country in time of 
war so that the values and ideals represented by our nation's symbol 
could be protected.
  I rise to defend the integrity and the mission of our men and women 
in the armed forces today, who stand in defense of our Nation's Flag on 
American * * * as well as foreign soil around the world, so that the 
very symbol of their commitment to those American values will not be 
compromised.
  The desecration, destruction and disrespect of our nation's Flag are 
contemptible acts against our nation's principles.
  The protection of our National Symbol from desecration is an 
essential part of preserving our Nation's sense of duty, citizenship 
and allegiance to a community fabric unlike that of any other nation.
  We must protect our Constitution from those seeking to distort it 
while cloaking themselves in a disguise of free speech. The American 
people cry out for us to do so. Forty-nine state legislatures have 
appealed to this Congress to pass a Flag protection constitutional 
amendment.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that this a nation 
that promises more than just life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness. It is a nation that offers as its foundation of principles 
the dignity, respect and self-sacrifice for the ideals upon which it 
was built.
  I urge passage of this resolution because it is the right thing for 
the Flag, and because it is the right thing for the United States of 
America.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the American flag is a visible symbol of 
all the elements that make our nation great. A strong military, a 
system of checks and balances, a government by and for the people. 
Underlying these ideals is the Constuition and the Bill of Rights, 
perhaps the most perfect document yet created by man in pursuit of a 
fair and just government.
  Central to the Constitution are the rights and freedoms delineated in 
the Bill of Rights, which has yet to be amended, although over 200 
years have passed since these tenets were drafted. Every American is 
familiar with the first of these amendments, which states unequivocally 
that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion 
or abridge the freedom of speech.
  As former Commander of the American Legion Keith A. Kreul states, 
``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. American veterans who have protected our banner in 
battle have not done so to protect a ``golden calf.'' Instead, they 
carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents--our 
beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag.''
  The freedom to publicly voice one's dissent of their government is a 
quality that separates our great nation from others. The United States 
of America has a long and proud history of providing this right to its 
citizens, and I do not believe that the voice of freedom should be 
muzzled. The amendment to the Constitution before us today, which would 
allow Congress to prohibit the desecration of our flag, effectively 
says that we are afraid of a very small number of people who choose--
under the rights granted them in the Constitution--to defile this 
cherished symbol.
  While the desecration of our flag generates an almost universal 
reaction of disgust by Americans, we are strong enough as a nation to 
allow individuals to express themselves in this manner, and stronger 
still to resist the urge to stamp out free speech that challenges us.
  There have been only a very small number of incidents of flag burning 
over the course of our history. In fact, between 1777 and 1989, there 
were only 45 reported incidents, and in the years since, fewer than 10 
incidents have been reported annually. This hardly merits the first 
ever change to the Bill of Rights, much less any action that could 
restrict our most coveted freedom.
  This resolution is essentially a solution in search of a problem. I 
oppose this proposed amendment, which diminishes the flag's value by 
taking away from the freedoms that it represents.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, we all love, cherish and respect our flag. 
Our flag is a symbol of our great nation, a symbol of our fundamental 
values of freedom, liberty, justice and opportunity.
  And it is those values we must protect.
  I stand today with Jim Warner, a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner 
of war, who said: ``Rejecting this amendment would not mean that we 
agree with those who burned our flag, or even that they have been 
forgiven. It would, instead, tell the world that freedom of expression 
means freedom, even for those expressions we find repugnant.''
  I stand today with the San Diego Union-Tribune, my hometown paper, 
which has editorialized against ``the drastic step of amending the 
Constitution because of the abhorrent conduct of that lone demonstrator 
and the handful of others who seek attention from time to time by 
burning the flag.''
  Compromising the Bill of Rights, which has stood the test of time, is 
not the action needed to ensure the strength of our nation. We must do 
that through proper education of our children--nurturing their love and 
patriotism of our country--and respect for our flag and national 
symbols.
  We can choose the easy path and simply make a law and outlaw an 
action. Or we can take the difficult and correct path of guiding our 
citizens back to the ideals of our founding fathers. The more difficult 
path puts true meaning back into our respect for the flag.
  I choose the more meaningful path, the one that will guarantee that 
our flag will fly proudly--and our Bill of Rights will continue 
unchanged--for generations to come.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, I rise today to join with the vast majority of 
American citizens who support an amendment to the Constitution to 
protect the Flag of the United States from physical desecration. It was 
just over 12 years ago that the Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-to-4 
decision, ruled that all Federal and State statutes prohibiting the 
physical desecration of the flag were unconstitutional.
  The flag of the United States of America needs to be protected as a 
sign of our freedom. I believe that flag desecration is a slap in the 
face to the millions of American veterans who fought and died to 
protect the flag, and the democracy and liberty for which it 
symbolizes.
  Over the years of our Republic's existence, countless men have 
marched into battle under the banner of Old Glory. Many have died or 
risked their lives to prevent the flag of their unit from falling into 
enemy hands. The number of accounts of heroism to protect the flag in 
the heat of battle are so numerous that they cannot be counted. But let 
me recount just one true tale of such bravery.
  Many of my colleagues have seen the movie, Glory, which tells the 
story of the 54th Massachusetts Colored Infantry--an African American 
unit which fought at Fort Wager, South Carolina, in July 1863. One 
soldier who saw action in this battle was Sergeant William Carney, a 
23-year-old ex-slave. During the action, the color bearer of the 54th 
Massachusetts was wounded. Dropping his weapon, Sergeant Carney picked 
up the flag before it hit the ground. He marched forward with his unit. 
However, in the subsequent engagement, the 54th Massachusetts suffered 
staggering casualties in a frontal assault on a fortified position, and 
his unit was forced to pull back.
  Sergeant Carney, at great risk to his safety, retrieved the flag so 
it would not fall into Confederate hands. Crossing a marsh in waist-
high water, he was shot in the chest, and in his right arm. Yet still 
he held onto the flag. He was then shot in the leg. Still, he clenched 
the flag tightly to his chest, protecting it from harm and capture. 
Another bullet grazed his head. A passing soldier from a different unit 
offered to relieve him, but he refused, saying ``No one but a member of 
the 54th will ever carry these colors.'' Sergeant Carney, bleeding from 
multiple gunshot wounds, returned the flag to his camp, telling his 
comrades, ``Boys, I only did my duty. Our flag never touched the 
ground.''
  William Carney was later awarded the Medal of Honor for his 
extraordinary heroism under enemy fire. He was the first African 
American in American history to earn the nation's highest honor for 
bravery in combat.
  To this very day, military units still field a color guard to honor 
the flag.
  The flag has served, and continues to serve, as a source of 
inspiration, courage, and purpose. I ask my colleagues: how can we 
justify allowing the flag to be blatantly desecrated or burned, when so 
many of our brave soldiers have died, been wounded, or took enormous 
risks to protect the flag from harm? What could we possibly say to 
these persons, now that the Supreme Court has allowed the flag to be 
desecrated? That their sacrifice was in vain? That they were stupid and 
silly to

[[Page 13499]]

have ever taken such risks? That they sweated, ducked bullets, and bled 
to protect the flag from harm so some social miscreant could just trash 
it a few years later?
  How can a symbol continue to be so enduring, and function to inspire 
such deeds of heroism, when we allow it to be desecrated? My 
colleagues, I submit that if we do not take action to protect our flag, 
it will simply become one more element in the ongoing coarsening of our 
society. If we do not respect the flag, it will send a subtle, yet 
powerful, message that nothing is worth respecting. Flag burning is not 
free speech. It is an act of hatred and nihilism. It is not a call for 
reform. It is a disgrace. The right to dissent does not include the 
right to desecrate. To desecrate the flag crosses a line of ugliness.
  I know people the world over who cherish the American flag and the 
hope it has held for people in different crises around the globe. 
Freedom is not free. The cherished freedoms, rights, and liberties we 
all enjoy today were purchased only through the enormous sacrifices of 
the men and women in our military today--veterans, past and present. If 
we allow our flag to be desecrated, and fail to protect it, we dishonor 
their sacrifice and their service.
  Mr. Speaker, the Court was wrong in deciding the Texas v. Johnson 
case. It was wrong one year later when it reaffirmed this position in 
another 5-to-4 decision in United States v. Eichman. The amendment to 
the constitution we are now considering, H. J. Res. 36, will overturn 
both decisions of the Court and grant the Congress the authority to 
enact constitutionally-permitted language to protect the flag.
  The Supreme Court's 5-to-4 rulings on flag burning were most 
unfortunate and an erroneous interpretation of what our forefathers, 
and we as a people, define as free speech. The opponents of this 
amendment have tried to depict this as an infringement on the first 
amendment rights of all Americans. This is simply false.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to no one in my support of the first amendment. 
As Vice Chairman of the International Relations Committee and Co-
Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have continually fought for the 
expansion of these freedoms throughout the world. I have worked for the 
release of countless prisoners of conscience whose only crime has been 
that they wanted to express political or religious ideas that their 
governments opposed.
  I have worked just as hard to insure that these same freedoms--
freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion--
continue to be strongly protected here in the United States.
  However, Mr. Speaker, no right is unlimited.
  There are those who claim that any limitation of the right to free 
speech is an intolerable infringement upon our rights guaranteed to us 
in the Bill of Rights. Upon single examination this proves to be 
totally false.
  In a unanimous 1942 Supreme Court decision, Chaplinsky v. New 
Hampshire, the Court said:

       . . . it is well understood that the right of free speech 
     is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. 
     There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes 
     of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never 
     been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These 
     include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and 
     the insulting or ``fighting'' words--those which by their 
     very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate 
     breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such 
     utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, 
     and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that 
     any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly 
     outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

  Mr. Speaker, there is also an important distinction to be drawn 
between the freedom to express an idea and the freedom to use any 
method to express that idea. While one has a right to express virtually 
any idea in a public forum, the means of expression can be regulated. 
As Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent:

       Presumably a gigantic fireworks display or a parade of nude 
     models in a public park might draw even more attention to a 
     controversial message, but such methods of expression are 
     nevertheless subject to a regulation.

  In his dissent in Texas v. Johnson, Justice Stevens said that the 
Court was wrong in asserting that the flag burner was prosecuted for 
expressing a political idea. Rather, Stevens went on to say, he ``was 
prosecuted because of the method he chose to express his [idea].''
  And again, Justice Stevens stated:

       It is moreover, equally clear that the prohibition [against 
     flag desecration] does not entail any interference with the 
     speaker's freedom to express hie or her ideas by other means.

  As Oliver Wendell Holmes asserted years ago, no one has the right to 
shout fire in a crowded movie theater.
  Mr. Speaker, despite some of the claims made here today, it is 
constitutionally permissible to regulate both the content and the means 
of expression of free speech, provided that it is done only in certain 
very narrow and well-defined circumstances and only if an overriding 
public interest is threatened. Let me emphasize that the circumstances 
must be narrow, well defined and justified in the public interest.
  Mr. Speaker, prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag is both 
a narrow and well-defined restriction. Despite arguments to the 
contrary, it is not the first step toward curtailing political dissent, 
nor is it impossible to define. This argument represents at best a 
gross distortion of the effect of this amendment.
  This leaves only the question of whether the protection of the flag 
serves a purpose worthy of special consideration. On this point, as 
Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I join with the 
overwhelming majority of the American public who say, emphatically, 
yes.
  Since the creation of the American flag, it has stood as a symbol of 
our sacred values and aspirations. Far too many Americans have died in 
combat to see the symbol of what they were fighting for reduced to just 
another object of public derision. Simply put, it is a gross insult to 
every patriotic American to see the symbol of their country publicly 
desecrated. They will not tolerate it, and neither will I.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the Constitution we are considering 
today will restore the flag to its proper position as a symbol of our 
Nation, without restricting the freedom of expression for any of our 
citizens. I would hope that all of my colleagues would join with me in 
support of this amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to have joined with Congressman 
Duke Cunningham in introducing this Constitutional Amendment to 
prohibit the desecration of the American Flag.
  The American Flag is recognized around the world as a symbol of 
freedom, equal opportunity, and religious tolerance.
  Many thousands of Americans fought and suffered and died in ways too 
numerous to list in order to establish and preserve the rights we 
sometimes take for granted, rights which are symbolized by our Flag. It 
is a solemn and sacred symbol of the many sacrifices made by our 
Founding Fathers and our Veterans throughout several wars as they 
fought to establish and protect the founding principles of our great 
Nation.
  Most Americans, Veterans in particular, feel deeply insulted when 
they see our Flag being desecrated. It is in their behalf, in their 
honor and in their memory that we have championed this effort to 
protect and honor this symbol.
  We are a free Nation. No one would disagree that free speech is 
indeed a cherished right and integral part of our Constitution that has 
kept this Nation strong and its Citizens free from tyranny. Burning and 
destruction of the flag is not speech. It is an act. An act that 
inflicts insult--insult that strikes at the very core of who we are as 
Americans and why so many of us fought--and many died--for this 
country.
  There are, in fact, words and acts that we as a free Nation have 
deemed to be outside the scope of the First Amendment--they include 
words and acts that incite violence; slander; libel; and copyright 
infringement. Surely among these, which we have rightly determined 
diminish rather than reinforce our freedom, we can add the burning of 
our Flag--an act that strikes at the very core of our national being.
  No, this is not a debate about free speech. Our flag stands for free 
speech and always will.
  Over 100 years ago some words were written that most of us remember 
reciting in school. They sum up what we vote on today:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

  Let us join today in overwhelmingly passing this amendment to revere, 
preserve and protect our Flag, the symbol of our country, the 
embodiment of our principles, and the emblem of our people.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House 
Joint Resolution 36, the Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag 
desecration.
  Our flag is the strongest symbol of the American character and its 
values. It tells the story of victories won--and battles lost--in 
defending the principles of freedom and democracy.
  These are stories of real men and women who have selflessly served 
this nation in defending that freedom. Any many of them traded their 
lives for it. Gettysburg, San Juan Hill,

[[Page 13500]]

Iwo Jima, Korea, Da Nang, Persian Gulf--our men and women had one 
common bond: the American flag.
  The American flag belongs to them, as it belongs to all of us.
  Supreme Court Justice Paul Stevens reminded us of the significance of 
our flag when he wrote:

       A country's flag is a symbol of more than nationhood and 
     national unity. It also signifies the ideas that characterize 
     the society that has chosen that emblem as well as the 
     special history that has animated the growth and power of 
     those ideas . . . . So it is with the American flag. It is 
     more than a proud symbol of courage, the determination, and 
     the gifts of a nation that transformed 13 fledgling colonies 
     into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal 
     opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for 
     other peoples who share our aspirations.

  Critics of the amendment believe it interferes with freedom of 
speech. I disagree. Americans enjoy more freedoms than any other people 
in the world. They have access to public television. They can write 
letters to the editors to express their beliefs, or call in to radio 
stations. Americans can stand on the steps of the nation's capitol 
building to demonstrate their cause.
  They do not need to desecrate our noble flag to make their statement, 
and I do not believe protecting the flag from desecration deprives 
Americans of the opportunity to speak freely.
  And let us be clear: speech, not desecration, is protected by the 
Constitution. Our Founding Fathers protected free speech and freedom of 
the press because in a democracy, words are used to debate and 
persuade, and to educate. A democracy must protect free and open 
debate, regardless of how disagreeable some might find the views of 
others. Prohibiting flag desecration does not undermine that tradition.
  The proposed amendment would protect the flag from desecration, not 
from burning. As a member of the American Legion, I have supervised the 
disposal of over 7,000 unserviceable flags. But this burning is done 
with ceremony and respect. This is not flag desecration.
  Over 70 percent of the American people want the opportunity to vote 
to protect their flag. Numerous organizations, including the Medal of 
Honor Recipients for the Flag, the American Legion, the American War 
Mothers, the American G.I. Forum, and the African-American Women's 
Clergy Association all support this amendment.
  Forty-nine states have passed resolutions calling for constitutional 
protection for the flag. In the last Congress, the House of 
Representatives overwhelmingly passed this amendment by a vote of 310-
114, and will rightfully pass it again this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.J. Res. 36 
and ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important 
resolution that means so much to so many.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for 
House Joint Resolution 36, which I have cosponsored, and thank my 
colleague, Mr. Cunningham, for his continued effort to protect this 
important symbol of our freedom, the United States flag.
  The vast majority of my constituents in Georgia's Third District have 
contacted me and stated that they share this belief that among the 
countless ways to show dissent, the desecration of the flag should not 
be one of them.
  Opponents of this amendment state that it would reduce our First 
Amendment freedoms. This is simply not so. Rather this amendment would 
serve to restore the protection our flag had been accorded over most of 
our nation's history.
  The American flag represents not only our freedom but serves as a 
constant reminder of the ideals embodied in our Declaration of 
Independence that countless Americans have served to defend, preserve 
and protect over our nation's 225 year history.
  In the Declaration of Independence, the founders acknowledged that we 
are created equal and that we have been endowed by our Creator with 
certain rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  These are the ideals for which countless Americans have fought, bled 
and died and it is these ideals upon which our Constitution is founded. 
It is these ideals which we are elected to preserve. Today, we can 
renew our affirmation of these principles, so clearly stated in the 
Declaration of Independence, by preserving the most visible symbol of 
our Republic.
  Upon three separate occasions, this House has rightfully voted to 
protect our nation's flag. Today, the United States House of 
Representatives will again affirm its commitment to protect this symbol 
of our great nation.
  For the thousands of Americans who have fought and died for their 
country, the flag is more than a piece of cloth.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. 
Res. 36 ``The Flag Protection 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.''
  By writing the First Amendment, our nation's founders made sure that 
the Constitution protected the right of all citizens to object to the 
workings of their government. Freedom of expression is what makes the 
United States of America so strong and great--it is the bedrock of our 
nation and has made our democracy a model for the rest of the world.
  The Supreme Court has twice upheld a citizen's right to burn the flag 
as symbolic speech protected by the Constitution. If this Flag 
Protection Amendment were enacted, it would be the first time in our 
history that the Bill of Rights was amended to limit American's freedom 
of expression.
  Whlie the idea of someone burning or destroying an American flag is 
upsetting, the consequences of taking away that right are far more 
grave. Once we start limiting our citizens' freedom of expression, we 
walk down a dark road inconsistent with our history and our founding 
principles. Our government's toleration of criticism is one of our 
nation's greatest strengths.
  This amendment isn't a matter of patriotism, it is a matter of 
protecting the rights of all of our citizens, particularly the right to 
dissent. Let us uphold our commitment to freedom and democracy. Let us 
uphold our commitment to the principles upon which our nation has 
flourished for over 200 years. Vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to rise today to support 
House Joint Resolution 36. The flag protection Constitutional 
amendment. I also want to extend my appreciation to our veterans and 
the men and women in our armed forces for their service to our nation 
and their vigilance and sacrifice in both times of peace and war.
  The American flag embodies many different things to different people. 
To me, the flag represents the many men and women in our Nation's 
history who have selflessly served and died defending our country and 
its freedoms. Mr. Speaker, it is our obligation as Americans to defend 
this nation, its heritage, and its honor. Our flag embodies the 
struggles, the victories, and the bonds that unite our Nation and its 
people. Today, I will continue to support a Constitutional amendment 
that will honor those men and women who have died in service to our 
country by prohibiting the physical desecration of our national colors.
  Today, we have an opportunity to renew our allegiance to the American 
flag. Together, we stand collectively to honor its glory and its 
vibrant colors that continue to wave through the skies that blanket the 
dreams and hopes of our beloved America. America truly is the land of 
the free and the home of the brave, and I am honored that we can share 
and enjoy the peace and the prosperity of this great nation. Mr. 
Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting House Joint 
Resolution 36.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Flag 
Protection Amendment.
  Why are we here today. The Congress of the United States has already 
acted to pass flag protection legislation. However, a majority of the 
Supreme Court--by the narrowest of margins--has ruled that Congress 
does not possess the authority to legislate in this important area. It 
has twice overturned laws that prohibit flag burning. In both cases, 
the decision has been handed down by a narrow margins of 5 to 4.
  I happen to disagree with the Court. So do such distinguished 
constitutionalists as Justices Stevens and White. They hold that 
burning of the U.S. flag is not an expression protected by the First 
Amendment. Instead, they believe that flag burning is an action, and a 
repugnant one. Therein lies the distinction. Burning a flag is conduct, 
not speech.
  Still, we need to pass this Constitutional amendment today and begin 
the process of ratification. Only then, can Congress honor its 
responsibility to protect this sacred national symbol.
  I believe strongly in this amendment, although I believe it to be an 
issue on which patriotic Americans of good faith can, and do, have 
legitimate differences. Many assert that burning a flag endangers no 
one. Using that standard, one would then assume that we would not see 
the inherent violation of decency of throwing blood on the U.S. 
Capitol,

[[Page 13501]]

painting a swastika on a synagogue, or defacing a national monument. 
These actions also endanger no one. And, yet, laws have been wisely 
enacted to prohibit these actions. How can we not protect our country's 
most treasured symbol from such actions?
  The American flag was created to honor our country. Let us pass this 
Constitutional amendment created to protect the honor of our flag.
  Support this joint resolution. Support the amendment. Protect the 
flag.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, again we are brought together to debate the 
rights of a free people against the honor and meaning of our national 
flag--to debate the necessity of providing legal protection to the most 
honored and recognized symbol of freedom in the world. This is not a 
matter to be approached carelessly, and I appreciate this opportunity 
to reaffirm my faith in the Constitution and the Wisdom of our Nation's 
founders.
  If there is one bright shining star in our Constitutional 
constellation, it is the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. That is 
the amendment that embodies the very essence upon which our democracy 
was founded because it stands for the proposition that anyone in this 
country can stand up and criticize this government and its policies 
without fear of prosecution. But here we are yet again in the 107th 
Congress debating an amendment that would seriously weaken the First 
Amendment and Freedom of expression in this country.
  There are few things that evoke more emotion, passion, pride or 
patriotism than the American flag; I recognize that. But I am forced to 
question the need for a Constitutional amendment to remedy a problem 
that doesn't seem to exist, or provide legal protection to something 
that doesn't seem endangered. As a matter of occurrence, the recorded 
incidence of public flag desecration is extremely rare. While this 
explanation, on its face, is not sufficient to oppose to this 
amendment, it illustrates an inherent respect for the flag and a 
recognition of what it means to American history and the individuals 
who gave their life in protection of the freedoms and way of life we 
cherish everyday. To attempt to enforce this understanding through 
legal means serves to undermine this self-realization and only 
encourage the proliferation of such acts because of the attention some 
people crave.
  Now I want to be clear. I am going to oppose this amendment, not 
because I condone or I do not feel repulsed by the senseless act of 
disrespect that is shown from time to time against one of the most 
cherished symbols of our country, the American flag. But because I 
recognize that our constitution can be a pesky document sometimes. It 
challenges us, and it reminds us that this democracy of ours requires a 
lot of hard work. It was never meant to be easy. Our democracy, rather, 
is all about advanced citizenship. It is about the rights and liberties 
embodied in the Constitution that will put up a fight against what we 
believe and value most in our lives. We have to recognize that free 
speech means exactly that, free speech. It is the right of anyone in 
this nation to peaceably express his or her beliefs about the 
government directly to the government without fear of tyrannical 
retaliation. As stated by Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war 
James H. Warner on this matter, ``rejecting this amendment would . . . 
tell the world that freedom of expression means freedom, even for those 
expressions we find repugnant.''
  This protection of freedom is what advanced citizenship is about. 
This is the challenge of the Constitution, and yes, the Supreme Court 
has ruled on numerous occasions that the repulsive disrespect and the 
idiotic act of desecrating the American flag is freedom of expression 
protected under the First Amendment. As former Supreme Court Justice 
Jackson said in the Barnette decision, and I quote: ``Freedom to differ 
cannot just be limited to those things that do not matter much. That 
would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the 
right to differ as to things that touch the very heart of the existing 
order.''
  On this matter, I also agree with the statements of former General 
and current Secretary of State Colin Powell. When asked for his views 
on the amendment before us, Secretary Powell stated, ``. . . the First 
Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression 
applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that 
which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of 
democracy to hammer a few miscreants. This flag will be flying proudly 
long after they have slunk away. . . .''
  In another opinion I urge my colleagues to hear, former Senator, and 
American hero, John Glenn stated in his opposition to this amendment 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 106th Congress, ``That 
commitment to freedom is encapsulated and encoded in our Bill of 
Rights, perhaps the most envied and imitated document anywhere in this 
world. The Bill of Rights is what makes our country unique. It is what 
has made us a shining beacon of hope, liberty, of inspiration to 
oppressed peoples around the world for over 200 years . . .''
  We must cherish the history and meaning of bill of rights and realize 
the impact of our actions here today. Are a few acts of senseless 
desecration the motivation for passing this amendment to the 
Constitution? There are other ways of dealing with content neutral 
acts. If someone steals my flag, they can be prosecuted for theft and 
trespassing. If they steal my flag and burn it, they can be prosecuted 
for theft, trespass, and criminal damage to property. If they burn it 
on a crowded subway station, they can also be prosecuted for inciting a 
riot, reckless endangerment, criminal damage to property and theft. 
There are other ways that this type of conduct can be prosecuted, but 
if someone buys a flag, goes down in their basement and, because they 
do not like the government, decides to desecrate it or burn it, are we 
going to obtain search warrants and arrest warrants to go in and arrest 
that person and prosecute them? We do not need to do that.
  Make no doubt about it, this amendment will do nothing less than 
amend the First Amendment of the Bill of rights for the first time in 
our Nation's history. And it sets a precedent that the fundamental 
protections afforded to the American people, the freedoms that portray 
what America is, do not really protect all that is claimed. It is for 
these reasons that I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment 
and not change 212 years of history in this country.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, America is the land of the free, home of the 
brave. But the liberty we enjoy did not come without a price. Many 
Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice so that we may live in peace 
and freedom. They died nobly for us. Now it is our responsibility as 
Americans to live nobly in their memory.
  One of the first and foremost ways we can honor our fallen heroes is 
to protect the American flag. The brave men and women who died for the 
fight of freedom deserve to be honored by the flying of the stars and 
stripes. Our flag represents the freedoms we enjoy, the spirit of 
democracy, and the sacrifices of all those who have worked to make this 
nation what it is today. I am honored to support this measure that 
protects the great symbol of the United States of America.
  Our nation's veterans, active duty and reserve forces draw their 
strength not from America's great material wealth. Rather, these 
individuals draw their strength from the belief that there are some 
causes that are worth dying for, a conviction rooted in principle and 
represented by our flag. The patriots that have fought for our freedoms 
knew in their hearts that their cause was righteous, that making the 
ultimate sacrifice for freedom, liberty, and justice was worth the 
risk.
  Thus, we as a Congress have the opportunity to do what is right. We 
have a responsibility to honor the memory of those who have died for 
our freedom and to say to those who live, ``we will not let your 
sacrifice be in vain.'' The American flag and the principles for which 
it flies are deserving of honor and protection. Today we need to pass 
this legislation and send a clear message that we will not tolerate 
desecration of the American flag.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H. J. Res. 36, 
which calls for a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to heed 
the overwhelming majority of our constituents and protect our nation's 
flag.
  Old Glory is not just another piece of cloth--nor is it a political 
tool for one side or another to use in debate. Our flag is the most 
visible symbol of the nation, a unifying force in times of peace and 
war. Americans from both sides of the political spectrum back the 
action we are taking today in sending this issue to the states. Since 
the Supreme Court invalidated state flag protection laws in 1989, 49 
state legislatures have passed resolutions petitioning Congress to 
propose this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Findlay, Ohio, is known as Flag City USA. 
Main Street and other major downtown thoroughfares are lined with flags 
in a patriotic salute to our great nation. Arlington, Ohio, which I am 
also privileged to represent, enjoys the designation Flag Village USA. 
The messages I receive from Findlay, Arlington, and throughout the 
Fourth Ohio District are clear: the American people favor the 
protection of Old Glory by staggering margins.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Duke Cunningham's joint 
resolution, and recognize him for his longstanding, unwavering 
leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support their 
constituents and vote in favor of sending this amendment to the states.

[[Page 13502]]


  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this resolution.
  I am not in support of burning the flag. But I am even more opposed 
to weakening the first amendment, one of the most important things for 
which the flag itself stands.
  As the Denver Post put it just last month,

       The American flag represents freedom. Many men and women 
     fought and died for this country and its constitutional 
     freedoms under the flag. They didn't give their lives for the 
     flag; they died for this country and the freedom it 
     guarantees under the Bill of Rights. Those who choose to 
     desecrate the flag can't take away its meaning. In fact, it 
     is our constitutional freedoms that allow them their 
     reprehensible activity.

  I completely agree. So, like Secretary of State Colin Powell, former 
Senator John Glenn, and others who have testified against it, I will 
oppose this resolution.
  For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching the Denver Post's 
editorial on this subject:

                       Flag Amendment Should Die

       Monday, June 25, 2001.--Although a proposed constitutional 
     amendment to ban desecration of the American flag continues 
     to lose steam, it nonetheless is once again being considered 
     in the U.S. House.
       The amendment, one of the most contentious free speech 
     issues before Congress, would allow penalties to be imposed 
     on individuals or groups who burn or otherwise desecrate the 
     flag.
       In past years, the amendment has succeeded in passing the 
     House only to be killed, righteously, on the Senate floor.
       The American flag represents freedom. Many men and women 
     fought and died for this country and its constitutional 
     freedoms under the flag. They didn't give their lives for the 
     flag; they died for this country and the freedom it 
     guarantees under the Bill of Rights. Those who choose to 
     desecrate the flag can't take away its meaning. In fact, it 
     is our constitutional freedoms that allow them their 
     reprehensible activity.
       American war heroes like Secretary of State Colin Powell 
     and former Sen. John Glenn strongly oppose this amendment. 
     Glenn has warned that ``it would be a hollow victory indeed 
     if we preserved the symbol of freedoms by chopping away at 
     those fundamental freedoms themselves.''
       In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that desecration 
     of the flag should be protected as free speech.
       Actual desecration of the flag is, in fact, a rare 
     occurrence and hardly a threat. There have been only a 
     handful of flag-burnings in the last decade. It's not a 
     national problem. What separates our country from 
     authoritarian regimes is the guarantee of freed speech and 
     expression. It would lessen the meaning of those protections 
     to amend our Constitution in this way.
       The amendment is scheduled to go before the House this 
     week, although if it passes it would still have to face a 
     much tougher audience in the Senate. The good news is that 
     House support of the amendment has been shrinking in recent 
     years. It is possible that if that trend continues, the 
     amendment could not only die this year but fail to return in 
     subsequent years. We urge House lawmakers to let this issue 
     go.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment to 
empower Congress to enact legislation to protect Old Glory from 
desecration.
  This is not an issue about what people can say about the flag, the 
United States, or its leaders. Those rights are fully protected. The 
issue here is that the flag, as a symbol of our Nation, is so revered 
that Congress has a right and an obligation, to prohibit its willful 
and purposeful desecration. It is the conduct that is the focus.
  I have seen our flag on a distant battlefield. I understand what it 
represents . . . the physical embodiment of everything that is great 
and good about our Nation. It represents the freedom of our people, the 
courage of those who have defended it, and the resolve of our people to 
protect our freedoms from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
  It is no coincidence that when foreigners wish to criticize America, 
they burn the American flag. I am sure we all remember the searing 
images of the flag of our Embassy in Iran which was torn from its pole 
and burned on the street. They burned the flag because it is not just 
some piece of cotton or nylon with pretty colors. Old Glory is the 
embodiment of all that is America . . . the freedoms of the 
Constitution, the pride of her citizens, and the honor of her soldiers, 
not all of whom made it home.
  Across the river from here is a memorial to the valiant efforts of 
our soldiers to raise the flag at Iwo Jima. It was not just a piece of 
cloth that rose on that day over 50 years ago. It was the physical 
embodiment of all we, as Americans, treasure . . . the triumph of 
liberty over totalitarianism; the duty to pass the torch of liberty to 
our children undimmed.
  The flag is a symbol worth defending. I urge the adoption of the flag 
protection amendment.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 36, 
which would give the Congress the power to prevent the desecration of 
our Nation's flag.
  The American flag is a national treasure and our Nation's ultimate 
symbol of freedom. The American flag represents all that unites us as 
one nation under God. It is a constant reminder of the ideals we 
share--patriotism, loyalty, love of country. Because of its 
significance, we should seek to provide the flag some measure of 
protection.
  The measure we are considering today includes a simple phrase: 
``Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of 
the flag of the United States.'' This clear and concise statement will 
return to the American people a right and responsibility which the 
Supreme Court took away a little more than a decade ago. It will 
empower Congress to restore legal protection for the flag that existed 
under Federal law and the laws of 48 States prior to the Court's 
ruling.
  Millions of Americans have fought and died in defense of the United 
States and the flag which represents our Nation. Allowing persons the 
legal protection to desecrate the flag dishonors our Nation's veterans 
who served defending our way of life. Many of the nearly 150,000 
veterans which live in the five counties which make up my district have 
expressed their strong support for this measure.
  I support this resolution for many reasons, including the fact that I 
want to make sure that we honor the sacrifice of veterans. I want our 
young people to know that with liberty comes civic responsibility. I 
want to restore a sense of pride in our Nation and its rich history. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage at a 
deplorable and despicable act which disgraces the honor of our 
country--the burning of the U.S. flag. Behind the Speaker hangs our 
flag. It is the most beautiful of all flags, with colors of red, white, 
and blue, carrying on its face the great heraldic story of 50 States 
descended from the original 13 colonies. I love it. I revere it. And I 
have proudly served it in war and peace.
  However, today I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 36, the flag 
amendment, which for the first time in over 200 years would amend our 
Bill of Rights.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout our history, millions of Americans have 
served under this flag during wartime; some have sacrificed their lives 
for what this flag stands for: our unity, our freedom, our tradition, 
and the glory of our country. I have proudly served under our glorious 
flag in the Army of the United States during wartime, as a private 
citizen, and as an elected public official. And like many of my 
colleagues, I treasure this flag and fully share the deep emotions it 
invokes.
  But while our flag may symbolize all that is great about our country, 
I swore an oath to uphold the great document which defines our country, 
the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is not as 
visible as is our wonderful flag, and oftentimes we forget the glory 
and majesty of this magnificent document--our most fundamental law and 
rule of order. This document defines our rights, liberties and the 
structure of our government. Written in a few short weeks and months in 
1787, it created a more perfect framework for government and unity, and 
defined the rights of the people in this great republic.
  The principles spelled out in this document define how an American is 
different from a citizen of any other nation in the world. And it is 
because of my firm belief in these principles--the same principles I 
swore an oat to uphold--that I must oppose this amendment. If this 
amendment is adopted, it will be the first time in the entire history 
of the United States that we have cut back on our liberties as 
Americans as defined in the Bill of Rights.
  Prior to the time the Supreme Court spoke on this matter, and defined 
acts of physical desecration to the flag under certain conditions as 
acts of free speech protected by the Constitution, I would have happily 
supported legislation which would protect the flag. While I have 
reservations about the propriety of these decisions, the Supreme Court 
is, under our great Constitution, empowered to define Constitutional 
rights and assure the protection of all the rights of free citizens in 
the United States.
  Today, we are forced to make a difficult decision. There is 
regrettably enormous political pressure for us to constrain rights set 
forth in the Constitution to protect the symbol of this nation. This 
vote is not a litmus test of one's patriotism. What we are choosing 
today is between the symbol of our country and the soul of our country.
  When I vote today, I will vote to support and defend the Constitution 
in all its majesty and glory, recognizing that to defile or dishonor 
the

[[Page 13503]]

flag is a great wrong; but recognizing that the defense of the 
Constitution, and the rights guaranteed under it, is the ultimate 
responsibility of every American.
  I urge my colleagues to honor our flag by honoring a greater treasure 
to Americans, our Constitution. Vote down this bill.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, it unifies our soldiers in the midst of 
battle and provides the direction and morale they need to protect our 
freedom. It unifies our citizens in times of trouble and gives us 
reason to reflect on and celebrate our freedom. It is our American flag 
and for these reasons and more it is a symbol--perhaps the ultimate 
symbol--of our freedom.
  That freedom has not come easily and has not always grown peacefully, 
but throughout 200 years of history, our flag has always held the value 
and meaning of the United States and continues to command respect and 
admiration around the world.
  Freedom is America's greatest and most recognized attribute. It is 
symbolized by our flag and evident in the way our flag is treated and 
handled. If we afford our flag our deepest respect, we are cherishing 
our freedom and praising our nation. When we fail to recognize the 
significance of our flag, we will fail to recognize the significance 
not only of our freedom, but also of the potential for freedom around 
the world.
  Let us recognize the thoughtful objections of our opponents and their 
concern for such an amendment offending the first amendment freedoms. 
We note that protecting the flag--the symbol of our country--truly 
protects and respects all our freedoms.
  We can not take our freedom for granted. We must teach our children 
and our future leaders the importance of our freedom and the American 
flag. Millions of soldiers have fought for our flag and for all that it 
symbolizes. Many of them have died and many more have been injured. We 
can not forget that their courage and sacrifice was not only to 
guarantee their freedom, but also to guarantee our freedom. 
Furthermore, they did not fight so that we could allow the flag to lose 
its symbolic importance and deserving respect--the opposite, in fact. 
They fought to strengthen the value that America holds and that the 
flag represents.
  Some nations have a unifying symbol that originates from their 
royalty such as a crown or scepter. Other nations have a unifying 
symbol such as a crest, cross, or other religious symbol. The United 
States' unifying symbol is her flag, and that originates from nowhere 
but our unending desire to uphold our freedom and to spread freedom to 
all peoples in all nations. From Fort McHenry to Iwo Jima, from Hawaii 
to Maine, from the Earth to the Moon and beyond the bounds of our solar 
system, this flag has always stood and continues to stand as our 
strongest unifying symbol--a symbol of history's greatest and freest 
nation.
  It is time for the value we hold in the American flag to be reflected 
in our laws. By doing so, we are formally addressing the significance 
of the flag and the significance of denigrating our flag. Even more 
importantly, we are formally addressing the significance of freedom.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our 
American flag, and as a proud original cosponsor of House Joint 
Resolution 36 to prohibit the physical desecration of our most 
cherished national symbol.
  The American flag is probably the most recognizable symbol in the 
world. Wherever it flies, it represents freedom. Millions of Americans 
who served our nation in war have carried our flag into battle. They 
have been killed or injured just for wearing it on their uniform, 
because our flag represents freedom and liberty, the most feared powers 
known to tyranny. Where there is liberty, there is hope. And hope 
extinguishes the darkness of hatred, fear and oppression.
  America is not a perfect nation. But to the world, our flag 
represents that which is right in our nation. To Americans, it 
represents what Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes referred to as our 
``National unity, our national endeavor, our national aspiration.'' It 
is a remembrance of past struggles in which we have persevered to 
remain as one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice 
for all. Those who would desecrate our flag and all it represents show 
no respect for the brave men and women for whom the ideals and honor of 
this nation were dearer than life.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will not make individuals who desecrate our 
flag love our nation or those who sacrificed to secure the freedoms we 
have today. But, by protecting our flag, we will give Americans a 
unified voice for decrying these reprehensive acts.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Housing Joint 
Resolution 36, which would allow Congress to take action to protect the 
American flag from desecration.
  In fact, one of my very first acts upon being sworn in just last 
month was to cosponsor this important resolution. Some very respected 
people have called the flag a mere piece of cloth. But, I have spoken 
to many of the men and women who fought and had comrades die for that 
piece of cloth and all that it symbolizes. To those patriots, it is 
much more than just another piece of cloth.
  A quick review of America's history of jurisprudence indicates that 
our nation has a long tradition of protecting the flag. It was not 
until recently, in 1989, that a closely divided Supreme Court 
reinterpreted our Constitution to allow for the physical desecration of 
the flag. Congress has tried to restore the interpretation that gave 
some protection to the flag. But it is only through a Constitutional 
amendment that we will be able to do so without fear that the courts 
will again erase our good work.
  It is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that this is simply a first 
step on a long road that we take today to protect the flag. Even once 
the Congress passes this resolution and it is ratified by the states, 
this language only gives Congress the authority to pass a law to 
protect the flag. That will be the appropriate time to debate the 
specifics of how we will protect the flag. Items such as what 
constitutes desecration and how do we prosecute the offenders will be 
better discussed then. Today, we merely seek to give Congress the 
authority to have that debate.
  So, I urge my colleagues to stand with the men and women who have 
patriotically served their country under the American flag and to 
support this resolution. If for no other reason, we should protect the 
flag out of respect for those individuals who sacrificed so much so 
that we might even have this debate today. But, we should also do so 
out of our own sense of patriotism and pride.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, as a proud American, World War II Veteran, 
and as a Member of Congress; I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 36, 
the Flag Protection Amendment of which I am a cosponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, Texas v. Johnson, and its progeny decided by the United 
States Supreme Court in 5-4 decisions holds that it is permissible 
under the 1st Amendment to burn or desecrate our Flag, the symbol of 
our great nation. That is outrageous. Those cases present clear 
examples and beg for a Constitutional Amendment to preserve the honor 
and integrity of ``Old Glory.'' Let it be known by Constitutional 
Amendment that those who seek to desecrate or burn the American Flag 
will be required to suffer the consequences.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 106th Congress, a resolution to propose an anti-
desecration amendment to the United States Constitution passed in the 
House by a vote of 305 to 124. Regrettably our colleagues in the Senate 
failed to achieve the required \2/3\ votes necessary to sustain the 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, ``Old Glory,'' is more than a symbol of our great 
nation. It is the foundation of our great nation! Our flag, atop masts 
throughout our Nation and throughout the world is a beacon of liberty, 
freedom and democracy. It adorns the uniforms of our dedicated men and 
women of the Armed Services, we honor our flag by saluting it at sports 
events, we ``pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of 
America . . .,'' we fly it at half-mast to show our respect for our 
fallen great Americans, and it adorns their caskets as well. We vividly 
recall a young John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr., saluting his slain father, 
President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, as the flag draped caisson made its 
way to Arlington National Cemetery, or our flag being placed on the 
moon, or atop the highest peaks in the world, that were conquered by 
proud Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, to say that the desecration of our flag is protected by 
the First Amendment is to forget that freedom of expression is not 
absolute. As Chief Justice Rehnquist stated in his eloquent and 
patriotic dissent in Texas v. Johnson, which I urge my colleagues and 
all Americans to read, and which I will enter into the Congressional 
Record, there are the categories of the lewd and obscene, the profane, 
the libelous, and the ``fighting words''--those words which their very 
utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the 
peace, that do not enjoy 1st Amendment protection. Just as one cannot 
yell `fire' in a crowded theater, and claim immunity under the First 
Amendment's freedom of speech; one must never be able to desecrate our 
flag and claim immunity under the First Amendment!
  Mr. Speaker, during World War II, when those courageous Marines 
placed our flag atop a makeshift flag pole atop Mt. Suribachi, Iwo 
Jima, at the cost of more than 6,000 lives of our brave Marines, 
President Roosevelt, in saluting their courage, stated, ``when uncommon 
valor was a common virtue.'' I urge that

[[Page 13504]]

all those who believe that the American Flag can be desecrated in the 
name of the First Amendment go and walk through the hallowed grounds in 
Arlington, Virginia, where the Iwo Jima Memorial is situated honoring 
those brave Marines on that day. To see our flag flying in the breeze 
makes us all proud to be Americans!
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to fully support H.J. Res. 36, 
protecting the honor and integrity of our flag.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for this 
proposed Constitutional Amendment.
  Our founding fathers' war-time soliloquies championed freedom in 
opposition to tyranny and oppression. However, in deciding to revolt 
and in establishing a government based on liberal beliefs, the founding 
fathers were aware of the dangerous tendencies of excessive liberty--
including freedom of expression. On numerous occasions the Supreme 
Court has maintained that certain forms of speech are not protected--
that freedom and liberty are not license.
  Those who desecrate the flag often claim they do so for at least one 
of two reasons. First, they are advocating the destruction of 
government. This argument makes it very easy to support the proposed 
amendment, and the Supreme Court has held that this is not protected 
speech.
  Second, perpetrators of this act claim to be supporting ideals of 
America's past that have disappeared. This claim is also an invalid 
justification. The flag not only represents the current state of 
America, but it also represents the past. It is America in its 
totality. It is a symbol of the collective expression of all our 
policies, the wars we have fought and the justification for so many 
honorable deaths. These deaths were in defense of many ideals, one of 
which is not unrestricted freedom of speech. What the flag stands for 
cannot be divided in parts at one's convenience and used to protest 
something pertaining to one or even several areas of our society. It is 
an expression of the whole. When a flag is destroyed, the perpetrator 
destroys all the ideals the flag represents.
  This Congress has the power to set a new precedent. There is 
substantial public support for this initiative. The Greek philosopher 
Plato wrote in his famous work Republic, ``Extreme freedom can't be 
expected to lead to anything but a change to extreme slavery, whether 
for a private individual or for a city.'' I believe that respect for 
our national symbol is a minimal restriction on excessive political and 
artistic expression in our nation. I urge my colleagues to support this 
Constitutional Amendment.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to request the support of this 
body for the passage of H.J. Res. 36--the Flag Protection Amendment. 
This legislation will clarify once and for all that the language of 
Title 4 United States Code, section 8, ``No disrespect should be shown 
to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be 
dipped to any person or thing'' is the law of the land, as well as the 
sentiment of most Americans.
  Some opponents of this legislation say that we cannot infringe on the 
First Amendment and the right to free speech. Others argue that the 
wording of the First Amendment is sacred, and we must not adjust the 
Bill of Rights to include this protection. But, I ask you to take a 
moment and think about the Founding Fathers. How could they have known 
that one day this would be in question? How could they have imagined 
that the flag of the country they pledged their lives, fortunes and 
sacred honor to bring into being would be burned as an act of 
``speech'' by people who enjoy the protections of the Nation they 
sacrificed so much to build? There is no evidence they thought 
desecrating the flag would be speech, protected by the First Amendment. 
They would have known, and we must recognize, that destroying the flag 
is an action, not speech.
  Mr. Justice White in the 1974 Supreme Court case of Smith v. Goguen 
said, ``There would seem to be little question about the power of 
Congress to forbid the mutilation of the Lincoln Memorial or to prevent 
overlaying it with words or other objects. The flag is itself a 
monument, subject to similar protection.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to have many veterans residing in my 
district. While thinking of what I was to say to you today, my thoughts 
turned to them. We are a nation standing strong today because those 
heroes kept our flag flying in spite of the hardship and sacrifice of 
war. The flag gave them strength when they were far from home. Our 
history is full of testimony that the image that kept our troops moving 
forward and prisoners enduring their captivity was the red, the white, 
and the blue. Surely the flag is as much a monument to their sacrifice 
as any tablet of stone or plaque of bronze; and should it not, then, as 
Justice White suggested receive the same protection as other monuments?
  By adding this amendment to the Constitution, we are not taking away 
the freedoms that our flag symbolizes, rather we are protecting our 
most compelling monument to those who died--and lived--to make those 
freedoms possible. I urge you to vote ``yes'' to H.J. Res. 36.
  Mr. KERNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as we consider an important 
piece of legislation to protect the symbol of freedom known around the 
world--the United States flag. Our American flag is more than just 
fabric and stitching. It represents the sacrifices made by generations 
of Americans to ensure the liberties that we enjoy each day. The 
fundamental principles of freedom, opportunity, and faith are woven 
into old glory. On porches and main streets throughout Indiana and our 
great nation, Americans display the stars and stripes as a symbol of 
their patriotic pride for our country. From the revolutionary war to 
modern times, the United States flag has been and continues to serve as 
the primary symbol of freedom and justice in the world. As a national 
treasure, I believe that our flag deserves our highest respect. For 
this reason, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to protect 
the great symbol of freedom--the United States flag.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this amendment.
  Just as everyone here today, I view the American flag with a special 
reverence, and I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse 
this precious national symbol.
  When I was in school, not only did we pledge allegiance to the flag 
every morning, but we were also honored to be selected to raise or 
lower the flag in front of my school.
  Each one of us took on this task with the utmost seriousness and 
respect.
  I believe that we should still be teaching young people to respect 
the flag and what it represents.
  Our Constitution is the document that provides the basis for our 
great country. For two centuries and a decade, the Constitution--the 
greatest invention of humans--has allowed our diverse people to live 
together, to balance our various interests, and to thrive.
  It has provided each citizen with broad, basic rights.
  It doesn't fly majestically in front of government buildings. We do 
not pledge allegiance to it each day. Yet, it is the source of our 
freedom.
  It tells us that we are free to assemble peacefully. We are free to 
petition our government; we are free to worship without interference; 
free from unlawful search and seizure; and free to choose our leaders. 
It secures the right and means of voting.
  It is these freedoms that define what it is to be an American.
  In its more than 200 years, the Constitution has been amended only 27 
times. With the exception of the Eighteenth Amendment, which was later 
repealed, these amendments have reaffirmed and expanded individual 
freedoms and the specific mechanisms that allow our self-government to 
function.
  This Resolution before us today would not perfect the operation of 
our self-government. It would not expand our citizen's rights.
  Proponents of this constitutional amendment argue that we need to 
respect our flag.
  I believe that the vast majority of Americans already respect our 
flag.
  The issue before us is whether our Constitution should be amended so 
that the Federal Government can prosecute the handful of Americans who 
show contempt for the flag.
  To quote James Madison, is this a ``great and extraordinary 
occasion'' justifying the use of a constitutional amendment?
  The answer is no; this is not such an occasion.
  I oppose this amendment because I believe that while attempting to 
preserve the symbol of the freedoms we enjoy in this country, it 
actually would harm the substance of these freedoms.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I do not approve of people burning the U.S. 
flag. The flag serves as a proud symbol of our country, denoting truth, 
freedom and democracy. But as offensive as flag desecration is, I do 
not believe we can protect the flag by weakening the constitution.
  One of this country's most cherished principles is that of free 
speech as found in the First Amendment. As Justice Oliver Wendell 
Holmes once wrote, ``The Constitution protects not only freedom for the 
thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought we 
hate, the conduct and action we seriously dislike.''
  Should this amendment be approved, it could open a Pandora's box 
prohibiting other activities. Who is to say restrictions won't be 
placed on desecrating religious symbols or texts, or even the 
Constitution and Declaration

[[Page 13505]]

of Independence? The possibilities are limitless and all would stand in 
opposition to what the founding fathers intended by giving citizens the 
right of freedom of speech.
  Mr. Speaker, I would never condone burning the American flag. But 
carving out exceptions to the First Amendment is a slippery slope we 
should not venture down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). All time for general debate has 
expired.


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

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       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 189, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  Is the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) opposed to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) will be recognized in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), outside of the debate on this 
amendment, to speak on general debate.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and classmate, 
the gentleman from North Carolina, for yielding time to me.
  Like our system goes here in Congress, I have a markup going on in 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce on the energy bill, and have been 
running back and forth. I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman, my 
colleague, in yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and as a proud 
cosponsor of the original resolution to protect one of our Nation's 
most sacred and beloved symbols, our flag, from desecration.
  This is the fourth consecutive Congress that we have taken up this 
resolution. I hope this time our colleagues in the Senate will join us 
in passing this amendment and sending it on to the States for 
ratification.
  Our flag is a symbol of the men and women who have fought and died 
for our country. Their sacrifice is represented by that flag. To 
millions of Americans, the flag is more than just colored dye and 
cotton, it is the physical manifestation of our pride, our honor, and 
our dignity both here and around the world.
  To see it stomped, burned, or otherwise desecrated is an affront to 
ordinary hardworking Americans. We cannot do anything about someone 
doing it in other parts of the world, but we can do something about it 
in our own country.
  To those who argue that this sacred symbol is just a piece of cloth, 
I challenge them to remember some of the ways our flag is used: leading 
our athletes during opening ceremonies for the Olympics, flying at half 
staff to mark national tragedies, and covering the remains of our brave 
soldiers and service personnel who have given their lives for our 
country.
  When the flag is desecrated, so, too, are the moments in these 
memories. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this 
resolution.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying proposed constitutional amendment that is 
the subject of this debate, and which has been the subject of general 
debate for now almost 2 hours, reads: ``The Congress shall have power 
to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States.''
  The proposed amendment in the nature of a substitute, which I am 
offering to the underlying proposed constitutional amendment, reads: 
``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.''
  We should be clear that many people think that the desecration, the 
burning of a flag, is a part of an expression against the United 
States, against some action of the United States, and is a protected 
means of speech. The Supreme Court has so held, and if the Supreme 
Court did not hold such, I think that we would be in a position where 
we could selectively decide who could burn a flag and who could not 
burn a flag based on whether we agreed with the expression that they 
were intending to make or whether we disagreed with the expression they 
intended to make.
  As we will hear, I am sure, from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), who has studied this issue at some length, there are many, many 
occasions, and many of us in this House have been invited to occasions 
where the United States flag is burned. It is part of the ritual for 
doing away with a flag in a graceful way. That is an expression of our 
respect for the flag, because we have a designated way to dispose of 
the flag.
  On the other hand, when people rise and make a statement against the 
United States government, many of them, some of them, have chosen to 
make that expression against the United States by burning the flag.
  So when we talk about desecration of a flag or burning of a flag, one 
means of burning the flag would be protected when we agreed or the 
majority agreed with the expression that was being made.
  The other means, when we disagreed with the expression that the 
protester or person who was making a statement against the United 
States was making, then we would, in effect, be stopping that person 
from exercising their freedom of speech.
  The problem comes that if we put the proposed constitutional 
amendment in our Constitution as it is written, the Supreme Court is 
going to come to a very serious fork in the road. One amendment would 
say that we prohibit the physical desecration of the flag, and the 
Supreme Court has already held that in some cases that is 
constitutionally protected free speech. The first amendment will still 
be on the books, so the Supreme Court will have to decide which one of 
these constitutional amendments, the first amendment or this proposed 
constitutional amendment which we are debating, will it give precedence 
to.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute resolves that dispute. It 
basically says that if one can do away with or if Congress can pass a 
law that prohibits the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States in such a way that it does not impinge, does not discriminate 
against people who are expressing their views, then it can do so. But 
if the Congress passes a law which does impinge on the freedom of 
expression, then it should be clear that the first amendment to the 
Constitution, which has served this Nation well for low so many years, 
should be the controlling amendment to the Constitution.

                              {time}  1445

  And so it is in that context that we offer this substitute.
  I wanted to give this opening statement so that everybody would 
understand that we are trying to resolve a potential dispute between 
two potentially conflicting provisions in the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, having kind of framed the issue in that way, I reserve 
the balance of my time.

[[Page 13506]]


  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). And so that 
the membership is clear what the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt) is trying to do, I would like to read his proposed constitutional 
amendment: ``Not inconsistent with the first article of amendment to 
this constitution, the Congress shall have the power to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag of the United States.''
  Now, the only difference between the substitute of the gentleman from 
North Carolina and House Joint Resolution 36 is the phrase ``not 
inconsistent with the first article of amendment to this 
constitution.'' What the substitute does is to punt this issue right 
back to the Supreme Court of the United States, because the Court 
twice, in a 5 to 4 decision in the Johnson and Eichman cases, allowed 
flag desecration based on first amendment grounds.
  This is kind of a not-so-subtle way of saying that the Supreme Court 
was right, because if we send this whole issue back to the Supreme 
Court, they will use the precedent that they established in 1989 and 
1990 as controlling and allow flag desecration to go on. But I think 
there is a greater issue involved than just the issue of whether or not 
the Constitution should be amended to prohibit flag desecration, and 
that is whether or not this House of Representatives should go along 
with unraveling the elaborate system of checks and balances put into 
our Constitution by the framers in order to prevent one branch of 
government from becoming too powerful.
  As I said during the general debate, Mr. Speaker, the amendment 
procedure for the Constitution of the United States was, in part, 
designed to prevent the courts from becoming too powerful. Three of the 
17 amendments that were proposed following the Bill of Rights, and 
ratified by the States, overturned court decisions that were determined 
not to be good law by the Congress and by three-quarters of the State 
legislatures.
  Now, if the gentleman from North Carolina and the supporters of his 
amendment want to toss this matter back to the courts, then just defeat 
the amendment that we are debating today. Because that will mean that 
the court decisions in Johnson and Eichman will be the controlling law 
until the Supreme Court changes its mind and either overrules or 
modifies its decisions.
  I believe that the House of Representatives today should hit this 
issue head on. If my colleagues do not want a constitutional amendment 
to protect the flag from physical desecration, then vote it down on the 
merits on the floor, but do not put this House on record saying that if 
we agree with the Supreme Court decision then we should amend the 
Constitution in order to ratify that Supreme Court decision, because 
that is what the substitute offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina does.
  Vote down the Watt substitute, pass the original amendment that has 
been reported by the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Watt amendment, and 
I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Once again it is around the 4th of July, and we are discussing the 
current version of what is often referred to as the ``flag burning 
amendment.'' The gentleman from North Carolina has offered a meaningful 
alternative, one that will continue to protect the rights of free 
speech under the first amendment and is consistent with the opinions of 
former Senator John Glenn and Secretary of State Colin Powell, both of 
whom have spoken out in support of protecting the right of free speech 
and against the underlying amendment in its present form.
  The Supreme Court has considered the restrictions which are 
permissible by the Government under the first amendment. For example, 
with respect to speech, time, place and matter may generally be 
regulated, while content cannot. So if a group or individual wishes 
want to have a protest march, the Government can restrict the 
particulars of the march: what time it is held, where it is held, how 
loud it can be. But it cannot restrict what people are marching about. 
We cannot allow some marchers and ban others just because we disagree 
with the message.
  The only exception to the prohibition on regulation of content are 
situations, for example, where speech creates an imminent threat of 
violence. Burning a flag will not necessarily create an imminent threat 
of violence, particularly if someone is burning his own flag in his own 
back yard. Yet this is precisely the behavior prohibited by the 
underlying amendment.
  We should all understand that flags are burned every day in this 
country. Indeed, flag burning is considered the proper way to retire a 
flag. And every year around Flag Day or the 4th of July, flags are 
burned en masse in order to retire them. When these flags are burned, 
those attending the ceremony or doing the burning say something 
respectful about the flag. Flag burning under those circumstances is 
considered appropriate and would remain legal under this amendment. 
However, when protestors burn a flag in exactly the same manner, but 
when accompanied by words of protest, well, the underlying amendment 
would make that instance of flag burning illegal.
  So, if we say something nice while burning a flag, that is okay; but 
if something is said which offends the local sheriff as the flag is 
burned, then it would be illegal. This is nothing less than an attempt 
to suppress speech, and government officials should not be in the 
position of deciding which speech is good and which speech is bad. I 
believe the Watt amendment will help remedy this problem by requiring 
the criminalization of flag burning related to crimes must be 
consistent with the first amendment.
  Now, there would still be other problems, like what is a flag? Is a 
picture of a flag, a flag? What is desecration and what does that mean? 
Who gets to decide when an expression constitutes desecration? And what 
other symbols, like Bibles or copies of the Constitution, should also 
be protected? Those problems still remain, but I ask my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to the substitute amendment of the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has, in essence, indicated 
that it is going to be difficult or perhaps impossible to differentiate 
between appropriate burning of the flag or proper burning of the flag 
and an inappropriate or desecrating of the flag. This argument has been 
made other times. How do we differentiate between the two? This is done 
by tradition and by practice. For 100 years, our courts and the 
American people were able to tell the difference between desecration 
and the proper disposal of worn flags.
  In the absence of a provision of some way to dispose of American 
flags, we would have to maintain them into perpetuity. It did not 
present a problem before, it has not throughout our Nation's history, 
and there is no reason to think it would be a problem now. In 1989, 
Congress passed the Flag Protection Act and was able to define 
desecration and flag. Additionally, the U.S. Code defines the terms and 
it always has.
  In any event, we trust the good common sense of the American people 
and the fairness of the courts to resolve any unforeseen problems. And, 
ultimately, that is what would happen if there was a disagreement on 
whether

[[Page 13507]]

something was an appropriate disposal of a flag in one person's mind or 
desecration in the other. The courts could step in, as has happened in 
the past. We should be able to easily differentiate between a ceremony 
that many of us have gone to on Memorial Day, for example. Many of us 
go back into our districts and participate in those ceremonies. That is 
clearly different than a person who goes out and desecrates a flag or 
sets it on fire, as has happened.
  Again, some have argued this does not happen any more. It has 
happened 86 times in the recent past, in 29 States and in the District 
of Columbia and in Puerto Rico, for example. We are able to 
differentiate, just as we are able to differentiate, for example, a 
surgeon who has a scalpel and operates on a person to assist them, to 
do something, to cure a disease or to cure some problem that person has 
from another person coming up with a knife and stabbing a person with 
it. It is easy to differentiate between the two, just as it is easy to 
differentiate between appropriate disposal of the flag and not 
appropriate disposal.
  The gentleman's substitute amendment, again, says ``not inconsistent 
with the first article of amendment of this constitution.'' We already 
know what this Supreme Court, at least five of the justices of the 
Supreme Court, think about desecration of the flag. We know that they 
think that it amounts to expression and that that is protected by the 
first amendment in that 5 to 4 decision. And since this language would 
come first in the amendment, it would be controlling. So, in essence, 
if we would pass the substitute amendment of the gentleman from North 
Carolina as he proposes, it would appear that we are passing an 
amendment to protect the flag, to stop desecration of the flag in this 
country; but in essence, we would be passing absolutely nothing. It 
would be a sham. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
well-intentioned amendment. When I was first elected to the House, I 
cosponsored the flag burning amendment. I did so for many of the same 
reasons that proponents of the amendment have expressed today. It is 
disturbing to think of someone burning the flag of the United States. 
It is an action that holds in contempt the greatness of this Nation and 
all those who gave up their lives defending this symbol of freedom that 
our flag represents. It is an act for cowards.
  And yet looking back, I was moved by my heart more than my head. 
History informs us that the strength of America is derived from its 
basic ideals, one of the most important of which is tolerance for the 
full expression of ideas, even the most obnoxious ones.
  For more than 2 centuries, the first amendment to the Constitution 
has safeguarded the right of our people to write or publish almost 
anything without interference, to practice their religion freely and to 
protest against the Government in almost every way imaginable. It is a 
sign of our strength that, unlike so many repressive nations on earth, 
ours is a country with a constitution and a body of laws that 
accommodates a wide-ranging public debate. We must not become the first 
Congress in U.S. history to chill public debate by tampering with the 
first amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, H. L. Mencken once said, ``The trouble with fighting for 
human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending 
scoundrels, for it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first 
aimed. And oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be 
stopped at all.'' Flag burners are generally scoundrels. On that much 
we would agree. But we ought not give them any more attention than they 
deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, former Senator Chuck Robb sacrificed his political 
career by doing such things as voting against this amendment in order 
to defend the very freedoms that the American flag represents.

                              {time}  1500

  In his Senate floor statement last year, he described how he had been 
prepared to give up his life in the Vietnam War in order to protect the 
very freedoms that this constitutional amendment would suppress. He did 
wind up giving up his political career by showing the courage to vote 
against this amendment.
  Not having fought in a war, I should do no less than Senator Robb did 
in defense of the freedom he and so many of my peers were willing to 
defend with their lives.
  This amendment should be defeated. I think the substitute amendment 
is appropriate. It should be supported. But this amendment should be 
defeated in our national interest, regardless of the consequences to 
our personal and political interests.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the substitute offered by 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  We have seen this debate before where our side has proposed the flag 
constitutional amendment and we have seen your side always provide a 
substitute. Generally, your substitute has been a method to give you 
the ability to vote for it and still go back to your constituents and 
say that you believe that the physical desecration of the flag of the 
United States is bad. That is what your amendment is, quite simply. 
Because if you were really sincere about this debate, you would not 
have this sentence in your substitute amendment: ``Not inconsistent 
with the first article of amendment to this Constitution.''
  I am sure that my colleagues would be willing to explain why they 
would have that in if, in fact, they felt that the Congress should have 
the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the 
United States. But the fact that you put that in with a contingency 
would show that you do not really have your heart in this debate. This 
is really, in my opinion, just the opportunity for those who are in 
swing districts to have the opportunity to vote for something and vote 
against ours.
  When we look at what we have offered in the original flag 
constitutional amendment, H.J.Res. 36, we are simply saying that our 
flag is not just a piece of cloth, we are saying it is something much 
more. To desecrate it is to desecrate the memory of thousands of 
Americans who have sacrificed their lives to keep that banner flying 
intact. So it is to desecrate everything this country stands for.
  I would remind the Members who do not support our original amendment 
and support the substitute that we also note in our laws we protect our 
money from desecration, destruction. So if that is true for our money, 
why is that not true for the flag?
  Obviously there is a debate on this all the time and we cannot get 
complete support on this, but I think in this case that we can talk and 
talk and talk about first amendment rights and everything but clearly 
that your amendment is just really subterfuge to try to protect Members 
who want to have it both ways.
  Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens claims that the act of flag 
burning has nothing to do with disagreeable ideas, but rather involves 
conduct that diminishes the value of an important national asset. The 
act of flag burning is meant to provoke and arouse and not to reason. 
Flag burning is simply an act of cultural and patriotic destruction.
  The American people revere the flag of the United States as a unique 
symbol of our Nation, representing our commonly held belief in liberty 
and justice. Regardless of our ethnic, racial or religious diversity, 
the flag represent oneness as a people. The American flag has inspired 
men and women to accomplish courageous deeds that won our independence, 
made our Nation great and, of course, advanced our values throughout 
the world which the rest of the country is adopting. Mr. Speaker, I say 
we should defeat this substitute.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.

[[Page 13508]]

  First of all, let me address the comments made by my colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), and make it absolutely clear to 
him that for those of us who have different opinions about what the 
first amendment covers than yours, it does not mean that we do not have 
political heart. It just means we have a difference of opinion.
  Those of us who have stood for the first amendment to the 
Constitution are people like myself who, in the practice of law, 
actively defended the right of the Ku Klux Klan to march.
  Mr. Speaker, maybe my colleagues can say I do not have any heart. 
Maybe my colleagues can say I am looking for political cover. But when 
I go back into my community and stand up for the right of the KKK to 
march and express themselves, I think that gives some indication of 
what I feel about the first amendment and the right that all of us, I 
think, are fighting to protect, which is the right of people to express 
themselves, whether we agree with what they are saying or disagree with 
what they are saying.
  This is not about seeking political cover. This is about protecting 
the very Constitution that we are operating under and have been 
operating under for years and years.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make that clear to the gentleman. This is not, 
as the gentleman characterized it, a political exercise. And the 
gentleman should also be clear that this is not the Republican side 
versus our side, that is the Democratic side. The last time I checked, 
there were people of goodwill, both Republicans and Democrats, on both 
sides of the aisle on this issue.
  The one thing that I think we all agree on is that we believe in this 
country and the principles on which it was founded, and we will all 
fight and defend those principles. I finally got to that point with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), my good friend, who is in 
the Chamber. We got past that. Let us not call names.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman give me an example 
where in his mind the authors of this substitute give a specific 
example where the first amendment would be in conflict with physical 
desecration of the flag?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I have a very limited 
amount of time. Had the gentleman been on the floor at the outset of 
this debate, he would have heard what this amendment is all about. The 
only way I can do that now is to go back and restate it. It is in the 
record, though. I will just stand on the record.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman to yield so I can respond 
briefly to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) because I think it 
is important to know about the importance of the first amendment.
  When we talk about some burning would be legal and some would not, if 
someone is being arrested because of the message, if someone is burning 
the flag and says something nice about the Vietnam War, would that be 
desecration? If someone says something in protest of the Vietnam War, 
would that be desecration? It is the same act. If the local sheriff 
happens to be of a particular view on that, he would want to arrest the 
burner because he is offended.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why it is important that we have the first 
clause in the Watt amendment. It would have to be consistent with the 
first amendment. The first amendment would say that one cannot restrict 
by virtue of the content. We can restrict the way the flag is burned, 
the time the flag is burned, but not the message delivered when the 
burning is going on.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
his intervention.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, first of all, I want to respond to the 
comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that he 
made in his opening statement, that the effect of this proposed 
substitute would be to punt this proposed issue back to the United 
States Supreme Court.
  It is interesting that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
would say that, because, by passing the underlying proposal, we do not 
do away with the first amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court 
is going to have to reconcile this proposed constitutional amendment 
with the first amendment as it stands now; and so the notion that we 
are somehow, by not putting the language that we have proposed in the 
constitutional amendment, are going to save ourselves from the United 
States Supreme Court interpreting the first amendment is just not the 
case.
  At some point this issue is going back to the Supreme Court, whether 
it goes back under my substitute or whether it goes back under the 
proposed constitutional amendment.
  We can say to ourselves we have resolved this issue, but if in fact 
it is speech to burn a flag in the course of a demonstration or protest 
expressing one's self, if it was protected by the first amendment 
before this proposed constitutional amendment, then that act is still 
going to be protected by the first amendment unless the effect of this 
is to repeal the first amendment.
  So it is not as if we are doing away with the first amendment. In any 
event, this all must be resolved. I do not think there is any 
credibility in that analysis. This issue is going back to the Supreme 
Court, and the Supreme Court will reconcile whatever amendment we make.
  I am just trying to make it clear that in my order of priorities I 
want the first amendment to the Constitution, which has been on the 
books for all these years that our country has been around, to still be 
the preeminent amendment to the Constitution. I do not want something 
that this Congress has done in the heat of some political moment to 
supersede that.
  Second, I want to close by just saying how much I have come to 
welcome this debate. When we first started doing this 5 or 6 years ago, 
I actually resented having to do this every year. Now I actually think 
that it is a good debate for our country.
  Mr. Speaker, 5 or 6 years ago when I first started debating this, I 
used to think, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) now thinks, 
that everybody on the opposite side of this issue was unAmerican 
because they did not believe in the first amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, folks used to come in the Chamber and they would shout 
at me that I was unAmerican because I did not support what they wanted; 
and I would shout at them that they were unAmerican because they did 
not believe in what I believed in.

                              {time}  1515

  I think about 2 or 3 years into the debate, it became apparent to me 
that everybody on all sides of this issue is a patriot. And I think we 
finally got to that resolution last year or the year before last when 
we had a very, very dignified debate that allowed everybody to express 
their opinions on this proposed constitutional amendment, on the 
proposed substitute, and everybody went away understanding more fully 
what free speech and expression is all about and why we value our 
country as we do regardless of where we stand on this issue.
  There is dignity in this debate. It is not a partisan debate. It is 
not a racial debate. It is not a philosophical debate. This is all 
about what you think this country stands for and what you think the 
first amendment stands for. I applaud my colleagues for engaging in 
this dignified debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.

[[Page 13509]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am willing to stipulate that everybody who has debated 
this question today, on either side of the issue, is just as patriotic 
as everybody else. There is a legitimate difference of opinion on 
whether or not we should propose a constitutional amendment for the 
States to consider and ratify to protect the United States flag from 
physical desecration. I think that the case is overwhelming on why we 
ought to do that.
  I would just like to cite one legal decision from my home State, in 
the case of the State of Wisconsin v. Matthew C. Janssen, Supreme Court 
of Wisconsin, decided on June 25, 1998, where the State Supreme Court, 
citing the Johnson and Eichman cases as precedent, declared 
unconstitutional the Wisconsin flag desecration statute in the case 
where the defendant defecated on the American flag. And there the court 
determined that because the defendant claimed that this disgusting act 
was a political expression, he could not be criminally prosecuted 
because the statute was unconstitutional.
  Now, if there ever was a reason why we should overturn the Johnson 
and Eichman cases, this decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I 
believe, is a case in point. I think that whether one supports or 
opposes House Joint Resolution 36 goes down to a question of values. We 
have heard those values spoken today very eloquently on both sides. But 
I think that protecting the flag should be one of our paramount goals, 
because the flag does stand for all Americans. The flag does stand for 
the principles that are contained in the Declaration of Independence 
and the Constitution. The flag does stand for the values that 700,000 
young men and young women died for in the wars that this country has 
fought over the last 225 years. If we can say that it is a Federal 
crime to burn a dollar bill, we ought to be able to say it is a Federal 
crime to burn the American flag.
  I urge the defeat of the substitute and the passage of the 
constitutional amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the substitute offered 
by Mr. Watt.
  This substitute goes to the heart of what we're debating. If the 
sponsors of H.J. Res. 36 really believe that the proposed amendments 
does not supersede the First Amendment, they ought to have no problem 
supporting this substitute.
  And if H.J. Res. 36 does supersede the First Amendment, then the 
sponsors should have the courage to admit it--so the American people 
can make an informed decision about this issue.
  In my view it is clear that H.J. Res. 36 directly alters the free 
speech protections of the First Amendment. There can be no doubt that 
``symbolic speech'' relating to the flag falls squarely within the 
ambit of traditionally protected speech.
  Our nation was born in the dramatic symbolic speech of the Boston Tea 
Party, and our courts have long recognized that expressive speech 
associated with the flag is protected under the First Amendment.
  Also, as H.J. Res. 36 is currently drafted, it will allow Congress to 
outlay activities that go well beyond free speech. The amendment gives 
us no guidance whatsoever as to what if any provisions of the First 
Amendment, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution in general that it 
is designed to overrule.
  Some have suggested that the amendment goes so far as to allow the 
criminalization of wearing clothing with the flag on it. This goes well 
beyond overturning the Johnson case and indicates that the flag 
desecration amendment could permit prosecution under statutes that were 
otherwise unconstitutionally void of vagueness.
  For example, the Supreme Court in 1974 declared unconstitutionally 
vague a statute that criminalized treating the flag contemptuously and 
did not uphold the conviction of an individual wearing a flag patch on 
his pants. So unless we clarify H.J. Res. 36, the legislation would 
allow such a prosecution despite that statute's vagueness.
  Finally, it is insufficient to respond to these concerns by asserting 
that the courts can easily work out the meaning of the terms in the 
same way that they have given meaning to other terms in the Bill of 
Rights such as ``due process.''
  Unlike the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, H.J. Res. 36 
represents an open- ended and unchartered invasion of our rights and 
liberties, rather than a back-up mechanism to prevent the government 
from usurping our rights.
  I urge the Members to support the substitute and oppose altering the 
Bill of Rights.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Pursuant to House Resolution 
189, 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 100, 
nays 324, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 231]

                               YEAS--100

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Dicks
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Frank
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Shadegg
     Slaughter
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler

                               NAYS--324

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon

[[Page 13510]]


     McNulty
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bishop
     Delahunt
     Gephardt
     Jefferson
     Owens
     Reyes
     Riley
     Schiff
     Spence

                              {time}  1557

  Messrs. McINTYRE, DeMINT, THOMPSON of California, PICKERING, STARK, 
McDERMOTT, SERRANO, and Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. LEE, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. 
VELAZQUEZ, and Mrs. DAVIS of California changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Messrs. RANGEL, ALLEN, DICKS, McGOVERN, and HILLIARD 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). 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 ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 298, 
nays 125, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 232]

                               YEAS--298

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--125

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bishop
     Delahunt
     Gephardt
     Jefferson
     Kolbe
     Owens
     Reyes
     Riley
     Schiff
     Spence

                              {time}  1614

  So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the joint resolution 
was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 232 
on H.J. Res. 36, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``nay'' when I should 
have voted ``aye''.
  Stated against:
  Mr. KOLBE. Earlier today, I was absent during the vote on final 
passage of H.J. Res. 36, 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.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on this vote, No. 232.




                          ____________________