[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13518-13543]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 330, I 
call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 10) 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 
330, the joint resolution is considered read.
  The text of H.J. Res. 10 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 10

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

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 2 hours of debate on the joint 
resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in House Report 109-140, if offered by 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) or his designee, which 
shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  Pursuant to section 2 of the resolution, the Chair at any time may 
postpone further consideration of the joint resolution until a time 
designated by the Speaker.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 1 hour.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I will control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New

[[Page 13519]]

 York (Mr. Nadler) will control the time of the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers).
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. 10.
  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 such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 10, 
which would amend the Constitution to grant Congress the authority to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag.
  Mr. Speaker, the American flag represents the shared history and 
common future of all Americans and our collective commitment to the 
preservation of the ideals enshrined in our Constitution. The flag 
flies proudly in times of peace and war, prosperity and crisis, 
reminding the world of our unflinching resolve to protect the freedom 
and equality it symbolizes.
  In the early days of the Republic through contemporary times, the 
flag has rallied and sustained the spirit of the Nation. In World War 
II, it was carried onto Normandy Beach by soldiers who liberated a 
continent from darkness, and raised on Iwo Jima to steel the resolve of 
embattled Marines. During the Cold War, it affirmed the universal 
values of human freedom and dignity for citizens of countries whose 
governments ignored both.
  Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the flag was unfurled at 
the Pentagon and raised from the rubble at Ground Zero to unify the 
spirit of a shaken Nation. Unique among all American symbols, the flag 
captures the pride and spirit of the American people and serves as an 
international symbol of freedom and opportunity.
  For the first two centuries of our Constitution's existence, it was 
permissible to protect America's preeminent symbol from desecration. In 
1989, the Federal Government and 48 States had exercised this 
authority. However, in the same year, a closely divided Supreme Court 
invalidated those laws by holding that burning an American flag as part 
of a political demonstration was protected by the First Amendment. The 
Congress quickly responded to this decision, but the following year in 
another 5 to 4 decision, the Court struck down the Federal Flag 
Protection Act in United States v. Eichman. Since 1994, over 119 
incidents of flag desecration have been reported, and the flag of the 
United States remains vulnerable.
  Mr. Speaker, the framers of the Constitution recognized that there 
would be circumstances necessitating changes to the Constitution. 
Toward that end, they provided the people with an amendment process 
embodied in Article V of the Constitution. The founders recognized that 
the constitutional amendment process is absolutely vital to maintaining 
the democratic legitimacy upon which republican self-government rests. 
While our courts have the authority to interpret the Constitution, 
under our system of government, the American people should and must 
have the ultimate authority to amend it.
  As a result, House Joint Resolution 10 does not upset the doctrine of 
judicial review. Rather, it utilizes a remedy envisioned by the 
founders to effectuate the will of the people. Moreover, House Joint 
Resolution 10 will not prohibit flag desecration. Rather, should the 
States ratify the amendment, it will enable Congress to enact 
legislation to establish boundaries within which such conduct may be 
prohibited.
  The amendment process is one that should not be taken lightly. 
However, because of the narrowly divided Johnson and Eichman Supreme 
Court decisions, the constitutional amendment provides the only 
remaining option for the American people and their elected 
representatives to restore protection to our Nation's preeminent 
symbol.
  In December 1792, James Madison asked a question: ``Who are the best 
keepers of the People's Liberty?'' While it might come as a surprise to 
some, he did not answer the Supreme Court. Rather, Mr. Madison 
answered, ``The People themselves. The sacred trust can be nowhere so 
safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.''
  All 50 State legislatures have passed resolutions calling on Congress 
to pass a flag protection amendment, and polls demonstrate the 
overwhelming majority of Americans have consistently supported a flag 
protection amendment.
  Language identical to House Joint Resolution 10 has passed the House 
on four separate occasions. The Congress must act with bipartisan 
dispatch to ensure that this issue is returned to the hands of those 
most interested in preserving freedom, the people themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, the flag of the United States is a critical part of 
America's civic identity. Millions of Americans, including we as 
Members of Congress, pledge daily allegiance to the flag, and our 
National Anthem pays homage to it. America's soldiers salute the flag 
of the United States in times of peace, and generations of America's 
soldiers have fought and died for it in times of war.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure 
that provides this unique and sacred American symbol with the dignity 
and protection it deserves and demands. Pass the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague, who is the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution and has served us so well across the 
years in this regard.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the 
minority member of the Committee on Rules, for conducting such a 
dispositive examination of the rule and the substance of the measure 
that is before us today.
  Today's consideration of House Joint Resolution 10 will show whether 
we have the strength to remain true to our forefathers' constitutional 
ideals and defend our citizens' right to express themselves, even if we 
vehemently disagree with their method of expression.
  I have been thinking about this. I have never met anyone that 
supports burning the American flag. Very few Americans favor burning 
the flag as an expression of free speech. I personally deplore the 
desecration of the flag in any form, but I still remain strongly 
opposed to this resolution because this resolution goes against the 
ideals that the flag represents and elevates a symbol of freedom over 
freedom itself. If adopted, this resolution would represent for the 
first time in our Nation's history that the people's representatives in 
this body voted to alter the Bill of Rights to limit the freedom of 
speech.
  While some may say that this resolution is not the end of our first 
amendment liberties, it is my fear that it may be the beginning. By 
limiting the scope of the first amendment's free speech protections, we 
are setting a most dangerous precedent. If we open the door to 
criminalizing constitutionally protected expression related to the 
flag, which this is, it will be difficult to limit further efforts to 
censor such speech. Once we decide to limit freedom of speech, 
limitations on freedom of the press and freedom of religion may not be 
far behind.
  It has been said that the true test of any Nation's commitment to 
freedom of expression lies in its ability to protect unpopular 
expression, such as flag desecration. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes 
wrote as far back as 1929, the Constitution protects not only freedom 
for the thought and expression we agree with, but ``freedom for the 
thought we hate.''

[[Page 13520]]

  This resolution is in response to two Supreme Court decisions, Texas 
v. Johnson in 1989 and the United States v. Eichman in 1990, two 
Supreme Court decisions in one bite. It is always tempting for Congress 
to want to show the Supreme Court who is boss by amending the 
Constitution to outlaw flag-related expression.

                              {time}  1100

  But if we do, we will not only be carving an awkward exception into a 
document designed to last for the ages, but will be undermining the 
very constitutional structure that Jefferson and Madison designed to 
protect our rights. In effect, we will be glorifying fringe elements 
who disrespect the flag and what it stands for while denigrating the 
Constitution itself, the vision of Madison and Jefferson.
  Concern about the tyranny of the majority led the framers to create 
an independent judiciary free of political pressure to ensure that the 
legislative and executive branches would honor the Bill of Rights. A 
constitutional amendment banning flag desecration flies in the very 
face of this carefully balanced structure. The fact that the Congress 
would consider the first-ever amendment to the Bill of Rights without 
so much as a hearing in this Congress makes this all the more 
objectionable.
  Mr. Speaker, no hearings. Why not? Well, we have done this before. If 
Members want to find out what the debate would be like, read it from 
four other times that we have done this.
  James Madison warned us against using the amendment process to 
correct every perceived constitutional defect, particularly concerning 
issues which inflame public passion. And, unfortunately, there is no 
better illustration of Madison's concern than the proposed flag 
desecration amendment.
  History has proven that efforts to legislate respect for the flag 
only serve to increase flag-related protest, and a constitutional 
amendment will no doubt increase such protests many times over. Almost 
as significant as the damage this resolution would do to our own 
Constitution is the harm it will inflict in our international standing 
in the area of human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, demonstrators who ripped apart Communist flags before 
the fall of the Iron Curtain committed crimes against their country's 
laws, yet freedom-loving Americans applauded their brave actions. Yet 
if we pass this action, we will be aligning ourselves with those 
autocratic regimes, such as in the former Soviet Union and Iran, and 
diminish our own moral stature as a protector of freedom in all of its 
forms.
  Those who oppose this amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the 
physical desecration of the flag express the sentiment of many 
Americans. In May 2005, just last month, a majority of Americans 
opposed such an amendment by 63 percent to 35 percent because of its 
first amendment restrictions. Our veterans, citizens who have risked 
their lives to defend the ideals the flag represents, oppose this 
amendment as well. Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans Defending the 
Bill of Rights, two organizations, do not want to see the first 
amendment unraveled and a desecration of what the flag represents.
  For those who believe a constitutional amendment will honor the flag, 
I urge them to actually read the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Texas 
v. Johnson. The majority wrote, and I concur, ``The way to preserve the 
flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about 
these matters, it is to persuade them that they are wrong. We can 
imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving 
one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by 
saluting the flag. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its 
desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished 
emblem represents.''
  I urge my colleagues to maintain the constitutional ideal of freedom 
and reject this resolution.
  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 author of the legislation.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, 200 years of tradition was wiped out 16 
years ago. For 200 years our forefathers fought to protect the flag. 
All 50 States had resolutions to protect the flag prior to this, and 
since then all 50 States have passed resolutions that they will codify 
this vote.
  I want to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, some will 
oppose this amendment. Their opposition is honorable. They are my 
friends and they oppose this. But I would tell the gentleman that as of 
May, 81 percent of the American people oppose their arguments and their 
views.
  The military, go out to Walter Reed or Bethesda and ask those men and 
women what they feel and they will tell you. All of the veterans 
organizations, and my colleague mentioned the veterans organizations 
are opposed to this. This is from the Citizen's Flag Alliance and list 
all of the veterans organizations that support this amendment, and I 
include that list for the Record.

       AMVETS (American Veterans).
       African-American Women's Clergy Association.
       Air Force Association.
       Air Force Sergeants Association.
       American GI Forum of the U.S.
       American GI Forum of the U.S. Founding Chapter.
       The American Legion.
       American Legion Auxiliary.
       American Legion Riders, Department of Virginia.
       American Merchant Marine Veterans.
       American War Mothers.
       American Wholesale Flags.
       Ancient Order of Hibernians.
       Association of the U.S. Army.
       Baltic Women's Council.
       Benevolent & Protective Order of the Elks.
       Bunker Hill Monument Association, Inc.
       Catholic Family Life Insurance.
       Catholic War Veterans.
       The Center for Civilian Internee Rights, Inc.
       The Chosin Few.
       Combat Veterans Association.
       Croatian American Association.
       Croatian Catholic Union.
       Czech Catholic Union.
       Czechoslovak Christian Democracy in the U.S.A.
       Daughters of the American Colonists.
       Drum Corps Associates.
       Dust Off Association.
       Eight & Forty (des Huit Chapeaux et Quarante Femmes).
       Enlisted Association National Guard U.S. (EANGUS).
       Family Research Council.
       Fleet Reserve Association.
       Forty & Eight (La Societe des Quarante Hommes et Huit 
     Chevaux).
       Fox Associates, Inc.
       Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
       Grand Aerie, Fraternal Order of Eagles.
       Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police.
       Grand Lodge of Masons of Oklahoma.
       Great Council of Texas, Order of Red Men.
       Hungarian Association.
       Hungarian Reformed Federation of America.
       Jewish War Veterans of the USA.
       Just Marketing, Inc.
       Knights of Columbus.
       Korean American Association of Greater Washington.
       Ladies Auxiliary of Veterans of World War I.
       MBNA America.
       Marine Corps League.
       Marine Corps Mustang Association, Inc.
       Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association.
       Medal of Honor Recipients for the Flag.
       Military Officers Association of Indianapolis, MOAA 
     (formally The Retired Officers Association of Indianapolis, 
     TROA).
       Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A.
       The Military Order of the Foreign Wars.
       Moose International.
       National Alliance of Families for the Return of America's 
     Missing Servicemen.
       National Association for Uniformed Services.
       National Association of State Directors of Veterans 
     Affairs, Inc. (NASDVA).
       National Center for Public Policy Research.
       National Defense Committee.
       National 4th Infantry (IVY) Division Association.
       National Federation of American Hungarians, Inc.
       National Federation of State High School Associations.
       National FFA (Future Farmers of America).
       National Grange.
       National Guard Association of the U.S.
       National League of Families of American Prisoners and 
     Missing in SE Asia.
       National Officers Association (NOA).
       National Organization of World War Nurses.

[[Page 13521]]

       National Service Star Legion.
       National Slovak Society of the United States.
       National Sojourners. Inc.
       National Society of the Daughters of the American 
     Revolution.
       National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution.
       National Twenty & Four.
       National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans.
       Native Daughters of the Golden West.
       Native Sons of the Golden West.
       Navajo Codetalkers Association.
       Naval Enlisted Reserve Association (NERA).
       Navy League of the U.S.
       Navy Seabee Veterans of America.
       Non-Commissioned Officers Association.
       PAC Pennsylvania Eastern Division.
       Past National Commander's Organization (PANCO).
       Patrol Craft Sailors Association.
       Polish American Congress.
       Polish Army Veterans Association (S.W.A.P.).
       Polish Falcons of America.
       Polish Falcons of America--District II.
       Polish Home Army.
       Polish Legion of American Veterans, U.S.A.
       Polish Legion of American Veterans Ladies Auxiliary.
       Polish National Alliance.
       Polish National Union.
       Polish Roman Catholic Union of North America.
       Polish Scouting Organization.
       Polish Western Association.
       Polish Women's Alliance.
       Robinson International.
       Ruritan National.
       Sampson WWII Navy Vets, Inc.
       San Diego Veterans Services.
       Scottish Rite of Freemasonry--Northern Masonic 
     Jurisdiction.
       Scottish Rite of Freemasonry--Southern Jurisdiction.
       Sons of Confederate Veterans.
       Sons of the American Legion.
       Sons of the Revolution in the State of Wisconsin.
       Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War.
       Sportsmen's Athletic Club--Pennsylvania.
       Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
       Steamfitters Local Union # 449.
       Team of Destiny.
       Texas Society Sons of the American Revolution.
       The General Society, Sons of the Revolution.
       The Military Order of the World Wars.
       The Orchard Lakes Schools.
       The Reserve Officers Association of the United States.
       The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA).
       The Seniors Coalition.
       The Travelers Protective Association.
       TREA Senior Citizens League.
       The Ukrainian Gold Cross.
       The Uniformed Services Association (TUSA).
       United Armed Forces Association.
       United Veterans of America.
       U.S. Coast Guard Enlisted Association.
       U.S. Marine Corps Combat Correspondents Association.
       U.S. Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce.
       U.S.A Letters, Inc.
       U.S.S. Intrepid Association. Inc.
       U.S.C.G. Chief Petty Officers Association.
       Veterans of the Battle of the Bulge.
       Veterans of the Vietnam War, Inc.
       Vietnam Veterans Institute (VVI).
       Vietnam Veterans of America, Chapter 415.
       Vietnam Veterans of America, Chapter 566.
       VietNow.
       Virginia War Memorial Foundation.
       WAVES National.
       Women's Army Corps Veterans Association.
       Women's Overseas Service League.
       Woodmen of the World.
       63rd Infantry Division Association, USAR.
       66th Engineering TOPO Vets.
       Total Member Organizations As Of May 10, 2005: 146.

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in the past debates people have brought 
forth trinkets, ties, gloves, and T-shirts and tried to confuse the 
issue with the American flag. What is the American flag? The flag is 
what we place over the coffins of our fallen soldiers. I would ask 
those individuals, if they still try this trickster debate, which of 
those items would you place on the casket of one of our fallen 
soldiers; it is not the American flag. I have a 6-year-old test. If you 
ask a 6-year-old what is the American flag and you hold up a tie or a 
T-shirt, they will say no, that is not the American flag. They know, 
and so do the American people.
  In my district we had a group of Hispanics that were protesting over 
a bill that we passed on this floor years ago and it was on bilingual 
education, English First. There was a large protest. They started to 
burn the American flag in my district. A Hispanic man and woman jumped 
into the flames and rescued that flag. When the press asked them why, 
they said we value this flag and this country and we do not want anyone 
to desecrate it. They also pointed out that more Hispanics per capita 
have won the Medal of Honor and they support this flag and this country 
proudly.
  I have another friend who was a prisoner of war for 6\1/2\ years. It 
took him 5 years to knit an American flag on the inside of his shirt 
when he was held prisoner in Vietnam. He would display this flag at his 
meetings until the guards broke in one day and brutally beat the 
prisoner of war, ripped the flag to shreds in the middle of the floor, 
drug the prisoner out of the cell, beat him unconscious. And when they 
placed him back in the cell, his friends tried to comfort him as much 
as they could and tend to his wounds, but he was unconscious. They went 
about their meetings, and a few minutes later they heard a stirring in 
the corner. That broken body prisoner of war had drug himself to the 
center of the floor and started gathering those pieces of thread so he 
could knit another American flag.
  This is not political for us. It is a very bipartisan issue. We 
should get around 300 votes today, I tell my colleagues, both 
Republicans and Democrats.
  I understand that some people oppose this, and for different reasons 
why, but I will tell you that they are opposed by many, many people. 
Members say that this violates the first amendment rights. There are a 
thousand ways that an individual can protest any event, and this does 
not take away first amendment rights but it just says please do not 
desecrate the flag.
  Remember Mr. Giuliani and the first responders at the World Trade 
Center, remember how that inspired this country. It does have value. 
This value is part of our tradition and was part of our tradition for 
200 years, and that is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the 300 Members who will support this amendment 
today are saying to my colleagues that are opposed to this. We disagree 
with you. We do not disagree lightly, and we think it is very, very 
important. But when the majority of the American people support it, we 
will vote with it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are enduring the Republican rite of spring: A 
proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights to restrict what it calls flag 
desecration. Why spring? Because Members need to send out a press 
release extolling the need to protect the flag, as if the flag somehow 
needed Congress to protect it. It is easier than answering questions 
about the failure of this House to provide proper health care to our 
veterans, proper armor to save the lives of our troops, or proper 
support for their survivors.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of speakers invoke the rescuers 
and heroes and first responders at Ground Zero on September 11 and the 
few weeks after.
  Mr. Speaker, that is my district. I was there in the days after 9/11. 
I have seen the heroism and the self-sacrifice of the first responders. 
I have watched their betrayal by the Government of the United States, 
by the Federal and State and local governments which are not providing 
for their health care, which are not providing workers' comp when they 
cannot do their jobs because of World Trade Center health syndrome, 
which denies that they were present in the workers' comp proceedings 
after they get medals for rescuing people. That is the betrayal we 
should talk about. What they care about is being made whole, is having 
their health care taken care of and their lives restored, not this.
  The flag is a symbol of our great Nation and the fundamental freedoms 
that have made this Nation great. If the flag needs protection at all, 
it needs protection from Members of Congress who value the symbol more 
than they value the freedoms the flag represents. Quite frankly, the 
crass political use of the flag to question the patriotism of those who 
value fundamental freedoms is a greater insult to those who died in the 
service of our Nation than is the burning of the flag.

[[Page 13522]]

  I am certain we will hear speeches invoking the sacrifice of our 
troops in the field as a pretext for carving up the first amendment. We 
already have. That is a shameful exploitation of the patriotism and 
courage of these fine and courageous young people. It is the civic 
equivalent of violating the commandment against taking the Lord's name 
in vain.
  If Members want to honor the sacrifice of our troops, protect the 
rights they fight for. Protect our civil liberties, and protect the 
rights of veterans. Playing games with the Constitution does not honor 
them.
  People have rights in this country that supersede public opinion, 
even strongly held public opinion. That is why we have a Bill of Rights 
to protect minorities from the majority. If we do not preserve those 
rights, then the flag will have been desecrated far beyond the 
capability of any idiot with a cigarette lighter.
  Let there be no doubt that this amendment is aimed directly at ideas. 
Current Federal laws say that the preferred way to dispose of a 
tattered flag is to burn it, but there are those who would criminalize 
the same act of burning the flag if it was done to express political 
dissent.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is I have seen motion pictures, I 
have seen movies reflecting the War of 1812 in which the British burned 
our capital. I saw in those movies, actors playing British soldiers 
burning the flag. Did we send in the police to arrest the actors for 
this flag desecration? Of course not. We do not mind that because we 
know they do not mean it. That is to say, they are not burning the flag 
as an expression of disdain for our values, as an expression of their 
opinions on political issues of their disagreement with the 
administration or with the government in power. No, they are doing it 
as part of a play, play-acting; so the physical act does not mean 
anything, so we do not care.

                              {time}  1115

  But under this amendment, if someone were to do the same thing, burn 
the flag at the same time as he says, I disagree with the policy of 
whatever it is, that would be a criminal act. So what is really being 
made criminal? Not the act of burning the flag. What is really being 
made criminal is the act of burning the flag combined with the 
expression of a dissident, unpopular political opinion.
  The act of burning the flag to dispose of it is a praiseworthy act. 
The act of burning the flag as part of a movie or part of a play, that 
is okay. I do not think anybody contemplates arresting the actors. 
Really, what we are getting at here is the core expression of first 
amendment protected ideas. We will arrest people who as part of 
expressing their opinion about something burn the flag. But if they 
burn the flag without expressing an opinion contrary to the government 
as part of a play or for some other reason, that will be okay. That 
should tell us what this amendment is about. That is why the Supreme 
Court said that the law was unconstitutional, because it does violate 
the first amendment.
  The distinguished ranking member is quite correct. If we carve out 
this exception for the first amendment, if we make this the first time 
that we will limit rights protected by the Bill of Rights, it will be 
easier to do it in the future. Then the next amendment will come along 
and say that, well, if you say things that we think, that somebody at 
the moment thinks endangers American troops, you say the war, whatever 
war it is at the moment, is wrong, our President shouldn't have done 
it, whoever the President may be at that moment, our troops shouldn't 
be in wherever they are, that is endangering our troops, we will make 
that illegal. That will be easier to do. That is why this amendment is 
so dangerous.
  How many Members of Congress, used car dealers, fast-food 
restaurants, and other seemingly legitimate individuals and enterprises 
have engaged in the act of using the flag or parts of the flag for 
advertising, an act which our unconstitutional law defines as flag 
desecration? This amendment would presumably make that law 
constitutional once more. If ratified, I think there are more than a 
few people who will have to redesign their campaign materials to stay 
out of jail, except, of course, that probably no one will arrest them 
for that violation of the law because they will not be seen to be using 
it for dissident political speech, unless they are running on an 
unpopular platform, then maybe they will be. Again, that is the danger 
of this amendment.
  As if this assault on the Bill of Rights is not enough, the Judiciary 
Committee once again did not even bother holding a hearing on this very 
significant constitutional amendment. The Subcommittee on the 
Constitution did not bother to consider it, to debate it, or to vote on 
it. Now, I know that they will say, We've held hearings in previous 
Congresses. Yeah, and we have rejected this amendment in previous 
Congresses. And this is a new Congress. There are new Members. There is 
no excuse for doing something or attempting to do something so 
significant to start tearing up the Bill of Rights without even a 
hearing to hear opinions on it just because prior Congresses may have 
held hearings.
  This cavalier attitude toward the Bill of Rights is offensive and 
revealing. Why discuss it? Why look into it? It's only the 
Constitution. We're only talking about the rights of a few malcontents 
for whom even opponents of this amendment have contempt.
  And we do have contempt for people who would burn the flag. None of 
us think that those people are doing something praiseworthy. We all 
think it is absurd and wrong, but we think their right to be wrong has 
to be protected. That is what America is all about. By the way, where 
is this epidemic of flag burning? I do not recall seeing anybody 
burning the flag in I do not know how many years. What is the danger we 
are legislating against? People have died for this great Nation and the 
rights which this flag so proudly represent. We are a shining beacon to 
the world because we allow dissent, even when that dissent is offensive 
or despicable. Let us not cease to be a shining beacon on the hill. Let 
us not diminish our liberty. Let us not destroy the way of life for 
which our troops have made the ultimate sacrifice.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a deep respect for the arguments that have been 
advanced by the gentleman from New York and other opponents of this 
amendment. I disagree with them. And I think the vast majority of the 
American people disagree with them as well. There has to be a line that 
is drawn on what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable 
behavior. Most of our criminal code, as well as certain types of civil 
provisions that contain penalties, do draw the line and have a clear 
demarcation of what goes over the line and thus should be punished.
  I think one of the reasons why we are here today as a result of both 
the Johnson and Eichman decisions was exemplified by a decision of the 
Supreme Court of my home State of Wisconsin on April 9, 1998, in the 
case of State of Wisconsin v. Matthew Janssen. Mr. Janssen was 
prosecuted for flag desecration because he defecated on the American 
flag. Then he left a note saying why he did it, which contained a 
political expression. Using the precedent that was set by the Supreme 
Court in the Johnson and Eichman cases, the Wisconsin Supreme Court 
unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the prosecution against Mr. 
Janssen and wrote an extensive decision that basically agrees with the 
arguments that were advanced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  But the last paragraph of that decision, I think, is very important; 
and I am going to read it into the Record. The Wisconsin Supreme Court 
through Justice John Wilcox said: ``But in the end, to paraphrase 
Justice Frankfurter, we must take solace in the fact that as members of 
this court we are not justified in writing our private notions of 
policy into the Constitution, no matter how deeply we may cherish them 
or how mischievous we may deem their disregard,'' quoting the Barnette

[[Page 13523]]

case with Justice Frankfurter dissenting. The Supreme Court of 
Wisconsin concluded by saying: ``If it is the will of the people in 
this country to amend the United States Constitution in order to 
protect our Nation's symbol, it must be done through normal political 
channels.''
  Today, we are doing it through those normal political channels. That 
is why this amendment should be approved.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 10, 
the flag protection amendment, and I would like to thank the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his 
efforts to protect our country's most sacred symbol, the American flag. 
I would also like to thank our distinguished Judiciary chairman, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his leadership in 
this area.
  I would also like to very briefly just address some of the 
allegations, particularly the one about not having hearings. As has 
been stated, we have had a number of hearings on this in the past. The 
interesting thing is when one holds these hearings or had we chosen to 
hold hearings again this time, I might add we had experts on both sides 
come and testify about this, there are allegations thrown at us, oh, 
here we go again, why are we holding these hearings once again? So you 
are really damned if you do or damned if you do not.
  I would also invite those who might be following this debate to 
listen to where the inflammatory rhetoric, which side it comes from, 
allegations thrown against us that this is a crass exploitation of the 
flag when we have not done this, that, or the other thing.
  I think those of us on this side tend to want to keep this debate on 
a very civil level and I would encourage my colleagues to do that. 
Since this country's creation, nothing has represented the United 
States of America as honorably as has the American flag. From the top 
of this very Capitol building to porches all across our country, the 
flag is synonymous with the principles on which this country was 
founded and the principles on which we still stand. Each day it serves 
as a source of comfort and strength and holds the promise of a better 
future for all Americans.
  However, there are those who, while claiming the very protections our 
country has to offer, would seek to defile it, to desecrate, to burn or 
otherwise destroy the very symbol that would seemingly protect their 
actions. Since 1994, and I want to emphasize this, there have been 119 
incidents of such flag desecration, ones like the one that our 
distinguished chairman just indicated where somebody literally 
defecated on the flag. Despite the will of both the Federal and State 
governments to protect the flag from such abuse, the Supreme Court has 
struck down these efforts to protect our most sacred symbol and instead 
has protected these un-American acts.
  Congress must act and a constitutional amendment is the only answer. 
If we could do this legislatively, if we could pass a statute as we 
have done in the past which has been struck down by the Supreme Court, 
we would do that. But the only way that we can protect the flag is to 
amend the Constitution, and that is what this is all about. Many of us 
believe very strongly in this. H.J. Res. 10, which has passed the House 
in its current form on four separate occasions, would give Congress the 
authority it needs to once again protect the flag. I would urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I think it is important to put this debate in 
context because it occurs to me that every time we consider this 
resolution, we end up cutting veterans health care. So let us just see 
what we are doing this year on the health care budget for veterans. The 
Republican budget cuts veterans health care programs by more than $13.5 
billion over the next 5 years compared to what would be needed just to 
keep up with inflation. The President even proposed a $15 billion cut 
and copays for a significant number of our veterans.
  When the sponsor challenges us to ask wounded veterans in VA 
hospitals what they want us to do, I suspect that they would not be 
asking us to cut veterans health care at the same time we debate this 
resolution.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, just before we went on Memorial Day break 
and gave speeches just a few weeks ago, colleagues voted down a measure 
that would have offered TRICARE health coverage to National Guard 
members and Reservists. Reserve components make up 50 percent of our 
forces in Iraq and studies show that 20 percent have no health 
insurance. For younger Reservists it is as high as 40 percent have no 
health insurance coverage. How can we ask these young men and women to 
serve on the front line and not even provide for them the basic 
necessity of health care?
  And so, Mr. Speaker, 25 million American veterans deserve respect and 
dignity and they deserve more than the debate on this constitutional 
amendment. We should be providing health care for our veterans, not 
this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone here respects the flag. The question before us 
is not whether we respect the flag, but whether or not we ought to use 
the criminal code to prevent those who disagree with us to express 
their views. The Supreme Court has frequently considered restrictions 
on speech that are permissible by our government. For example, under 
the first amendment with respect to speech, speech may be regulated by 
time, place and manner, but not regulated by content.
  There are, of course, exceptions. Speech may be restricted if it 
creates an imminent threat of violence or threatens safety or expresses 
a patently offensive message that has no redeeming social value, but we 
cannot restrict by content otherwise. The distinction: you can restrict 
by time, place and manner but not content.
  So you can restrict the particulars of a march or a demonstration by 
what time it is held or where it is held or how loud the demonstration 
can be, but you cannot restrict what people are marching or 
demonstrating about. You cannot ban a particular march or demonstration 
just because you disagree with the message unless you decide to ban all 
marches. You cannot allow one political party to have a demonstration, 
but not the other. You cannot have a pro-war demonstration and then try 
to restrict an anti-war demonstration.
  Speech protected by the Constitution we have to recognize will always 
be unpopular. Popular speech does not need protection. It is only that 
speech that provokes the local sheriff into wanting to arrest you for 
what you said that needs protection. Of course, speech protected by the 
first amendment will always be unpopular.
  Some have referred to the underlying resolution as the anti-flag 
burning amendment, and they speak about the necessity of keeping people 
from burning flags. In reality, the only place you ever see a flag 
burned is in compliance with the Federal code at flag ceremonies 
disposing of a worn-out flag. Ask any Boy Scout or American Legion 
member how to dispose of a worn-out flag and they will tell you that 
the procedure is to burn the flag at a respectful ceremony.

                              {time}  1130

  In fact, the only time I have seen a flag burned is at one of these 
ceremonies. So the proposed constitutional amendment is all about 
expression and all about prohibiting expression in violation of the 
first amendment principles. In fact, the amendment does not even use 
the term ``burning.'' It uses the term ``flag desecration.'' And by 
using the word ``desecration,'' we are giving government officials the 
power to decide that one can burn the flag if they are saying something 
nice and respectful, but they are a criminal if they burn this flag 
while they are saying something offensive or insulting.

[[Page 13524]]

This is an absurd distinction and is a direct contravention of the 
whole purpose of the first amendment, especially when the real impact 
of the legislation will be to have political protesters arrested 
because they disagree and express that disagreement of government 
policy.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the violation of the spirit of the Bill 
of Rights, this amendment has practical problems. For example, what is 
a flag? Can one desecrate a picture of a flag? Can one desecrate a flag 
with the wrong number of stripes?
  Mr. Speaker, during the Vietnam War, laws were passed prohibiting 
draft cards from being burned, and protesters with great flourish would 
say that they were burning their draft cards and offend everybody, but 
then nobody would know whether it was a draft card or just a piece of 
paper. And what happens if one desecrates their own flag in private? 
Are they subject to criminal prosecution if somebody finds out?
  Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to comment on suggestions that stealing 
and destroying somebody's personal property is protected if that 
property happens to be a flag. That is wrong. It is still theft and 
personal property. The other examples, there are other criminal codes 
that people can be prosecuted on. What this legislation is aimed at is 
criminalizing political speech, and we should not criminalize political 
speech just because we disagree with it, just because we have the 
votes.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we would defeat this resolution, and I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel).
  Mr. SODREL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in 
favor of this amendment.
  Hampton Sides, in his book Ghost Soldiers, recounts the Ranger action 
to liberate the allied POWs from Cabanatuan in the Philippines. Most of 
them were survivors of the Bataan Death March. They were emaciated, 
sick and weak. Some of them had to be carried from the prison compound 
when it was taken by U.S. Army Rangers. What I will read now is the 
last paragraph of his narrative as told by its survivors.
  ``Along the way we saw an American flag set in a turret of a tank. It 
wasn't much of a flag, writhing in a weak breeze, but for the men of 
Cabanatuan, the sight was galvanizing. Ralph Hibbs said his heart 
stopped for he realized it was the first Stars and Stripes he'd seen 
since his surrender. All the men in all the trucks stood at attention 
and saluted. Then came the tears. `We wept openly,' said Abie Abraham, 
`and we wept without shame.'''
  Some say our flag is just a piece of cloth, Mr. Speaker. Grown men, 
particularly combat veterans, do not typically cry at the sight of a 
piece of cloth. To all patriots, particularly the majority that served 
under it, the American flag stands for liberty. To us, desecrating our 
flag is not a demonstration of liberty; it is an attack on liberty. If 
it were merely a piece of cloth, our enemies would not trouble 
themselves to desecrate it.
  All Americans are ``endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
rights.'' Among those rights enumerated in our Constitution is the 
right of free speech. The Constitution does not, however, afford 
absolute freedom of action. One cannot spray-paint a bald eagle in 
protest. One cannot deface the Washington Monument. And one should not 
desecrate our flag with impunity either.
  To those who say that these actions have to be taken in context, if 
one burns a flag for a movie it is different from burning a flag as a 
protest, I would say that all actions have to be taken in context. If 
one takes another person's life in process of defending oneself, it is 
considered in a different context then if they took another person's 
life to collect a life insurance policy. All actions are always taken 
in context, and I trust the juries of the United States to take this 
amendment in proper context when it is carried out.
  I would like to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the flag 
protection amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  So, in other words, if one desecrates a flag to make a nice point, 
that is a good context. If they desecrate it to make an unpopular 
point, that should be jailable. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Sodrel) for making my point.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, too often this debate has 
been categorized about who loves the flag. And it has caused me to 
think back about the great affection I feel for our flag. The fondest 
memory I think I have of being a mother is standing on the school yard 
of the elementary school with my children and joining with them and the 
other mothers as they saluted our flag. I remember crying, looking at 
our flag the first time I went to a Democratic convention and we sang 
the National Anthem and our flag was there. It was overwhelming, that 
the flag was there for our democracy.
  And when we enter this Capitol and see the flag flying above it, it 
is an overwhelming experience to see that flag. We love it so much. And 
why? Because our Nation's flag stands for the freedoms that define this 
country. One of those freedoms is freedom of speech. Our country is 
strong and free because Americans are free to express their opinions 
even when we do not agree with those opinions.
  If enacted, this bill would for the first time in our Nation's 
history modify the Bill of Rights to limit freedom of speech. As has 
been stated, it is clear that this amendment would only limit speech 
that some do not agree with.
  Why are the Republican leadership of the House pushing this 
amendment? I think it is obvious that it would amend the first 
amendment. I think the majority party cannot really tolerate dissent.
  I would like to read something that General Colin Powell said about 
this amendment when we had hearings several years ago. General Powell: 
``The first amendment exists to ensure that freedom of speech and 
expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree but 
also to that which we find outrageous. 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.''
  Jim Warner, a Vietnam veteran and prisoner of the North Vietnamese 
from 1967 to 1973, wrote this about the proposed amendment, and I quote 
this prisoner of war, this American hero: ``The fact is the principles 
for which we fought, for which our comrades died, are advancing 
everywhere upon the earth while the principles against which we fought 
are everywhere discredited and rejected. The flag burners have lost, 
and their defeat is the most fitting and thorough rebuke of their 
principles which the human could devise. Why do we need to do more? An 
act intended merely as an insult is not worthy of our fallen comrades. 
It is the sort of thing our enemies did to us, but we are not them, and 
we must conform to a different standard . . . Now, when the justice of 
our principles is everywhere vindicated, the cause of human liberty 
demands that this amendment be rejected. 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 think there is another reason why this amendment has been offered, 
and that is to divert attention from the shabby treatment of our 
veterans. Let us shift attention to our beloved flag; maybe the vets 
will not notice that Congress has not kept our promises to them.
  According to the American Legion, 30,000 veterans are waiting 6 
months or longer for an appointment at a veterans hospital. The 
Veterans of Foreign Wars estimates that as many as 220,000 men and 
women veterans could

[[Page 13525]]

lose their benefits under the proposed veterans budget. Our veterans 
went to war to protect our Nation and to guarantee our freedoms, 
including freedom of speech and to ensure that those freedoms would be 
protected. Now we are about to undercut their sacrifice by amending the 
first amendment for the very first time. And to add injury to insult, 
we are also failing to provide the care our veterans earned with their 
blood and their sweat, and we are denying them what they deserve from a 
grateful Nation.
  Some in the past have voted for this amendment assuming that the 
Senate will stop it, that we really will not do this bad thing to our 
country. I have great fear that the political landscape has changed. I 
think this is a sad and shameful day for our Nation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout the history of this Republic, the Congress 
has proposed constitutional amendments and sent them to the States to 
overturn Supreme Court decisions that were particularly onerous. The 
one that comes to mind as coming to the top of the list was the Dred 
Scott decision. That was based on constitutional grounds, and Congress 
proposed and the States ratified three amendments, the 13th, 14th and 
15th amendment, to make sure that the mistake that was made by the Dred 
Scott decision would never be repeated again. There was a decision 
early in the country's history under the Constitution that related to 
the judicial power of the United States. The 11th amendment was 
proposed and ratified to correct that. And the Supreme Court also 
decided that levying income taxes violated the provision of the 
Constitution on apportionment of taxes, and the 16th amendment was 
proposed and ratified to correct that problem.
  So when there is a court decision that has resulted in consequences 
that the Congress and the States collectively deem are so bad that it 
requires an amendment to the Constitution, this Congress has not 
hesitated to propose an amendment to the Constitution, and the States 
have ratified it.
  Here we have had resolutions of all 50 State legislatures asking that 
we propose this amendment and send it to the States for ratification, 
and that is because the instances of flag desecration that have 
occurred have been deemed by them to be over the line and that the 
Supreme Court of the United States was wrong in its decision and it 
needs correction.
  I just go back to the quote that I made of the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court when they effectively invalidated my State's flag desecration 
amendment. It is up to the people through the constitutional amendment 
process to make the correction, and that is why we are here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. 
Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend the flag of the United States of 
America. Throughout the history of our Nation, our flag has stood as 
the ultimate symbol of our freedom. From Yorktown to Fort McHenry, from 
Iwo Jima to Baghdad, our troops have fought behind our flag in the 
defense of liberty. Their dedication and their sacrifice in defense of 
freedom demands that we take this action today. And who can forget on 
September 11, 2001, when firefighters in New York pulled our flag out 
of the rubble of the World Trade Center and hoisted it in defiance of 
terror? And who can forget the flag that hangs in the American History 
Museum here in Washington, D.C. that was draped over the scarred 
Pentagon as a show of our Nation's resolve? We should not, we must not, 
and we cannot allow the desecration of our national symbol as some form 
of protest. Some things in this Nation are sacred, and the flag is the 
most sacred symbol of all. The flag binds our Nation together and must 
be protected. Let us take this action together today. Honor the service 
and sacrifice of those who have fought behind the flag in defense of 
our freedom.
  And, Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned, 50 States have already passed 
resolutions indicating that they want to ratify this resolution we are 
debating today. Let the majority of Americans ratify their allegiance 
and pledge their allegiance to our flag.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and 
classmate for yielding me this time.
  I rise in support and as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 10, an amendment to 
the Constitution authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the United States flag.
  Our flag represents our country as a symbol of our Nation and our 
veterans bravery throughout history. Our servicemen and women are 
courageously fighting the war on terrorism and putting their lives on 
the line every day to protect our Nation and the freedoms that we 
enjoy.
  While I am a strong supporter of the first amendment rights to 
freedom of speech and expression, hallowed symbols like the flag 
deserve to be respected and protected. Those who desecrate our flag 
undermine that powerful symbol that really unites millions of 
Americans, both alive and those who have died trying to defend our 
Nation.

                              {time}  1145

  Flag-burning shows an ultimate contempt, and I think that is really 
what it is for, to show contempt and disrespect for our men and women 
fighting overseas now.
  We have the right to protest and object to the policies of this 
administration or any other. The most effective protest is not to burn 
the flag, but political action. Go vote and organize people who agree 
with you to change the policies. Protest as much as we want to change 
those policies, but you cannot burn the flag. That is just the bottom 
line.
  This amendment would restore historic protection for our national 
symbol, and that is why I am proud to support this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for his 
good work on the Committee on the Judiciary. I would also like to thank 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for taking up this 
legislation once again. I would also like to thank the American Legion 
and the other veterans service organizations for their work behind this 
legislation before the House.
  The legislation before the House today would protect ``Old Glory'' 
from desecration. This is not about free speech or the ability of our 
citizens to express displeasure at the actions of government. That 
right is fully protected by the first amendment and this proposed 
amendment.
  The Supreme Court was right in their rulings to prohibit the shouting 
of ``fire'' in a crowded theater; and, equally, the Supreme Court was 
wrong to permit flag-burning. The burning of the flag is conduct that 
Congress is justified in regulating, and that is what we are doing in 
this legislation.
  The Stars and Stripes is a powerful symbol of our Nation and the 
ideals that we as a people hold dear: the freedom of American citizens, 
the courage of those who have defended it, and the resolve of our 
people to protect liberty and justice for all from enemies from within 
and from without. The ideals that it embodies are very powerful and are 
recognized here at home, but also abroad, by friend and foe alike.
  This symbol of liberty is so powerful that Congress should have the 
right to prohibit its willful and purposeful desecration. It is not a 
piece of cloth that rose from the ashes of the fallen Twin Towers or 
that was draped from the Pentagon in the aftermath of September 11. 
After that day, the flag suddenly seemed to appear everywhere, 
overnight, across this land, any size of fabric, even those made by 
schoolchildren from construction paper, I suppose, flags stuck in 
flowerpots, pinned on lapels, decals posted on the back windows of our 
automobiles and trucks. The message was the same: I am proud to be an 
American.

[[Page 13526]]

  I have seen the flag on a distant battlefield, and those, like me who 
have seen it there, see it perhaps from a different perspective. Across 
the river from here is a memorial to the valiant efforts of our Marines 
to raise that flag on Iwo Jima. It was not just a piece of cloth that 
appeared in the sky on that day so many years ago, just as it is not a 
piece of cloth that Francis Scott Key saw over Baltimore Harbor 
centuries ago.
  The flag was the physical embodiment of all we as Americans cherish: 
the triumph of liberty over totalitarianism, the freedoms we enjoy; our 
rights the government has an obligation to protect; and the duty we 
have to pass the torch of liberty to our children undimmed.
  The flag is a symbol worth defending. Long may she wave. I urge the 
adoption of this constitutional amendment to protect the flag.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution. The process may well be legal, but it is unwise.
  The problem is minimal. This is more like a solution in search of a 
problem. We just do not need to amend the Constitution for so little a 
problem that we face in this regard. We are just looking for another 
job for the BATF to enforce this type of legislation.
  It was stated earlier that this is the only recourse we have since 
the Supreme Court ruled the Texas law unconstitutional. That is not 
true. There are other alternatives.
  One merely would be to use State law. There are a lot of State laws, 
such as laws against arson, disturbing the peace, theft, inciting 
riots, trespassing. We could deal with all of the flag desecration with 
these laws. But there is another solution that our side has used and 
pretends to want to use on numerous occasions, and that is to get rid 
of the jurisdiction from the Federal courts. We did it on the marriage 
issue; we can do it right here.
  So to say this is the only solution is incorrect. It is incorrect. 
And besides, a solution like that would go quickly, pass the House by a 
majority vote, pass the Senate by a majority vote, send it to the 
President. The Schiavo legislation was expedited and passed quickly. 
Why not do it with the flag? It is a solution, and we should pay 
attention to it.
  Desecration is reserved for religious symbols. To me, why this is 
scary is because the flag is a symbol today of the State. Why is it, 
our side never seems to answer this question when we bring it up, why 
is it that we have the Red Chinese, Cuba, North Korea, and Saddam 
Hussein who support the position that you severely punished those who 
burn a flag? No, they just gloss over this. They gloss over it. Is it 
not rather ironic today that we have troops dying in Iraq, ``spreading 
freedom'' and, yet, we are here trying to pass laws similar to what 
Saddam Hussein had with regard to the flag? I just do not see where 
that makes a lot of sense.
  Mr. Speaker, a question I would like to ask the proponents of this 
legislation is this: What if some military officials arrived at a home 
to report to the family that their son had just been killed in Iraq, 
and the mother is totally overwhelmed by grief which quickly turns to 
anger. She grabs a flag and she burns it? What is the proper punishment 
for this woman who is grieved, who acts out in this manner? We say, 
well, these are special circumstances, we will excuse her for that; or 
no, she has to be punished, she burned a flag because she was making a 
political statement. That is the question that has to be answered. What 
is the proper punishment for a woman like that? I would say it is very 
difficult to mete out any punishment whatsoever.
  We do not need a new amendment to the Constitution to take care of a 
problem that does not exist.
  Another point: The real problem that exists rountinely on the House 
floor is the daily trashing of the Court by totally ignoring Act I Sec. 
8. We should spend a lot more time following the Rule of Law, as 
defined by our oath of office, and a lot less on unnecessary 
constitutional amendments that expands the role of the Federal 
Government while undermining that extension of the States.
  Mr. Speaker, let me summarize my views on this proposed amendment. I 
rise in opposition to this amendment. I have myself served 5 years in 
the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I 
salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding 
the Supreme Court case that overturned state laws prohibiting flag 
burning. Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions 
such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly 
up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, 
if this amendment simply restored the state's authority to ban flag 
burning, I would enthusiastically support it.
  However, I cannot support an amendment to give Congress new power to 
prohibit flag burning. I served my country to protect our freedoms and 
to protect our Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are 
undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had all these many 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We 
all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not 
justify making an exception to the First Amendment protections of 
political speech the majority finds offensive. According to the pro-
flag amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there were only three incidents 
of flag desecration in 2004 and there have only been two acts of 
desecration thus far in 2005, and the majority of those cases involved 
vandalism or some other activity that is already punishable by local 
law enforcement!
  Let me emphasize how the First Amendment is written, ``Congress shall 
make no law.'' That was the spirit of our nation at that time: 
``Congress shall make no laws.''
  Unfortunately, Congress has long since disregarded the original 
intent of the Founders and has written a lot of laws regulating private 
property and private conduct. But I would ask my colleagues to remember 
that every time we write a law to control private behavior, we imply 
that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate the 
flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that? You send 
an agent of the government, perhaps an employee of the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Flags, to arrest him. This is in many ways 
patriotism with a gun--if your actions do not fit the official 
definition of a ``patriot,'' we will send somebody to arrest you.
  Fortunately, Congress has modals of flag desecration laws. For 
example, Sadam Hussein made desecration of the Iraq flag a criminal 
offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
  It is assumed that many in the military support this amendment, but 
in fact there are veterans who have been great heroes in war on both 
sides of this issue. I would like to quote a past national commander of 
the American Legion, Keith Kreul. He said:

       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. 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. A 
     patriot cannot be created by legislation.

  Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and two-time 
winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom Colin Powell has also 
expressed opposition to amending the Constitution in this manner: ``I 
would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer out a few 
miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk 
away.''
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment will not even reach the majority of cases 
of flag burning. When we see flag burning on television, it is usually 
not American citizens, but foreigners who have strong objections to 
what we do overseas, (burning the flag). This is what I see on 
television and it is the conduct that most angers me.
  One of the very first laws that Red China passed upon assuming 
control of Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. Since that time, 
they have prosecuted some individuals for flag burning. Our State 
Department keeps records of how often the Red Chinese prosecute people 
for burning the Chinese flag, as it considers those prosecutions an 
example of how the Red Chinese violate human rights. Those violations 
are used against Red China in the argument that they should not have 
most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy among 
those Members who claim this amendment does not interfere with 
fundamental liberties, yet are critical of Red China for punishing 
those who burn the Chinese flag.
  Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately an attack on private property. 
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property. We do

[[Page 13527]]

not have freedom of expression of our religion in other people's 
churches; it is honored and respected because we respect the ownership 
of the property. The property conveys the right of free expression, as 
a newspaper would or a radio station. Once Congress limits property 
rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it limits freedom.
  Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights 
because the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. 
But if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe 
everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to spend 
money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is communally owned? 
If your neighbor, or the Federal Government, owns a flag, even without 
this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If 
you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your conduct 
under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a 
collective ownership of the flag is erroneous.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that by using the word 
``desecration,'' which is traditionally reserved for religious symbols, 
the authors of this amendment are placing the symbol of the state on 
the same plane as the symbol of the church. The practical effect of 
this is to either lower religious symbols to the level of the secular 
state, or raise the state symbol to the status of a holy icon. Perhaps 
this amendment harkens back to the time when the state was seen as 
interchangeable with the church. In any case, those who believe we have 
``no king but Christ'' should be troubled by this amendment.
  We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be 
interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues 
to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore 
the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from 
unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham) for not only his extraordinary and 
courageous service to our Nation in uniform, but for his ongoing 
service to our country in bringing this important legislation to the 
floor of the Congress. I also want to thank the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on the Judiciary on which I have the privilege of 
serving. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) continues to 
provide leadership that reflects the values of the overwhelming 
majority of the American people to this Congress. By entertaining this 
legislation and bringing this debate again to the floor, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) demonstrates the quality of 
that leadership again.
  After surviving the bloodiest battle since Gettysburg, a platoon of 
Marines trudged up Mount Suribachi on Sulfur Island with a simple task: 
to raise an American flag above the devastation below. When the flag 
was raised by Sergeant Mike Strank and his makeshift squad, history 
records that a thunderous cheer arose from our troops on land and sea, 
in foxholes and on stretchers, across Iwo Jima and its surrounding 
waters. Hope was returned to that battlefield when the American flag 
began flapping in the wind.
  Mr. Speaker, it was written long ago: ``Without a vision, the people 
perish.'' That day, on Mount Suribachi, the flag was the vision that 
inspired and rallied our troops; and that flag, Mr. Speaker, is still 
that vision for every American who cherishes those who stood ready, and 
this day stand ready, to make the sacrifices necessary to defend 
freedom.
  By adopting the flag protection amendment, I humbly offer that we 
will raise Old Glory one more time. We will raise her above the 
decisions of a judiciary that was wrong on our law and our history and 
our traditions. We will raise the flag above the cynicism of our times. 
We will say to my generation of Americans, those most unwelcome of 
words: there are limits. Out of respect for those who serve beneath it 
and those who died within the sight of it, we must say that there are 
boundaries necessary to the survival of freedom.
  C.S. Lewis said: ``We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors 
in our midst.'' Mr. Speaker, let us this day cease to laugh at honor. 
Let us elevate out of dishonor our unique national symbol to its 
rightful place. Let us pass this amendment to restore to Old Glory the 
modest protections of the law she so richly deserves.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here today to debate a 
constitutional amendment that would restrict the right of an American 
to make a foolish, foolish mistake with his or her own property. As 
Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a letter dated May 18, 1999 to 
Senator Leahy: ``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.''
  Mr. Speaker, my primary objection to this amendment is not the effect 
it will have on those who physically desecrate their flags, because the 
numbers of people who physically desecrate the American flag are so 
small. My objection is that it will give government a tool with which 
to prosecute Americans with minority views, particularly at times of 
great national division, even if their behavior would have been 
perceived as patriotic if done by the majority. Unfortunately, our 
history has abundant examples of patriotism being used to hurt those 
who express views in disagreement with that of the majority. Let me 
share some news stories taken from the New York Times in years of great 
strife in America.
  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 from the New York Times, 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 broken up by self-organized squads of 
uniformed soldiers and sailors, red flags and banners bearing Socialist 
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 `The Marseillaise' with some interruptions, 
was forced to play `The Star-Spangled Banner' while cheers were given 
for the flag.''

[[Page 13528]]

  Headline: ``Forced to Kiss the Flag. One Hundred Anarchists are Then 
Driven from San Diego. Nearly 100 Industrial Workers of the World, all 
of whom admitted they are anarchists, knelt on the ground at dawn today 
near San Onofre, a small settlement a short distance this side of the 
Orange County boundary line.

                              {time}  1200

  ``The ceremony, which was unwil-
lingly performed, was witnessed by 45 deputy constables and a large 
body of armed citizens of San Diego.''
  What do these stories have to do with this very important and 
heartfelt debate today, Mr. Speaker? The decision we make today, it 
seems to me, is a balancing, 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 anecdotes from a time of great divisiveness in our 
Nation's history, a time much different from today, government, which 
ultimately as human beings with all of our strengths and weaknesses, 
may use this amendment to question the patriotism of vocal minorities 
and 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.
  Let me give you an example. I was at a rural county fair in Arkansas 
several years ago where a group had a booth with great patriotic 
display, in addition to their handouts and signs. They had laid across 
the table, like a tablecloth, an American flag. I knew these people 
thought this to be a patriotic part of their display.
  I was standing a few booths down the way and watched as one of the 
volunteers sat on the table, oblivious to the fact he was sitting on 
our American flag. I believe that his action was a completely innocent 
mistake, and that he did not realize such behavior is inconsistent with 
good flag etiquette.
  I believe that had this group been a fringe group, these with views 
contrary to the great majority, and should we have laws prohibiting 
physical desecration of the flag, and had this been a time of great 
national division, such an action as I described would not be excused 
as an innocent mistake.
  Instead, a minority group might be prosecuted out of anger, out of 
disgust, but make no mistake, the motivation for such a prosecution 
would be that they hold a minority view. 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 they own, but 
in reality because of the views that many consider out of the 
mainstream.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this proposed amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, symbols matter. Certainly the cross has 
special meaning for millions of people. The menorah, the Koran, we saw 
that recently where false reports on desecration of the Koran led to 
riots and hundreds of people dying.
  The statue sometimes has special meaning. The symbolic meaning of the 
toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein was not lost on the Iraqi 
people or the other people around the world.
  Buildings have symbolic value. The buildings that were destroyed or 
attempted to be destroyed during 9/11 were not randomly chosen. The 
World Trade Center symbolized the U.S. economy. The Pentagon symbolized 
our military might; and probably this building was also targeted 
because it symbolized the government.
  And so for millions of Americans, the flag symbolizes the very 
essence of this country. It is more than fabric. It is what gives this 
Nation meaning. Millions have fought under this banner. Hundreds of 
thousands have died under the banner. Many have died on the battlefield 
simply protecting the flag itself, keeping it from being captured or 
from even hitting the ground.
  And so for 200 years, this was a commonly accepted understanding of 
the importance of the flag, the symbolic meaning of the flag. And then 
came two 5-4 Supreme Court decisions in the 1980s which allowed flag 
desecration under the banner of free speech, which has really offended 
a great many people in this country. I think an overwhelming number of 
States, more than 80 percent of U.S. citizens, disagree with those 
Supreme Court decisions.
  So I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Resolution 10, which states, 
``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of 
the flag of the United States of America.''
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
for his stand on this issue and for giving me this time to express my 
views.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by reading excerpts of an article 
written in the ``Retired Officer,'' a veterans magazine, by a Major 
James Warner, who was a POW in Vietnam for 6 years. He writes as 
follows: ``In March of 1973, when we were released from a prisoner-of-
war camp in North Vietnam, we were flown to Clark Air Base in the 
Philippines.
  ``As I stepped out of the aircraft, I looked up and saw the flag. I 
caught my breath then as tears filled my eyes. I saluted it. I never 
loved my country more than at that moment. Although I had received a 
Silver Star medal, and two Purple Hearts, they were nothing compared to 
the gratitude that I felt then for having been allowed to serve the 
cause of freedom.
  ``Because the mere sight of the flag meant so much to me when I saw 
it for the first time after 5\1/2\ years, it hurts me to see other 
Americans willfully desecrate it. It hurts to see the flag burned, but 
I part company with those who want to punish the flag burners. Let me 
explain myself.''
  He then goes on to talk about his experience in the POW camp. He 
says, ``I remember one interrogation where I was shown a photograph of 
some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag. See, the officer 
said, people in your country protest against your cause. That proves 
you are wrong.
  ``No, I said, that proves I am right. In my country we are not afraid 
of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us. The officer 
was on his feet in an instant, his face purple with rage. He smashed 
his fist onto the table and screamed at me to shut up. While he was 
ranting, I was astonished to see pain compounded by fear in his eyes. I 
have never forgotten that look, nor have I forgotten the satisfaction I 
felt at using his tool, the picture of the burning flag, against him.
  ``We do not need,'' he continues, ``to amend the Constitution in 
order to punish those who burn our flag. They burn the flag because 
they hate America and they are afraid of freedom. What better way to 
hurt them than with a subversive idea of freedom? Do not be afraid of 
freedom, it is the best weapon we have.''
  This is, as I said, from Major James Warner, who was a POW in Vietnam 
for 6 years who understands freedom, and therefore opposes this 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 10, which would 
amend the Constitution to allow Congress to pass laws banning the 
desecration of a flag.
  I find it abhorrent anyone would burn our flag, and if I saw someone 
desecrating the flag, I would do what I could to stop them, at risk of 
injury or incarceration.
  For me, that would be a badge of honor. But I think this 
constitutional amendment is an overreaction to a nonexisting problem. 
Keep in mind the Constitution has only been amended 17

[[Page 13529]]

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 guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of 
religion.
  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 Secretary Powell, who when he served as 
Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, wrote, ``It was a mistake to 
amend the Constitution, that great shield of democracy to hamper a few 
miscreants.''
  When I think of the flag, I think about the courageous men and women 
who have died defending it and the families they left behind. 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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, listening to it in my office earlier, it 
was claimed that veterans oppose this amendment. And I was a little 
startled by that statement.
  And the veterans groups supposedly are called the Veterans for Common 
Sense, and Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights. These veterans groups 
were cited as being against this amendment.
  Now, frankly, I have never heard of these groups. I am sure most of 
you have not heard of those groups. I am not saying they are not 
legitimate groups or they do not have well-meaning members. But I would 
contend that the vast majority of American veterans do indeed support 
the proposed amendment. And I cite the support of groups such as the 
American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, whose membership combined 
is well over 5 million veterans.
  All this proposed amendment does is protect traditional American 
values and jurisprudence. Before and after the ratification of the 
first amendment, the States prohibited the physical desecration of the 
American flag. Then, over the next 200 years, everyone understood that 
any prohibition of physically desecrating the American flag was 
allowable under Federal, State and common law, and understood to be 
consistent with free speech.
  Civil libertarian jurists, such as Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice 
Hugo Black, and Justice Abe Fortas wrote that the States and Federal 
Government have the power to protect the American flag. So it was the 
Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson in 1989, and U.S. v. 
Eichman in 1990, that overturned two centuries of traditional and 
commonly accepted legal practice.
  Thanks to these, what I believe are dubious decisions, we are forced 
to act with this constitutional amendment. This amendment does not 
really restrict freedom of expression, because no idea or viewpoints 
would be suppressed. Anyone can still freely say that they hate America 
and everything for which it stands, they just cannot burn a flag to 
prove their point.
  There are so many exceptions to free speech: Child pornography, cross 
burning, libel, fighting words. We are merely looking at a very 
extremely narrow exception to prevent the desecration of the symbol 
that represents so many wonderful things to so many people at home and 
around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I would finally point out to my colleagues that it is 
against Federal law to burn U.S. currency or willfully destroy U.S. 
mailboxes; yet we cannot protect the American flag? Mr. Speaker, I 
believe that we have a constitutional justification for this amendment. 
We also have the support of all 50 States and 80 percent of the 
American people. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, there have been thousands of 
amendments introduced, thousands of proposed amendments introduced to 
the Constitution of the United States. Only 17 have been adopted since 
1791 after the Bill of Rights.
  Amendments were proposed after most unpopular Supreme Court 
decisions. After the one-man, one-vote decision in 1960, whatever it 
was, where they said you had to reapportion based on population, there 
were amendments introduced. Amendments have been introduced after every 
unpopular decision of the Supreme Court.
  It is deliberately difficult to amend the Constitution because the 
framers of the Constitution were afraid of transient majorities. They 
were afraid of emotion, and they deliberately wanted it to be difficult 
to amend the Constitution so it would not be amended very often, and 
only under dire necessity. What is the dire necessity here?
  What is the dire necessity, that in the last 20 years, I heard 
someone say 119 people have burned the flag. Well, a lot more than 119 
people have burned the flag. Most, however, have burned the flag to 
dispose of it, which is the approved method of disposing of it.
  I have heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) say, and others 
say, this has nothing to do with free speech. People can say anything 
they want. But it is burning the flag. But the fact is, it is very much 
free speech.
  That is why the Supreme Court decided as it did, because burning the 
flag for a proper purpose, that is, to say an approved purpose, to 
destroy it, to destroy a tattered flag, is approved. But burning the 
flag to express an unpopular viewpoint, we do not agree with the 
administration in power about whatever, that would be made a crime.

                              {time}  1215

  So what is the real essence of the crime? Burning the flag in 
connection with unpopular speech. If you burn it in connection with 
popular speech, we respect the flag and we dispose of this, or this 
connection with popular speech because you are an actor playing the 
British burning Washington in 1814, that is okay. So this gets at the 
heart of free speech.
  Now, it may not be all that important right now, and it is not. We do 
not see any epidemic of people burning flags. We have no great 
emotional issue at the moment that have people marching in the streets; 
but as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) pointed out, at times 
in our history we have, and at times in our history people have been 
persecuted and free speech has been violated. We should not repeat 
that.
  We should not make it easier at times of emotion in the future on 
issues we cannot now foresee for unpopular minorities to be bullied. We 
should not make it easier for unpopular minorities in the future to 
have their free speech trampled or to give weapons to a future 
government with which to trample free speech.
  We all love the flag. No one is divided on that in this Chamber. But 
those of us who understand, I think, the meaning of liberty and the 
meaning of what this country stands for, perhaps in a way, I would want 
to say better than others, but that would be a little arrogant, but to 
understand that as we do, understand that the real meaning of this 
country is to permit free speech, to magnify free speech, to magnify 
free speech of those we do not agree with, of those we find obnoxious. 
And what this amendment does is to sacrifice that.
  The cloth of the flag is not what we revere. What we revere is the 
idea of the flag and the Republic for which it stands. That idea is 
threatened by this amendment, not protected by it; and that is why it 
should not be approved.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the argument that has been made against this amendment 
is that it infringes upon free speech guaranteed by the first 
amendment. As all of the people who served as Justices of the Supreme 
Court during the 20th century, I think everybody would recognize that 
the strongest first amendment absolutist was Justice Hugo L. Black. Let 
me read you what Justice

[[Page 13530]]

Black said in the case of Street v. New York, decided in 1969:
  ``It passes my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars 
a State from making the deliberate burning of an American flag an 
offense.''
  The court changed its mind twice at the end of the decade of the 
1980s. I do not think that anybody's free speech rights to express 
whatever they want to say about a policy, about the position of the 
American Government, about a stand that a candidate makes, a vote that 
a Congressman makes is going to be infringed by the passage of this 
amendment.
  What is going to be stopped is deliberately burning the symbol of our 
country or otherwise desecrating it. That is what this amendment seeks 
to prescribe. And if you want to stop it, vote ``yes.'' If you do not, 
vote ``no.'' I am voting ``yes.''
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the constitutional amendment to ban the 
desecration of the American flag has become a ritual here in Congress. 
Since I started in the House of Representatives this issue has come to 
the floor every Congress. Flag burning today is not a problem. In my 
years in Congress, no one back home in Oregon has ever complained about 
flag burning. The irony is that if this amendment becomes law more 
flags will be burned as psychos see this as their way to get on 
television.
  While I do understand the outrage that most of us feel towards those 
who make their points by trampling on our flag, the proposed 
constitutional amendment is unnecessary and counterproductive. On a 
serious note, we should not make changes to the Bill of Rights to deal 
with specific circumstances every time we are offended.
  No amount of rhetoric about flag burning will hide our failure to 
spotlight how Congress is missing the point. The most basic and 
important way to demonstrate our patriotism is to support our troops, 
our veterans, and their families. We need to focus on doing our job 
here.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 10, 
the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical 
desecration of our flag. And, in this respect, I take no pleasure in 
doing so: Like the vast majority of Americans, I too condemn those 
malcontents who would desecrate our flag--a universal symbol for 
democracy, freedom and liberty--to grab attention for themselves and 
inflame the passions of patriotic Americans. Without doubt, those 
misfits who desecrate our flag deserve our contempt.
  Further, I fully appreciate and respect the motivations of those who 
offer and support this amendment, particularly the patriotic men and 
women who so faithfully served this Nation in our armed services and in 
other capacities. Their strong feelings on this issue should neither be 
questioned nor underestimated. They deserve our respect.
  However, I respectfully disagree with them and will oppose this 
amendment for the reasons so eloquently articulated by Senator Mitch 
McConnell of Kentucky. In opposing a similar amendment a few years ago, 
Senator McConnell stated that it ``rips the fabric of our Constitution 
at its very center: the First Amendment.'' He added, ``Our respect and 
reverence for the flag should not provoke us to damage our 
Constitution, even in the name of patriotism.''
  Those of us who oppose this amendment do so not to countenance the 
actions of a few, but because we believe the question before us today 
is how we the United States of America--are to deal with individuals 
who dishonor our Nation in this manner.
  I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a constitutional amendment is neither the 
appropriate nor best method for dealing with these malcontents. As the 
late Justice Brennan wrote for the Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson: 
``The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those 
who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that 
they are wrong. . . . We can imagine no more appropriate response to 
burning a flag than waving one's own.''
  Furthermore, it troubles me that this amendment, if approved, would 
ensconce the vile actions of a few provocateurs into the very document 
that guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the 
press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government. 
That document, of course, is our Constitution.
  In more than 200 years, our Constitution has been amended only 27 
times, and nearly all of those amendments guarantee or expand rights, 
liberties and freedoms. Only one amendment--prohibition--constricted 
freedoms and soon was repealed.
  I simply do not believe that our traditions, our values, our 
democratic principles--all embodied in our Constitution and the Bill of 
Rights--should be overridden to prohibit this particular manner of 
speech, even though I completely disagree with it.
  Free speech is often a double-edged sword. However, if we value the 
freedoms that define us as Americans, we should refrain from amending 
the Constitution to limit those same freedoms to avoid being offended.
  I remind my colleagues that if we approve this amendment, we put our 
great Nation in the company of the oppressive regimes in China, Iran, 
and Cuba--all of whom have similar laws protecting their flags. 
Needless to say, when it comes to free speech, the United States of 
America is the world's leader. It does not follow China, Iran or Cuba.
  Our flag is far more than a piece of cloth, a few stripes, 50 stars. 
Our flag is a universal symbol for freedom, liberty, human rights and 
decency that is recognized throughout the world. The inflammatory 
actions of a few misfits cannot extinguish those ideals. We can only do 
that ourselves. And I submit that a constitutional amendment to 
restrict speech--even speech such as this--is the surest way to stoke 
the embers of those who will push for even more restrictions.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 10, which 
proposes a Constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag, 
because what people do with a piece of fabric, however meaningful, is 
not worthy of Congressional intervention. Flag burning has as much to 
do with patriotism as weapons of mass destruction had to do with our 
invasion of Iraq.
  This is not the first time the Republican Majority has sought to 
divert attention from otherwise pressing matters. This body could be 
focusing on providing health insurance to our Nation's 45 million 
uninsured, improving our public education system, addressing our 
swollen deficit, or any number of equally important issues. Instead we 
are mired in the issues of Terri Schiavo, steroids in professional 
sports and flag burning.
  If we wanted to show our patriotism and support our troops there are 
tangible options available. We could focus, instead, on providing them 
with enough bulletproof vests, ensuring veterans have access to the 
best possible health care, and sending our troops into war only as a 
last resort. Perhaps if the members of this body were so concerned with 
a symbol of democracy, an effort could be made by our leaders to hold 
themselves to the highest ethical standards.
  Mr. Speaker, how patriotic do you think the American people feel when 
a chief negotiator of the Medicare drug bill leaves Congress to become 
the head of the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying group? How much 
pride in our democracy do Americans have when they learn that the 
President was planning to invade Iraq months before he bothered to tell 
them about it? How should the American people feel when they learn the 
Republican Majority votes to cut health care for millions of 
impoverished Americans and then boosts funding for no-bid defense 
contracts to Halliburton?
  The Republican Majority consistently doesn't support our troops and 
has sold the government to the nation's wealthiest corporations; a 
debate about flag burning will not change these facts. Mr. Speaker, I 
will not vote to undermine our freedoms and make a mockery of our 
Constitution.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this serious debate over the 
First Amendment and our Nation's flag, two of the most sacred 
institutions to this country.
  America is somewhat unique in its devotion to the Nation's flag. 
Perhaps because we come from so many different backgrounds, cultural 
traditions, and ethnicities, we see the flag as a source of national 
unity. Like the majority of Americans, I have the utmost respect and 
reverence for our flag. For all of us, this reverence begins early on, 
when as school children we are taught the Pledge of Allegiance and 
recite it each day with our classmates. Or it begins when we attend a 
Memorial Day Parade with our parents and look in awe at the veterans, 
young and old, who still carry the flag with such pride. Seeing the 
flag treated with this reverence is a powerful lesson for our young 
people and makes them incredibly proud to be Americans.
  The times I have been most proud of my country have been during my 
two trips to Iraq. Seeing our young men and women in uniform carrying 
out their mission under dangerous and difficult conditions is an 
inspiring thing. Seeing their devotion to our flag and all that it 
represents makes me so grateful to have grown up in this country and to 
have some small part in helping our troops.
  I was struck, during my visits to the country, with how dedicated our 
servicemen and women are to helping everyday Iraqis. Our

[[Page 13531]]

men and women in uniform appreciate the freedoms afforded to them, and 
are eager to see Iraqi citizens enjoy these same freedoms. Mr. Speaker, 
I believe one of our greatest freedoms is freedom of speech. Our 
forefathers, in their wisdom, made this the first amendment to the Bill 
of Rights. After fighting a war against Great Britain for their 
freedom, they made sure that future Americans would have the right to 
free speech and free expression.
  In deference to our forefathers and out of respect for the brave 
patriots today who are serving overseas, I cannot in good conscience 
support this amendment. Burning or desecrating the American flag is an 
abhorrent action for which I have nothing but contempt. Much as I hate 
the act, it is not right to deny an American the freedom to express 
himself in this shameful way.
  I would like to close by quoting a man who knows much of patriotism 
and freedom. Former soldier and Secretary of State Colin Powell, when 
asked for his views on this issue, said, ``The First Amendment exists 
to ensure 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 still be flying proudly long after 
they have slunk away.''
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
resolution because I disagree with this attempt to muddle our First 
Amendment rights.
  I understand and acknowledge the passion that my friends and 
colleagues demonstrate today. It is disturbing to see images of someone 
burning the flag of the United States, particularly when we reflect 
upon the countless men and women who have given up their lives 
defending this symbol of freedom.
  When I was first elected to the House, I cosponsored a flag burning 
amendment. I did so for many of the same reasons that proponents of the 
amendment have expressed today.
  And yet looking back, I realize I was moved by my heart than by my 
head.
  History reminds 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 acts that we consider obnoxious.
  As our Founding Fathers originally intended, the First Amendment to 
the Constitution has safeguarded the freedom of expression. Tested 
through times of war and peace, Americans have been able 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 that not only accommodates a wide-ranging 
public debate, but encourages it.
  Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine and former Senator of Virginia, Chuck 
Robb, is a man who sacrificed greatly for his nation, in both the 
Vietnam War and in his political career. Exemplifying a ``profile in 
courage'' Senator Robb stood against public popularity when he voted 
against this amendment in order to defend the very freedoms that the 
American flag represents.
  In his moving Senate floor statement, Senator Robb described how as a 
soldier 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. By showing the courage to vote against this amendment, 
he jeopardized his political career and subsequently lost his bid for 
me re-election.
  Not having fought in a war, I should do no less than Senator Robb did 
in defense of die freedom he and so many of my peers were willing to 
defend with their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment should be defeated. In our hearts and our 
minds we know that flag burning is not a threat to our freedom, 
limiting the exercise of individual liberty is.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House 
Joint Resolution 4, the Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag 
desecration.
  Our flag is the strongest symbol of America's character and values. 
It tells the story of victories won--and battles lost--in defending the 
principles of freedom and democracy. These are stories of men and women 
from all walks of life who put their lives on hold to serve our Nation. 
Many of those brave Americans never returned home from distant 
battlefields. The flag reminds us of the sacrifices they made at 
Gettysburg, San Juan Hill, Iwo Jima, Normandy Beach, Korea, Da Nang, 
Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq and other places where America's men and 
women in uniform placed honor and duty above self. These Americans had 
a powerful symbol uniting them--the American flag. The American flag 
belongs to them as it belongs to all of us.
  Critics of the amendment say it interferes with freedom of speech. 
They are wrong. It does not interfere with freedom of speech. Americans 
have access to public television; they can write letters to the editor 
to express their beliefs; they can speak freely at public forums; they 
can share their views with listeners by calling into radio stations. I 
meet with constituents everyday in order to best represent their 
interests in Washington. Americans can stand on the steps of their own 
City Hall or on the steps of our nation's Capitol to demonstrate their 
cause. Protecting the American flag from desecration does not deprive 
any American of the opportunity to speak clearly, openly and freely.
  Let us be aware that it is speech, not action, that 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, 
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.
  In 1989, in the case of Texas versus Gregory Lee Johnson, the Supreme 
Court ruled that a state flag protection statute was unconstitutional. 
The court was in error. It was not the thoughts or opinions expressed 
by Mr. Johnson that the Texas law restricted but the manner in which he 
expressed his thoughts and opinions. Mr. Johnson was free to speak his 
mind without fear of censorship. That freedom is guaranteed by the 
First Amendment. But desecrating the flag is not speech; it is action 
and action is not protected. For example, an individual is free to 
speak about the need for America to conserve its environment, but the 
individual would not be free to express those thoughts by destroying 
oil derricks. There is la difference between action and speech.
  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. More than 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.
  All fifty 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 298 
to 125, and will rightfully pass it again this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.J. Res. 4 
and ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important 
resolution that means so much to so many.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support H.J. Res. 10, the ``Flag Protection Amendment.'' Every day we 
rise with dignity to salute and pledge allegiance to our Nation's flag. 
We do so because our flag stands for liberty, democracy, and all the 
sacred ideals that allow us to rise here at all.
  The stars-and-stripes are recognized in almost every corner of the 
globe as an emblem of liberating hope. This great symbol we respect so 
much has cloaked the bodies of our fallen brave and graced the final 
moments of our presidents. On American soil, she stands tall before all 
other flags and is lowered in sorrow only for the greatest of patriots. 
She waves from our homes and churches and crowns our Nation's greatest 
houses of freedom, including the one in which we now deliberate.
  Our flag is handled with the utmost care by those who have worked 
hardest to sustain and protect what she stands for, by those who have 
dedicated their lives to her. Let us never forget their sacrifice and 
remain diligent in protecting the greatest symbol of democracy and 
freedom from desecration.
  We would never tolerate the desecration of this or any other public 
building. We would never tolerate the desecration of our Nation's 
hallowed graves or places of worship. We would never stand idly by if 
Lady Liberty, the Washington Monument, or the Liberty Bell were ever 
torn from their pedestals and dragged into the streets. Why then should 
we leave our Nation's most cherished and recognized symbol vulnerable 
and unprotected in the very land that had its birth beneath her 
glorious colors?
  I urge my colleagues to ensure that our beloved banner will survive, 
unscathed, every ``twilight's last gleaming.'' Guarantee that within 
our borders she will forever wave proudly

[[Page 13532]]

``o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.'' Please join me 
in voting for H.J. Res. 10, the ``Flag Protection Amendment.''
  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.
  At the start of the town hall meeting I host in my district, I always 
try take a few moments to lead those in attendance in the pledge of 
allegiance. I think this is an important and valuable portion of my 
town hall meetings when I can express my support for and share my deep 
respect of both our flag and our system of government-which our flag 
represents.
  What makes America a great and free society, is our system of 
government and our Constitution. Our Constitution is the document that 
provides the basis for our great country. It is our Nation's operating 
manual. For over two centuries, 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.
  The Constitution 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.
  As a Member of Congress, I took an oath of office in which I swore 
``. . . that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States.'' In fact, new citizens to our great nation make a similar 
pledge when they are sworn in as U.S. citizens. It is important to note 
that I am entrusted with the obligation to defend the Constitution, not 
the symbols, of our Nation. The Founders knew that it is our system of 
government that is essential to who were are as a people and what we 
stand for. While I deeply value the flag as a symbol of our Nation, 
what we need to ensure is that we protect the values and ideals of our 
country as contained within the Constitution.
  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, and I am unaware of a flag burning epidemic in 
America. To me this Resolution is a solution in search of a problem.
  Let me be clear, it is wrong to desecrate or defile an American flag 
in any way. But making it unconstitutional will not prevent these 
incidents from occurring. What we should do, as a government and as 
American citizens, is promote civic values and a greater understanding 
of our democracy. We should encourage civic education in our schools 
and communities. People who value and understand the ideals of our 
country will also understand and value the symbols of our great Nation.
  The issue before us is whether our Constitution should be amended so 
that the Federal Government can prosecute the handful of Americans who 
show disrespect 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 values and ideals that created of these freedoms.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this 
amendment to the Constitution. When Framer Thomas Jefferson penned the 
Declaration of Independence, he wrote that:

       We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of 
     America, in General Congress, assembled, solemnly publish and 
     declare, that these colonies are . . . free and independent 
     states . . . and we mutually pledge to each other our lives, 
     our fortunes, and our sacred honor . . . our sacred honor.

  My colleagues, this is what the American flag stands for--honor. But 
it also stands for something even more sacred--freedom. Freedom of 
expression as contained in the 1st Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

       Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of 
     speech.

  This amendment, if passed, for the first time in our Nation's 
history, would cut back on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom 
of expression that is the bedrock of our democracy, and one of the 
fundamental guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights.
  In his 1859 essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill recognized the public 
good and enlightenment which results from the free exchange of ideas. 
He writes:

       First, if any expression is compelled to silence, that 
     opinion for aught we can certainly know, be true . . . 
     Secondly, though this silenced opinion be in error, it may, 
     and very commonly does, contain a portion of the truth . . . 
     Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true but 
     the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be and actually is, 
     vigorously and earnestly contested, it will by most of those 
     who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice.

  There is a distinct difference between real and forced patriotism.
  Freedom cannot survive if exceptions to the First Amendment are made 
when someone in power disagrees with an expression! If we allow that, 
our right to free speech will depend on what Congress finds acceptable, 
precisely what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.
  This amendment may provoke rather than diminish the very acts it 
purports to curtail. Our Nation's experiment with an amendment to the 
Constitution concerning Prohibition shows that a cure by amendment to 
the Constitution may itself incite harm of the very nature it seeks to 
prevent.
  The flag desecration amendment is a solution in search of a problem. 
The expressive act, burning a flag, which this amendment attempts to 
curtail, is exceedingly rare. Professor Robert Justin Goldstein 
documented approximately 45 reported incidents of flag burning in the 
over 200 years between 1777 when the flag was adopted, and 1989, when 
Congress passed, and the Supreme Court rejected, the Flag Protection 
Act. About half of these occurred during the Vietnam War. Some of our 
great war heroes even share the spirit of my fellow Democratic 
colleagues in supporting efforts to preserve freedom through individual 
rights:
  Dwight D. Eisenhower said that ``Only our individual faith in freedom 
can keep us free.''
  Thomas Jefferson again said that ``The price of freedom is eternal 
vigilance.''
  Finally, General Richard B. Myers USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff stated that ``In our profession and mine, (we are) working 
hard to defend our values, our way of life and our Constitution. We 
risk our comfort, our safety and our lives for what we believe in.''
  This quote says it all--our brave soldiers fighting on the 
battlefields see the Constitution as one of their main causes. When we 
trivialize the Constitution by haphazardly amending it based on 
personal proclivities, we frustrate the sacrifices of our troops.
  This amendment would be the beginning, not the end, of the question 
of how to regulate a certain form of expression. It empowers Congress 
to begin the task of defining what the ``flag'' and ``desecration'' 
mean. The use of the flag as symbol is ubiquitous, from commerce, to 
art, to memorials, such that Congress would be in the position of 
defining broad rules for specific applications. Congress, the courts, 
and law enforcement agents would have to judge whether displaying the 
flag on Polo jeans is ``desecration,'' but the Smithsonian's recent 
removal of two million stitches from the 188-year old flag that 
inspired Frances Scott Key, is not.
  The United States Supreme Court has ruled consistently that flag 
burning is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. In Texas 
v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional to apply 
to a protester a Texas law punishing people who ``desecrate'' or 
otherwise ``mistreat'' the flag in a manner that the ``actor knows will 
seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his 
action.'' The Court found that the law made flag burning a crime only 
when the suspect's thoughts and message in the act of burning were 
offensive, thus violating the First Amendment's protections of freedom 
of the mind and freedom of speech. The next year, in United States v. 
Eichman (1990), the Court reviewed a Congressional statute that 
attempted to be neutral as to the messages that might be conveyed, 
prohibiting flag burning except when attempting the ``disposal of a 
flag when it has become worn or soiled.'' The Court struck down this 
statute as another attempt to punish offensive thoughts.
  To quote the legal philosopher, Lon Fuller on amending the U.S. 
Constitution, he stated that:

       We should resist the temptation to clutter up the 
     Constitution with amendments relating to substantive matters. 
     We must avoid

[[Page 13533]]

     the obvious unwisdom of trying to solve tomorrow's problems 
     today and the insidious danger of the weakening effect of 
     such amendments on the moral force of the Constitution.

  I continue to share the sentiment and spirit of this quote with my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle because they continue to 
tread the unwise path of unnecessarily amending the Constitution. Mr. 
Speaker, for these reasons, I strenuously urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on H.J. Res. 10.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.J. Res. 10, 
which calls for a constitutional amendment permitting Congress to 
protect our nation's flag.
  Old Glory is far more than a piece of cloth. Especially in this post-
September 11 era, it is the most visible symbol of our Nation and the 
freedoms we have too often taken for granted. It is a unifying sign in 
times of peace and war, instilling pride in our great country and 
continued hope for our future.
  Americans from across the political spectrum and from every walk of 
life support the passage of this amendment. Since the Supreme Court in 
1989 invalidated state-passed flag protection laws, the legislatures in 
each of the 50 states have passed resolutions petitioning Congress for 
this amendment. I am proud that the House is taking this important step 
toward a constitutional amendment today.
  Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Findlay, Ohio, is well known for its 
civic pride and spirited celebration of the flag. The annual display of 
thousands of flags on houses and businesses throughout Findlay earned 
the community the designation ``Flag City USA.'' Arlington, Ohio, which 
I am also privileged to represent, has been named ``Flag Village USA'' 
for the patriotism inherent in its citizens. The letters, phone calls, 
and e-mails I have received from Findlay, Arlington, and throughout my 
congressional district in recent weeks express strong support for the 
protection of Old Glory.
  I am proud again this year to be a cosponsor of Duke Cunningham's 
joint resolution, and recognize him for his unwavering leadership on 
this issue. I urge my colleagues to support their constituents and vote 
in favor of sending this amendment to the states for ratification.
  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.
  I think that point was well put by Bill Holen of Littleton, Colorado, 
who wrote to express agreement with a recent Denver Post editorial 
against this proposed constitutional amendment. As he put it, ``As a 
Vietnam veteran and one who fought honorably for this nation . . . Like 
Colin Powell, while I personally abhor the thought of anyone burning 
the American flag, the symbol under which I fought for this nation, I 
believe the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of 
Rights are far more important.''
  I do not think there is a real need for this amendment. On that 
point, I agree with the Rocky Mountain News that ``Flag-burning is not 
really a problem, as actual incidents of It are rare. It is 
disproportionately denounced rather than actually done. And defining 
desecration is tricky, especially given the widespread commercial and 
decorative use of the flag.'' And, in particular, I share that 
newspaper's view that ``More importantly, tampering with the First 
Amendment opens the way to those laws of the kind that less democratic 
governments impose to shield themselves from criticism.''
  Mr. Speaker, every day, at home and abroad, our brave men and women 
in uniform are on guard to defend our country and our constitution from 
those who have no respect for either. In my opinion, anyone who thinks 
that burning the flag under which they serve would be an effective way 
to influence public opinion is grotesquely mistaken. And I think to say 
we need to amend the constitution in order to respond to people 
suffering from that delusion is to give them more importance than they 
deserve.
  For the benefit of our colleagues, I attach the text of the newspaper 
editorial to which I referred earlier.

             [From the Rocky Mountain News, Sept. 17, 2004]

                   Flag-Burning Issue a Waste of Time

       Today is the 217th anniversary of the signing of our 
     Constitution. To celebrate that happy event, the White House 
     has announced that scholar and historian Lynne Cheney, the 
     wife of the vice president, will speak at Gunston Hall 
     Plantation in northern Virginia.
       Gunston Hall was the home of George Mason, whom the White 
     House properly described as ``Father of America's Bill of 
     Rights.'' Mason wrote the prototype of the Bill of Rights for 
     Virginia's constitution in 1776, and it was his intransigence 
     that led to the adoption of those rights as the first 10 
     amendments to the Constitution.
       The anniversary comes as the Republican Senate leadership 
     is considering, with breathtaking political cynicism, 
     bringing back for a vote a constitutional amendment outlawing 
     flag-burning.
       The Supreme Court has ruled simply and correctly that flag-
     burning is political speech and as such has the absolute 
     protection of the First Amendment. Thank you, Mr. Mason.
       Flag-burning is not really a problem, as actual incidents 
     of it are rare. It is disproportionately denounced rather 
     than actually done. And defining desecration is tricky, 
     especially given the widespread commercial and decorative use 
     of the flag. More importantly, tampering with the First 
     Amendment opens the way to those laws of the kind that less 
     democratic governments impose to shield themselves from 
     criticism.
       Given her credentials, Lynne Cheney is the ideal person, 
     Gunston Hall the ideal venue and Constitution Day the ideal 
     occasion to denounce this latest attempt to undo George 
     Mason's handiwork.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 10, 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag 
of the United States. Since 1990, I have voted in opposition to a 
Constitutional amendment banning flag desecration or flag burning. I 
find flag desecration disgraceful, and I get as angry as anyone does 
when I see or hear about such things. But, I do not believe we should 
amend the U.S. Constitution to deal with this matter.
  Not once during the 15 years I have voted on this amendment to the 
Constitution has a crisis occurred with people burning flags. As a 
combat veteran of the Vietnam War, I know well the sacrifices that have 
been made by many generations of Americans to protect our freedom. We, 
as Americans, should honor our flag. It is a symbol of our freedom. I 
am immensely gratified when I see all the flags flying in the face of 
terrorist attacks and in support of our troops fighting overseas. They 
make me very proud.
  However, I am not at all comfortable with changing the Bill of Rights 
that guarantees our freedoms. The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of 
expression including dissent. Individual freedom and opportunity have 
built our nation into the strongest on earth where liberties are 
enshrined in our Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution 
protects free speech and allows us to openly debate any issue in this 
country. As vile as flag desecration may be, the Supreme Court has 
ruled that it is political speech and, therefore, protected under the 
First Amendment.
  I remain committed to preserving freedom and opportunity. In the true 
spirit of America, freedom must be maintained for those with whom we 
agree and, yes, those with whom we disagree. I believe we, as 
individuals, should honor the flag as a symbol of that freedom. 
Applying government coercion to prevent flag desecration actually chips 
away at that freedom of expression.
  Old Glory can withstand a few exhibitionists looking for attention. 
We don't have to jeopardize our freedoms to protect it. It is a symbol 
of what protects us.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today in strong and 
wavering support of the Flag Protection Amendment. I'm proud to be an 
original cosponsor of this important measure.
  Our flag is more than just a piece of cloth. From Lexington to 
Gettysburg to Falluja, more than a million brave Americans have given 
their lives in defense of our flag and the American ideals it 
represents. We must honor their ultimate sacrifice, and the sacrifices 
made by the almost 60,000 veterans in my home state of Wyoming, by 
defending our flag with the courage and resolve they proved possible.
  The Flag Protection Amendment will protect from desecration the most 
widely recognized symbol of freedom and democracy worldwide, one that 
offers hope and comfort to the students and teachers, lawmakers, and 
military men and women who pledge allegiance to the flag every day 
across the nation.
  With that, I strongly urge final passage of the Flag Protection 
Amendment.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, I attended the funeral of 
Congressman J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle--a former member of the House who 
represented the 10th District of Texas for 31 years. As the current 
representative of the 10th District of Texas, it was my duty to pay 
homage to Congressman Pickle who gave so much to Texas and his 
constituents.
  In doing so, I was absent for legislative business on the floor, and 
missed the opportunity to vote in favor of an amendment to the 
Constitution to prevent the desecration of the flag. As an original 
cosponsor of this amendment, I would have voted ``yes'' to preserve the 
ultimate icon of American values.

[[Page 13534]]

  Since 1994, there have been 119 instances of reported flag burning or 
desecration in the United States, but just one occurrence of this 
should be reason enough to outlaw this heinous act.
  All 50 States have enacted resolutions asking Congress to pass a flag 
protection amendment, and an overwhelming majority of the American 
people have consistently supported the protection of our flag. 
Accordingly, the House has passed a flag protection amendment by more 
than the \2/3\ majority needed in 5 separate Congresses.
  Countless men and women, including my father, who are all heroes, 
have served under the glory of its stars and bars and died to ensure 
its spirit, and desecrating our flag is a desecration of their 
contribution to America. The American flag serves as the world's most 
recognized symbol of freedom and democracy, and should be given the 
appropriate respect and protection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate on the 
joint resolution has expired.


      Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered by Mr. Watt

  Mr. WATT. 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:

       The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Watt:
       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 330, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this marks the sixth consecutive term of Congress in 
which I have engaged in this debate. I actually, when I first came to 
Congress and the first time I had the opportunity to participate in 
this, I resented having to go through this. But over the years I have 
come to believe that this is a healthy debate; and if we conduct it in 
a dignified way, the debate actually can be good for the entire 
country, and people can come away with a greater understanding and 
appreciation of how delicate our Constitution framework is.
  This is about how individuals in our country perceive patriotism, the 
rights of free speech, the rights of protecting the views of people who 
quite often they may disagree with in content, but that is what our 
country has been about.
  So I want to start by complimenting the chairman and the ranking 
member for the dignified way the debate has proceeded up to this point. 
And I hope that this amendment in the nature of a substitute does not 
get us off onto a different track, because this is the second or third 
time I have offered the amendment in the nature of a substitute, and I 
did it originally for the purpose of trying to get to a higher quality 
of debate and forcing my colleagues and whoever may be listening to the 
debate to think about some of these things.
  What does the first amendment mean? What rights do we owe to people 
in our country whose views we may disagree with? What rights do we owe 
to the people in our country who may express those views in ways that 
we disagree with?
  And I am confident that everybody in this body would think that 
desecration of the flag, burning of the flag would not be something 
that we would be supporting, so that is not what this amendment is 
about.
  My amendment simply says if we are going to do a constitutional 
amendment, it should not just say that Congress has the authority to 
pass a law that prohibits the physical desecration of the flag. 
Whatever we do should be subject to the first amendment to the 
Constitution. And the amendment under my version would read, not 
inconsistent with the first article of amendment to the Constitution: 
``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of 
the flag of the United States.''
  My amendment, I believe, recognizes the long-standing legacy of the 
Bill of Rights. In over 200 years of history, our Constitution has been 
amended only 27 times and the Bill of Rights has never been amended, 
not once has the Bill of Rights been amended; and this proposed 
resolution would be the first time to do that.
  I understand that the proposed resolution seeks to uphold the 
integrity of our flag; but my amendment seeks to ensure that the 
principles for which the flag stands, particularly freedom of 
expression and freedom of speech, are also reserved.
  The first amendment to the United States Constitution stands for the 
proposition that all voices of dissent should be heard without 
governmental suppression. Disrespect for the flag is offensive to every 
Member of this body, but this is not a debate about patriotism. It is 
not a debate about whether flag desecration is good or bad. It is a 
debate about the values that underlie our Constitution. And I think 
former Secretary of State Colin Powell said it best when he said these 
words:
  ``The first amendment exists to ensure 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, the Constitution, to humor a few miscreants,'' he 
said. ``The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk 
away.'' And that is the end of his quote for my purposes today.
  It is the underlying values represented by the flag, not the cloth on 
which the stars and bars are sewn that our Constitution protects. Those 
are the values my amendment would preserve.
  Mr. Speaker, following the horrific acts of terrorism against our 
country, our citizens were repeatedly cautioned not to cower in the 
face of terrorism. Do not curtail our freedoms, we were told, for to do 
so would be to surrender our way of life, to give up and give in to the 
terrorists. The terrorists would win.
  I think if we pass the amendment as it has been proposed, we give in 
to those miscreants, as Colin Powell has characterized them, those 
people who we disagree with. We should be protecting their rights also 
to free speech.
  I want to put this in context. I started by saying that I used to 
resent this debate and I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I came to 
Congress thinking that, I guess, I thought I had a monopoly on what the 
meaning of the Constitution was. And there is a history to that, 
because I had graduated from Yale Law School, took my constitutional 
law from Professor Robert Bork, who became so controversial when he was 
nominated to the United States Supreme Court. And in that class with me 
was a student by the name of Duncan Kennedy who is now a professor at 
Harvard Law School and for whom a whole theory of law has been 
patterned.
  In that class with me, in that constitutional law class, was a guy 
named Paul Gewirtz, who is now a professor of constitutional law at 
Yale University Law School. So it was one of those law school classes 
that people would die for. And we analyzed the first amendment back and 
forth, right and left, Bork against Duncan, Bork against Gewirtz. I 
mean, there were good students in the class and then there were people 
like me who were sitting in the back of the room hoping that nobody 
would ever realize that we were there and I could avoid getting 
involved in that high level of debate.
  But I was listening and understanding that the Constitution, the

[[Page 13535]]

first amendment had different meanings to different people. And I 
thought I got a good balanced view. Actually, I thought I got a good 
balanced view until I went back to North Carolina and went into a law 
firm that was generally known as a civil rights law firm.
  And one day my senior law partner, a gentleman by the name of Julius 
Chambers, called me in and said, I want you to go to eastern North 
Carolina to one of the counties in which Native Americans represent a 
high portion of the population, because a number of the Native 
Americans in that county have been charged with parading, using 
tomahawks, parading around; and they have been charged with resisting 
arrest and various other criminal offenses. And he did not tell me what 
they were down there demonstrating about. He just told me to go down 
there and represent them.

                              {time}  1230

  I went and I started my interviews with the Native Americans, and 
during the course of my interviews with them, it became apparent that 
the reason that they had these tomahawks out there and they were 
demonstrating and parading was that they had a desire not to have to go 
to school with black people. They thought that the schools that they 
were going to be sent to with African Americans were inferior, and they 
did not want to do it.
  Well, I being an African American myself, swallowed very hard and 
said, What has my law partner gotten me into? I could not wait until 
the end of the day to get in my car and race back to Charlotte, North 
Carolina, and confront my senior law partner.
  I walked in and I said, Chambers, why would you send me to this 
county to represent these Indians who were demonstrating against going 
to school with African Americans? His response taught me more about the 
first amendment than either Robert Bork or Duncan Kennedy or Paul 
Gerwitz or any of the discussions that I had participated in in law 
school. He simply asked me one question. He said, Do you not believe in 
the first amendment?
  This is a difficult issue, and this is not about patriotism, and I 
have come to understand over the years of debate that we have had this 
amendment under consideration, I started out saying to people on the 
opposite side, people like the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) and people who served their country, You are unpatriotic 
because you do not agree with me about my interpretation of the first 
amendment; the first amendment was passed to protect the right of 
people to demonstrate and burn flags and you are unpatriotic because 
you do not agree with me.
  But then I started to listen to what the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham) was saying and what my colleagues were saying and 
studied this issue more. Could it be that Justice Scalia and Justice 
Rehnquist, two conservative jurists, could be on opposite sides of this 
issue and it not be a difficult issue from a constitutional 
perspective? That is, can you imagine the debate that was taking place 
in the Supreme Court? I cannot imagine that Justice Rehnquist looked at 
Justice Scalia and said, You are unpatriotic because you do not agree 
with me. I cannot imagine that Justice Scalia looked at Justice 
Rehnquist and said, oh, no, you are unpatriotic because you disagree 
with me. They came down on opposite sides of the landmark case.
  This is a difficult issue and it is all about what you think ought to 
be protected under the first amendment. It is not about whether you are 
patriotic or not.
  Well, there is one thing I want for sure my colleagues to 
acknowledge, that this amendment, when it was first offered, started 
out just saying there shall be no physical desecration of the flag. For 
a couple of years it said that, but then the more recent versions of 
what we are considering today say that Congress shall have the power to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. That means that Congress 
must pass a statute, which must then go to the Supreme Court ultimately 
to be evaluated. So, at some point, the Supreme Court is going to 
evaluate whether that statute complies with the first amendment or not.
  In that sense, the language that I am proposing, I am going to first 
and foremost acknowledge, is redundant. It just specifically says that 
whatever we do as a Congress has got to be subject to the first 
amendment. That is redundant. As my colleagues know, whatever we do as 
a Congress is supposed to be subject to everything in the Constitution 
anyway, but I want to remind us that, at the same time, we protect the 
flag.
  A principle of our Nation is also to protect speech, whatever that 
is; is it burning the flag, is it hollering ``fire'' in a crowded 
theater? Whatever it is, there needs to be some kind of balance. And 
this Congress, whether it adopts my amendment or does not adopt my 
amendment, is going to be subject to that anyway.
  The proponents of this amendment who say that this is going to do 
something earth shattering or that my amendment is going to undercut 
their proposal, it is just not the case.
  I just want to be sure that we acknowledge that whatever we do, we 
acknowledge it, that the first amendment is just as important as the 
flag. Just as important. Some people might argue that it is more 
important than the piece of cloth. My colleagues might argue that it 
is, that it is equal in value, but we at least need to come to grips 
with that, and that is what the Constitution, that is what the Supreme 
Court has been trying to do for a number of years. It is not an easy 
thing to do.
  We have heard a lot of discussion about activist judges. This 
proposal encourages judges to be activists because it says you are 
giving Congress the right to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
flag. Do my colleagues think the Supreme Court is not going to exercise 
its constitutional responsibilities just because we said Congress can 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag? It is going to have to. 
It is going to have to decide what that means. It is going to have to 
decide how we balance this provision, this statute, statutory authority 
that Congress gives against the first amendment. We are not going to be 
able to get around the Supreme Court here.
  We like to punt these things and pretend that we are doing something 
earth shattering here, but the Supreme Court, I hope, is still going to 
be there, and I believe the Supreme Court is going to wrestle with this 
as they have in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the arguments made by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) in support of his amendment, 
and he said that his amendment is redundant. It is redundant, but it 
also is a gutting amendment to the base text of the constitutional 
amendment that we are debating today.
  This substitute amendment should be rejected because it would 
constitutionally ratify the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. 
Johnson and United States v. Eichman, rather than empower Congress to 
pass legislation to protect the flag from physical desecration.
  In Johnson and Eichman, the Supreme Court held that flag desecration 
is expressive conduct protected by the first amendment. These decisions 
effectively invalidated the laws of 48 States and the Federal 
Government. In addition, based on these precedents, any law that 
prohibits the physical desecration of the flag will be struck down as 
an unconstitutional suppression of free expression, thus defeating the 
goal of our efforts to provide protection for the flag.
  A constitutional amendment must be passed if the flag is to receive 
legal protection. Under the Watt substitute, the flag would not receive 
such protection because the Court would simply strike down as 
inconsistent to the first amendment any implementing legislation 
enacted into law.
  Adoption of the substitute would not only render H.J. Res. 10 
ineffective, but it would also constitutionally codify

[[Page 13536]]

the Supreme Court decisions that a vast majority of the American public 
were erroneously decided, and which did not exist for the first 200 
years of the Constitution's existence.
  In other words, if the Watt amendment is passed and then a 
constitutional amendment is passed and ratified by the States, the 
Supreme Court can, in the future, recognize that it made a mistake, and 
that is why this amendment should be rejected.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just for the purpose 
of responding to this.
  I do not agree at all with my chair, as much as I respect him, that 
this codifies anything. What it does is that it codifies and reaffirms 
and acknowledges the state of affairs that exists right now, that in 
the final analysis the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the 
Constitution and laws of our country. After we pass my amendment or the 
underlying amendment, the Supreme Court is still going to be the 
ultimate arbiter of that, and so my amendment neither does that or does 
not do it.
  His amendment does not do it. If the Supreme Court changes its mind, 
the composition of the Supreme Court changes, and they decide that 
burning a flag is prohibited, is not protected under the first 
amendment, then that is going to be the last word on it. We do not have 
any way to go on that.
  So I do not think I can agree with him that I am doing anything 
different than preserving the state of affairs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), my good friend.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by saying our 
flag does not need protection from an occasional protester, we call 
them miscreants I think, who cannot see how ridiculous it is to try to 
protest by destroying the symbol of his right to protest. If he cannot 
see how ridiculous that is, obviously we do not need much protection 
from him.
  Contrary to what has been suggested on the floor, the underlying 
amendment does not regulate conduct. Without the Watt amendment, it 
clearly regulates message.
  Now, as the gentleman from North Carolina, sponsor of the amendment, 
points out, the underlying amendment does not repeal the first 
amendment. Even if we adopt this constitutional amendment, the first 
amendment will still be there, and so the amendment is, in fact, 
redundant, but it makes it clear and reminds people that it is still 
there.
  What he seeks to clarify is whether or not it is indeed the message 
that is being criminalized rather than the conduct, whether or not 
those who support government policy, for example, and burn a flag 
without offending anybody, apparently they will be okay. But if you are 
a war protester who burns a flag, you can be arrested, and if you are a 
veteran, so disgusted with veterans health care, and burn the flag in 
protest, are we making him a criminal? Or if you are a member of a 
fringe political organization who burns his own flag on his own 
property, in private, can they be arrested if somebody finds out?
  The question is whether or not we are criminalizing the message or 
the conduct. So the Watt amendment makes it clear that we are still 
protecting freedom of speech. The message, that will be clear, that we 
if we do not support the Watt amendment we just ought to acknowledge it 
is indeed the message, not conduct, which is the target of the 
underlying amendment.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Watt substitute and in support of 
H.J. Res. 10, which would amend the Constitution to give Congress the 
authority to prevent the physical desecration of the American flag. The 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) says that the Bill of Rights 
has never been amended. It may be that the words have never been 
changed, but the United States Supreme Court on many, many, many 
occasions has amended the first amendment and other provisions in the 
Bill of Rights by changing the meaning of those words. This is one of 
those such occasions.
  For 200 years, many Supreme Court Justices opined that flag 
desecration laws which were in effect in 49 States were not in 
violation of the first amendment of the Constitution. This is in 
defiance of the will of the overwhelming majority of the American 
people, the will of the overwhelming majority of the State 
legislatures, and as we will see later today, the will of the 
overwhelming majority of the United States Congress.
  Clearly, free speech goes beyond the written or spoken word to 
include other forms of expression, including the wearing of symbols and 
other actions. However, not all actions constitute free speech, and I 
am hardly alone in asserting that flag desecration is not speech to be 
protected under the first amendment. In 1989, the United States Supreme 
Court in Texas v. Johnson unilaterally invalidated flag protection laws 
in 48 States and the District of Columbia, overturning 100 years of 
Federal and State precedent, banning the physical desecration of the 
American flag. When that occurs, and when the people and the Congress 
believe that is wrong, it is a constitutional amendment that corrects 
the error of the Supreme Court.
  Following this decision for the first time in our Nation's history, 
an overwhelming 49 State legislatures petitioned Congress to send a 
flag desecration amendment to the States for ratification. The physical 
desecration of the American flag constitutes an assault on the most 
deeply shared experiences of the American people. Our flag is more than 
a piece of cloth; it a symbol of our freedom. It represents the 
sacrifices of those who gave their lives to win and preserve freedom.
  There have been those who have gone unarmed into battle carrying the 
flag, and many have died to keep the flag from falling into the hands 
of our enemies. To burn a flag in front of a veteran or someone else 
who has put his or her life on the line for their country is an act not 
deserving protection.
  Our Nation is unique in the world because our citizens represent a 
variety of heritages, religions, ethnicities, and political viewpoints. 
Indeed, we debate our differences openly and vigorously; yet we can 
always look to the flag and remember that we share certain core values 
that bind us together as a people.
  For over 200 years, our flag has flown proudly over our Nation, a 
visible promise of our commitment to the preservation and expansion of 
democracy. However, symbols, like values, are eroded gradually. Each 
time they are desecrated, their symbolism is diminished. We must act 
now to protect one of our Nation's most sacred symbols because the 
Supreme Court has struck down Congress' effort to protect the flag by 
statute. It is now necessary to amend the Constitution to give Congress 
the authority to protect the flag.
  Supreme Court Justices as varied as William Rehnquist, Warren Burger, 
and Hugo Black have all recognized the appropriateness of these 
desecration statutes that were struck down by the Court.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 10.
  Of course, words or other forms of expression do not have to be 
correct in order to be protected. And clearly, free speech goes beyond 
the written or spoken word to include other forms of expression, 
including the wearing of symbols and other actions. Not all actions 
constitute free speech, and I am hardly alone in asserting that flag 
desecration isn't free speech to be protected under the First 
Amendment.
  ``I believe that the states and federal government do have the power 
to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace,'' wrote 
former Chief Justice Earl Warren. This view is shared by many past and 
present justices of

[[Page 13537]]

the U.S. Supreme Court across the ideological spectrum, including Hugo 
Black, Abe Fortas, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor 
and current Chief Justice William Rehnquist. These eminent men and 
women haven't taken a merely political stance based upon ``shallow 
assumptions'' or ``perilously sloppy thinking.'' Rather, they rely upon 
well-established principles.
  ``Surely one of the high purposes of a democratic society,'' wrote 
Rehnquist, ``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.'' Free speech isn't 
the right to do anything you want to do anytime you want to do it. 
Rather, it's a precious liberty founded in law--a freedom preserved by 
respect for the rights of others.
  To say that society isn't entitled to establish rules of behavior 
governing its members is either to abandon any meaningful definition of 
civilization or to believe that civilization can survive without regard 
to the feelings or decent treatment of others. To burn a flag in front 
of a veteran or someone else who has put his or her life on the line 
for their country is a despicable act not deserving protection.
  It's well-established that certain types of speech may be prevented 
under some circumstances, including lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, 
insulting or fighting words. When it comes to actions, the 
proscriptions may be even broader. That's where I have voted to put 
flag desecration--back where 48 state legislatures thought it was when 
they passed laws prohibiting it.
  This amendment doesn't, in any way, alter the First Amendment. It 
simply corrects a misguided court interpretation of that amendment. As 
Justice Rehnquist eloquently observed in concluding his dissent: 
``Uncritical extension of constitutional protection to the burning of 
the flag risks the frustration of the very purpose for which organized 
governments are instituted . . . The government may conscript men into 
the Armed Forces where they must fight and perhaps die for the flag, 
but the government may not prohibit the public burning of the banner 
under which they fight.'' I am proud to play a part in trying to right 
that wrong.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to filibuster because I am waiting for some 
Members who would like to speak on this.
  Let me respond to the comments of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) that the Supreme Court has amended the Bill of Rights on a 
number of occasions. It did not amend the language of the Bill of 
Rights. It amended the interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
  On a number of those occasions I have been really unhappy about the 
way the Supreme Court ruled and took away a right that I thought I had. 
I suspect if there were ever anybody in this institution who would be, 
should be railing against the Supreme Court, either the current Supreme 
Court or Supreme Courts throughout history, it might be the members of 
the Congressional Black Caucus who would have the highest standing and 
right to do that because in a number of cases the Supreme Court has 
ruled in ways that were absolutely counter to our interest.
  I just want my colleagues to understand that this document that our 
drafters crafted for us has survived so much the test of time, the 
comings and goings of members of the Supreme Court differing in 
interpretations, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) said. 
If you want to look at it, they rewrote the Bill of Rights, but never 
changed the words.
  I do not think that every time you get a Supreme Court decision that 
you disagree with in this country the way to resolve or to express your 
disagreement is to come to the Congress of the United States and 
propose that we amend the entire constitutional framework that we are 
operating under. I do not think that is the way to do it. Sometimes you 
win; sometimes you lose. Sometimes you have a progressive Supreme 
Court; sometimes you have a conservative Supreme Court. That does not 
mean that you do not go back and try to statutorily do what you think 
that you need to do to amend statutes, but amending our Constitution is 
an entirely different thing.
  So one side of me says this is not a good idea to be amending the 
Constitution in this way. The other side of me really says this 
amendment has been made out to be a lot more than it really is because 
by saying that Congress can pass a statute that prohibits the physical 
desecration of the flag does not give us any more authority than we now 
have. We can pass a statute right now that prohibits the physical 
desecration of the flag.
  The question is what would the United States Supreme Court say about 
that statute once it worked its way through the process and up to the 
United States Supreme Court. And if we pass this amendment, having 
amended for the first time in 200 years our Bill of Rights, gone 
through the whole process, the Supreme Court is still going to have the 
same right to do that.
  This is a great, great discussion vehicle. As I said, I used to 
resent coming here and engaging in this debate every year or every 2 
years. It always comes right before July 4. Somebody is always trying 
to make a political point. Democrats used to be saying Republicans were 
unpatriotic. Republicans used to be saying Democrats are unpatriotic. 
Now people are going whichever way they want to go. This is not a 
Republican or a Democratic amendment; this is a constitutional 
amendment. Democrats and Republicans have to exist in our 
constitutional framework. We have got to operate within our system. 
That is what I think this is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I am a little ashamed to confess 
my mother is around the age of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt). My mother used to tell me stories when she was a young woman in 
the segregated South that she would drive through parts of rural and 
western Alabama and that she would see crosses burned. My grandmother 
used to tell me stories that after Brown v. Board of Education, she 
remembers riding through parts of rural Alabama and seeing crosses 
burned.
  The interesting thing about that is the burning of those crosses did 
not keep a single black child out of a public school. The burning of 
those crosses, frankly, did nothing to slow down the march of justice 
in this country over the 40-or-so years I have been around. I think 
that is relevant to this debate today.
  Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court would not let 
Congress ban flag-burning. And here we stand 15 years later in a 
country that is still deeply patriotic, a country that is still full of 
love of Americans toward each other. Frankly, I would submit in this 
last 4 or 5 years we have seen a rising tide of patriotism. We feel a 
greater faith in each other and a greater faith in our fighting forces 
now than we ever have. I wish advocates of this amendment understood we 
have won this battle. Those of us who believe in this country, those of 
us who believe in its decency, and those of us who believe in its 
power, we have won. Within our borders, we have won.
  The people who would burn flags, just like the people who would burn 
crosses, have lost. And not only have they lost; they have been 
thrashed. They have been banished to the margins. They are not a 
legitimate part of our political debate. They are not acceptable 
viewpoints to most of us.
  I wish we understood that every time we think about saying that one 
kind of speech is so obnoxious or so offensive that we ought to get rid 
of it, every time we even let ourselves think that, we would be so much 
better off if we trust in our better angels, because the best angels in 
our nature tell us that flag burners are wrong. They tell us that the 
instinct behind them is wrong and we have prevailed.
  There is a reason we have had this 230-year constitutional tradition. 
It is because we have been strong enough and powerful enough and our 
values have been deep enough to withstand even the worst of ideas.
  I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment and for calling us 
back to an understanding that even this august institution is limited 
by the United States Supreme Court, and that even the best values that 
we pronounce in this Chamber are limited by our Constitution.

[[Page 13538]]


  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Watt amendment 
and support H.J. Res. 10.
  It is interesting that we are hearing about freedom of speech right 
now. I was interested because yesterday in my district the ACLU, which 
holds itself as the arbiter of all freedom of speech in the Nation and 
in the world, actually shut down all comments from their own local 
chapter because one person was speaking out on an issue that they did 
not want him to speak on with their name hooked onto it. So the ACLU 
yesterday in the Second Congressional District of New Mexico actually 
said no freedom of speech is allowed if you are an ACLU officer.

                              {time}  1300

  Freedom of speech, we have also seen it compromised in our schools. 
We can talk about certain religions in schools, but we cannot talk 
about Christian religions in school and we find that the American 
public is saying, Why? Why can we not defend this sacred symbol of our 
freedom? It is not a difficult issue. When I see these World War II 
veterans coming to me with tears in their eyes knowing they are in the 
last year or two of their lives and saying, Why can't we do this 
finally, it is not a complicated issue. They do not see things in the 
complex legal arguments on the floor of this House or in the Supreme 
Court.
  Mr. Speaker, we do recognize that symbols do mean more than what they 
actually stand for. Look at the debate right now in Guantanamo Bay. It 
is being said by the same people who want the freedom of speech to 
desecrate the symbol of our flag that we should not have the freedom to 
desecrate the Koran or even allege that it has been desecrated.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that we recognize that a symbol is more 
important than the actual fabric that it is made of. It is time for us 
to pass this constitutional amendment, to reject the substitute 
amendment, and to bring clarity to this issue where 50 States have 
passed resolutions asking us to get clarity. It is time for the 
Congress to speak in the way that the majority of Americans would have 
them to speak. I support the amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the major argument that we have heard against the base 
amendment and in favor of the Watt substitute is that if we do not pass 
the Watt substitute, we will be amending the Bill of Rights for the 
first time in the history of this country. That is not true. In the 
Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney claimed that the fifth 
amendment's due process clause, which he interpreted to include a 
substantive right to the protection of property, prohibited 
restrictions on slave ownership. The three amendments that were passed 
during the Civil War, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, corrected 
that gross constitutional misinterpretation and it slammed the door 
shut so tightly that that issue never has been raised again; and our 
country has been much, much better for it.
  In a similar manner, House Joint Resolution 10 seeks to correct two 
Supreme Court precedents that repudiated 2 centuries of jurisprudence. 
The time to correct those two precedents is today. We must vote against 
the Watt substitute amendment which guts the thrust of House Joint 
Resolution 10 and then pass House Joint Resolution 10 by a two-thirds 
majority to send it to the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Pursuant to House Resolution 330, 
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. 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 129, 
nays 279, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 293]

                               YEAS--129

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NAYS--279

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     McCarthy
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)

[[Page 13539]]


     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Carter
     Conaway
     DeLay
     Doggett
     Frank (MA)
     Gohmert
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lewis (GA)
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     Murtha
     Ney
     Oxley
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas

                              {time}  1328

  Messrs. NEUGEBAUER, KOLBE, FLAKE, CROWLEY, LANTOS, COSTELLO, 
KUCINICH, and Ms. GRANGER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California and Mr. JEFFERSON changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 22, 2005, I was unable 
to cast my floor vote on rollcall No. 293. The vote I missed was on 
agreeing to the Watt of North Carolina substitute amendment.
  Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yea'' on 
rollcall number 293.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 293, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the 
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.

                              {time}  1330


        Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Is the gentleman opposed to the 
resolution?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. In its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Taylor of Mississippi moves to recommit H.J. Res. 10 to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 3, line 8, insert ``Section 1.'' before ``The 
     Congress''.
       Page 3, line 9, strike the closing quotation marks and the 
     period that follows.
       Page 3, after line 9 insert the following:
       ``Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
     provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts 
     by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 3. The limit on the debt of the United States 
     held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law 
     for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 4. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 
     States Government for that fiscal year, in which total 
     outlays do not exceed total receipts.
       ``Section 5. No bill to increase revenue shall become law 
     unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
     military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law.
       ``Section 7. The Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts.
       ``Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States Government except those derived from 
     borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the 
     United States Government except for those for repayment of 
     debt principal.
       ``Section 9. Sections 2 through 8 of this article shall 
     take effect beginning with fiscal year 2008 or with the 
     second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, 
     whichever is later.''.

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, given the nature of this 
motion, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read it again.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request of the gentleman from Mississippi?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, would 
the gentleman restate the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, 
given the gravity of this motion, that the Clerk read the motion again 
since, apparently, no one on this floor, other than I, know what is in 
it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the Reading Clerk 
reading the motion to recommit again?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will proceed.
  The Clerk read the motion to recommit.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the point of order.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is not germane 
to the original text of the House Joint Resolution 10.
  House Joint Resolution 10 proposes an amendment to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The material 
proposed to be inserted in the motion to recommit, sections 2 and 
following, has nothing to do with the subject of prohibiting the 
physical desecration of the flag and, thus, is not germane under the 
rules of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about 
today is a fairly simple thing. The text of the original bill is to 
give the 50 States the legal authority to, on a state-by-state basis, 
prevent the desecration of the flag, a symbol of our country. There is 
something a heck of a lot more serious going on than the desecration of 
the flag: it is the desecration of our Nation.
  In the last 4 years alone, the national debt has increased by $2.1 
trillion. We have taken money out of the Social Security trust fund, 
$632 billion out of that trust fund, and used it to run the country, 
leaving nothing there but an IOU. Money has been taken out of the 
Federal Employees Retirement System, now a total of $614 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, if any business in America had taken that money out of 
the employees' trust fund----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi will suspend.
  The gentleman needs to confine his remarks to the point of order.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the point of order is, why 
would we take the time to protect the symbol of our country if we will 
not take the time to protect the financial future of our country as 
well? That is my point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin makes a point of order that the 
instructions contained in the motion to recommit offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi are not germane.
  One of the central tenets of the germaneness rule, clause 7 of rule 
XVI, is that one individual proposition is not germane to another 
individual proposition. The Chair finds that H.J. Res. 10, by proposing 
a constitutional amendment relating to flag desecration, presents a 
single, individual proposition.
  The Chair also finds that the instructions contained in the motion to 
recommit offered by the gentleman from Mississippi, by proposing a 
constitutional amendment relating to the

[[Page 13540]]

budget of the United States, constitutes a different individual 
proposition.
  Therefore, the Chair concludes that the instructions contained in the 
motion to recommit are not germane to H.J. Res. 10.
  The point of order is sustained and the motion is not in order.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, what is the procedure to 
appeal the ruling of the Chair? I would like the ability to speak to 
that, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ruling of the Chair may be appealed.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am appealing the ruling of 
the Chair, and I would like to speak to that point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House.


              Motion to Table Offered By Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, is that debatable?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is nondebatable. The question was taken; 
and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have 
it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding under 
the rule passed by the Committee on Rules that the minority is 
guaranteed a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman asking for a recorded vote?


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 194, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 294]

                               AYES--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Barton (TX)
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Carter
     Conaway
     Doggett
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lewis (GA)
     McCaul (TX)
     Ney
     Oxley
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas

                              {time}  1355

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island and Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. PICKERING changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I take it from what just 
occurred is that I will not be able to offer the amendment to require a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  Now, is that the net effect of that vote that just occurred? Because 
I do have a follow-up.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to recommit was ruled out of 
order.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, having read the rule, it said 
that the minority was to be given a motion to recommit. If that motion 
to recommit was ruled out of order, does the minority still have the 
right to offer another motion to recommit?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A Member opposed to the bill may offer a 
proper motion to recommit.


        Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in 
its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.

[[Page 13541]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Taylor of Mississippi moves to recommit H.J. Res. 10 to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 3, line 8, insert ``Section 1.'' before ``The 
     Congress''.
       Page 3, line 9, strike the closing quotation marks and the 
     period that follows.
       Page 3, after line 9 insert the following:
       ``Section 2. The receipts (including attributable interest) 
     and outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund shall not be counted as receipts or outlays of the 
     United States.
       ``Section 3. Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     Article by appropriate legislation.
       ``Section 4. Sections 2 and 3 of this Article shall take 
     effect beginning with the first fiscal year beginning at 
     least 180 days after its ratification.''.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this motion is also not germane under 
House rule XVI, clause 7, because it is one individual proposition 
attempting to amend another individual proposition.
  The base constitutional amendment relates to flag desecration. The 
amendment proposed in the motion to recommit relates to the Old Age 
Survivors and Disability Trust Fund and is a separate proposition.

                              {time}  1400

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Does the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is to prevent the desecration of the 
flag, the trampling of our flag, the misuse of our flag. The amendment 
that I have offered is to prevent the wholesale theft and desecration 
of the Social Security trust fund.
  In the past 4 years alone, this Congress, of which I am a part, has 
taken $632 billion out of the Social Security trust fund that we 
promised the citizens we would set aside just for Social Security 
payments and used to run the country.
  The President has gone all around the country saying we have a 
crisis, that by 2017 we will be out of money.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
will suspend.
  The gentleman needs to confine his remarks to the point of order, and 
not to debate the substance of the motion to recommit.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. The point of order is to my colleagues, if 
you think it is wrong to desecrate the flag, I would hope that you 
would think it is wrong to misspend money taken out of people's wallets 
that we promised to spend on their Social Security and to protect that 
money in the Constitution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point 
of order.
  As in the case of the previous motion, the Chair must adhere to the 
principle that, to a joint resolution embodying a single individual 
proposition, an amendment proposing a different proposition, even of 
the same class, is not germane.
  The motion is not in order.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the 
Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House.


              Motion To Table Offered By Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the 
table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) to lay the appeal on the 
table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 190, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 295]

                               AYES--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)

[[Page 13542]]


     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Barton (TX)
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Carter
     Conaway
     Cox
     Doggett
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lewis (GA)
     McCaul (TX)
     Murtha
     Ney
     Oxley
     Payne
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas
     Weiner

                              {time}  1418

  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in the interests of moving 
things along, I ask unanimous consent to engage the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) in about a 3-minute colloquy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, you have, using the power of the majority, blocked the vote 
on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and the 
constitutional amendment to vote to protect the Social Security trust 
fund.
  Now, I have additional motions at the desk. The next one would be a 
constitutional amendment to protect the Medicare trust fund. Would it 
be your intention to object to that as well and prevent a vote on this 
House floor?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the points of order that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin has been raising have been pursuant to House 
rules, and we should not be waiving the rules relative to the 
germaneness of motions to recommit.
  Should the gentleman from Mississippi offer more nongermane motions 
to recommit, then I think it is incumbent upon me, as the manager of 
the bill, to raise a point of order, should the rules of the House be 
violated by the motion to recommit, as they have been in the past.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would 
remind the Members of this body that this bill came to the floor 
waiving all points of order.
  The Medicare prescription drug bill that is going to increase the 
national debt by $1.5 billion came to the floor waiving all points of 
order.
  We have acquired $2.1 billion worth of new debt in just the past 4 
years, waiving all points of order.
  But if the gentleman is going to insist on not allowing a vote to 
protect the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, not 
allowing a vote to protect the Social Security trust fund, and not 
allowing a vote to protect the Medicare trust fund, I see no further 
reason other than to point out that I really thought the Republican 
majority meant it when they passed the Contract with America, that they 
said they would balance the budget.
  I gave you an opportunity to do just that. I hope the Speaker will 
give us an opportunity in the near future for you guys to live up to 
your promises.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the joint resolution.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  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 286, 
nays 130, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 296]

                               YEAS--286

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--130

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Case
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Price (NC)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

[[Page 13543]]



                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barton (TX)
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Carter
     Conaway
     Doggett
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lewis (GA)
     McCaul (TX)
     Ney
     Oxley
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas

                              {time}  1440

  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. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I was detained and unable to cast a vote on 
H.J. Res. 10 on June 22, 2005. I was in Brownwood, Texas attending the 
funeral of Lance Corporal Mario Castillo, a Marine from the 11th 
District of Texas. Please let the Record reflect that had I been here, 
I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________