Providing for consideration of 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.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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 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.

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. Speaker, how much time remains?

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the author of the legislation.

(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

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 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. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel).

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 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. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, would the gentleman restate the unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), for yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to ask my colleague from Georgia a question, if he does not mind, and engage in just a brief colloquy.

Does the gentleman know or has his staff related to him, when the last time occurred in America that a flag was burned, and how often that occurs, let us say, in the last year or 2?

And reclaiming my time, does the gentleman distinguish between flag burning and other forms of desecration when he cites the 119? I have no memory of a flag burning in recent times. And I am curious to know whether or not you do.

Flag burning is what this Congress constitutional amendment is about.

That is my point, reclaiming my time, among others. This is not something that happens frequently.

We begin this debate today as patriotic Americans, you and I, Dr. Gingrey, and the other 433 Members, voting Members of the House of Representatives, and the five delegates to this House.

We began this day with one of our celebrated ideals. It was in 1777 that the Founding Fathers of this Nation determined that there should be a flag as a symbol. Symbol, that is what it is. All of us abhor desecration of the flag. Desecrating the flag is disrespectful and downright disgusting.

But I am curious, because I asked two people in my district, knowing that I would be handling this rule, to observe on their way to work on June 14 the number of people that flew their flags. It is astounding, all of this talk about the flag, and how few people on June 14, that is just recently, on Flag Day, flew their flags.

I am curious, I wonder how many Members did that as well. We begin this debate today with an unresolved war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We begin this debate today with Americans dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and families crying as a result thereof.

We begin this day with the President of the United States saying that we have a Social Security crisis, and one would argue not against the notion that Social Security needs to be reformed in an appropriate manner by the body.

We began this day with a serious Medicaid crisis in this country which we are not addressing. We began this day with an equally serious Medicare crisis which we are not addressing.

We began this day with AIDS raging throughout this country, and sexually transmitted diseases are ripe in our society; and we are not doing as much as we can about it. But yet we come to debate embedding the flag in our precious Constitution in as far as its desecration is concerned.

We begin this debate with millions of Americans without jobs. Some unemployed, some underemployed, and some never to be employed again as a result of the laws of industry in this country from a manufacturing point of view.

This debate begins with oil magnates and their companies receiving their highest profit ever in the history of this country, and American drivers paying the highest prices ever for gasoline; and yet we do not have an energy policy, and other than a handful of us, including myself, no one is introducing legislation to address the high cost of gasoline.

We began this debate today with more than 40 million Americans without health care, 2 million Americans in jail, millions of children dropping out of school. And the best we can do is stir up emotions and divisions by holding a debate about our precious flag. Nothing in the way of positive understandings is coming about as far as immigration problems in this country.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the underlying resolution. I firmly believe that passing this bill would abandon the very values and principles upon which this country was founded.

Make no mistake, all of us, as I have said, abhor the desecration of the flag. The flag is a symbol of our country and a reminder of our great heritage. When I graduated from high school in 1954, my assigned topic at that graduation had to do with the song, ``The Old Flag Never Touched the Ground.''

When Frances Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner,'' the flag was tattered and torn; when it was raised in Montezuma or at Arlington Cemetery, all of us are proud every day that that flag flies over this Capitol and elsewhere.

I find it unfortunate that a few individuals choose to desecrate that which we hold so dear. However, it is because of my love for the flag and the country for which it stands that unfortunately I have no choice but to oppose this well-intentioned, yet misguided, legislation.

Our country was founded on certain principles. Our Founders had the broadest visionary scope of their times. Chief among these principles are freedom of speech and expression. These freedoms were included in the Bill of Rights because the Founding Fathers took deliberate steps to avoid creating a country in which individuals' civil liberties could be abridged by the government.

Yet, that is exactly what this amendment would do. In my opinion, it begins a dangerous trend in which the government can decide which ideas are legal and which must be suppressed.

I believe that the true test of a nation's commitment to freedom of expression is shown through its willingness to protect ideas which are unpopular, such as flag desecration. When I was a lawyer, I represented a member of the Ku Klux Klan, because they would not let him put his ad on a Negro station at that time that was owned by members of the Jewish faith.

I won that lawsuit, and I stood for his rights, because I knew if they took his rights away, it would be just a matter of time before they could be able to take mine away. As the Supreme Court Justice, the eminent Oliver Wendell Holmes, wrote in 1929, it is an imperative principle of our Constitution, that it protects not just freedom for thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thoughts we hate.

To the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), you and I and all of our colleagues hate it when someone burns a flag. I remember the very last time that I saw one burned sitting in my living room with my mom.

And almost without hesitation, both of us referred to those people as fools, and we used choice words in front of the word fools. Throughout this debate, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that some of our colleagues are going to try to paint some of us Democrats as unpatriotic. They will tell the American people that because we support the protection of our civil liberties and the constitutional right for an American to burn her flag, we are therefore not loyal citizens. They will demagogue us, and some may even accuse the judiciary, a separate and equal branch of government established under article 3 of the Constitution, of being a body filled with activist judges because the highest court in our land has already said that the act of burning an American flag is permissible under the first amendment of the Constitution.

To those who intend to levy such artificial claims, I say shame on you. You see, Mr. Speaker, this Congress and the Bush administration loves draping itself in the flag when talking about troops and terrorism. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, if they so choose to do that.

Yet this is the same administration that while standing, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) did just a moment ago, in his comments talking about our troops who are dying for us to have the right to be here, and you and I and all of our colleagues are proud of the fact that we can serve in this United States Congress, and there are people as we speak, and certainly more than 1,700 Americans have died in Iraq, and some substantial number in Afghanistan, and, yet, when they come home to Dover, Delaware, with flag-draped coffins, this administration who is so proud of the flag and all of you who would support its being made a part of a Constitution, refuses to let

the public see the pictures of those persons with those flag-draped coffins, and I might add, punishes the media for trying to access them.

The hypocrisy is so thick, that you can choke on it.

Last night in the Committee on Rules, I offered an amendment to the underlying legislation and I said to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) that I found a way that I can support his measure to put the flag in the Constitution. It came by way of an incident that occurred in Durham, North Carolina on May 25 of this year. Three crosses were burned in Durham; one in front of a church, designed to intimidate people. The cross, the precious cross was burned. And yet we find ourselves here talking about the flag. I wonder about my colleagues which offends them more; or do they, as they do me, both offend me highly.

In 2003, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law banning cross burning in Virginia. The court ruled the burning of a cross by a terrorist organization such as the Ku Klux Klan is not protected by the first amendment because of the maliciousness and intent to intimidate behind the action.

Justice Sandra O'Connor wrote in the majority's opinion, ``While a burning cross does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, often the cross burner intends that the recipients of the message fear for their lives. And when a cross burning is used to intimidate, few if any messages are more powerful.''

Mr. Speaker, as I began my discussion with my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), I asked, When was the last time we saw a flag burn? I have not seen a flag burning in America. And I might add, when it burns abroad it offends me just as much as when it burns in this country, but I have not seen one of those desecrations in quite some time. But cross burnings continue to plague the South and are used by hate groups to incite, intimidate, and, in some instances, harm and murder. Despite this real epidemic, Congress has always been silent on the issue.

Had my amendment been made in order, and it was not considered to be made in order in the Committee on Rules, the House would have been able to debate this important issue for the first time. The House will not be debating that issue, nor will we be debating the myriad of other issues of critical importance to the American people. There are so many other things that this body could be doing today instead of drawing up another way to impede our constitutionally protected rights.

We could be expanding veterans health care benefits. We could be increasing military pay. We could be providing our soldiers with adequate body armor and protection. We could be improving our schools, creating incentives for affordable housing, ensuring our seniors have long-term health care. We could be completing a transportation reauthorization bill and new school construction. These are just a few of the things, in addition to others that I have mentioned, that we could be doing.

Mr. Speaker, are we so insecure in our own patriotism that seeing someone else burning a flag will lead us to question our commitment to this great Nation? Let us ask ourselves the question, What is America? We know that its symbol stands tall no matter the circumstances.

I love this country and everything our flag stands for, even the things with which I do not agree, and they are numerous; for better or for worse, that is the cost we pay for democracy. I ask you to please consider, when you are talking about putting something in the United States Constitution, that you get past political rhetoric and that you understand the serious dynamics that are involved when we are talking about asking two-thirds of the States in this country and two-thirds of this body and the other body to pass something that will allow us to become more insecure.

I tell you, when I see somebody burn the flag, it makes me mad; it does not make me insecure. And that is what ought cause us to be reaching across to each other, because it is at that one point in time when somebody desecrates the flag that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and I have the exact same view, and that is everybody that is here. Therefore, it is a uniting thing, not a dividing thing between the first amendment rights of people.

Civil liberties are important. I do not like the fools who burn the flag, but I will stand up and protect their right to do so because to take their right means one day somebody might try to take mine.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) before he leaves the floor, that every time that we have amended the Constitution it has been to expand liberties and rights, not to restrict them. If this amendment passes, this would be the first time in the history of this country that we would pass an amendment that would restrict rights and liberties.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I cannot believe my colleague would even try to make such a specious argument, but the fact of the matter is there have only been 15 incidents in a country of 300 million people between the years of 2000 and 2005. There are substantial laws on the books that will prosecute fools who desecrate the flag.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), my very good friend on the House Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), my friend, does the gentleman know of any time that we have amended the Bill of Rights in the United States of America?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, because I believe in the first amendment. That was the first thing done in the United States Constitution; and I believe that in 1777, when the Founders of this Nation established the flag as our symbol that they were correct then and they are correct now.

I do not know whether my colleague was on the floor when I said to him, and I rather suspect he was not, that I resent flag burning, but I respect rights, and I will respect the rights of individuals within the framework of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights for as long as I am here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleague from Georgia, if he is interested in this colloquy continuing, perhaps it is that he would yield some time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who may in turn yield time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and myself and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I--

No, the gentleman does not.

No.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not want to create a constitutional morass,

but I had the time and yielded to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), and I tried to reclaim my time. The Chair then permitted the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) to yield time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), which should come after the time that I have utilized.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just comment, in the Johnson case, it was Justice Scalia that was the fifth vote that made the ruling that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) was speaking of just a moment ago. I would hope that he would know that.

The sum fact of the matter is none of us are in favor of anybody burning a flag. But the simple fact of the matter is all of us ought to be about the business of protecting the rights and the liberties of United States citizens.

What I have said I repeat, and that is I am not so insecure that when I see a fool burn a flag that it makes me anything more than incensed. It does not cause me to lose any respect for my country at all, but the rights of that individual are the things that we must be here to protect.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I will control the time.

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

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. 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.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 330 is a structured rule, and it provides 2 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution. It makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered, by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) or his designee, which shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided between the proponent and an opponent.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report, provides that notwithstanding the ordering of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the joint resolution to a time designated by the Speaker, and it allows one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, in 1989, the United States Supreme Court Texas v. Johnson decision nullified the laws of 48 States banning flag desecration. Today, all 50 States have passed resolutions requesting Congress to approve a Constitution amendment for ratification that would ban flag burning.

The House of Representatives has passed the same, if not similar, legislation for five consecutive Congresses. In the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives passed a proposed amendment with the necessary two-thirds majority by a vote of 312 to 120; while the 105th House passed it 310 to 114, the 106th House passed it 305 to 124, the 107th House passed it 298 to 125, and in the last Congress, the 108th, the House passed it by a vote of 300 to 125.

Our flag, with 50 stars and 13 stripes, represents the history, culture, and ideology of democracy for the world. Millions of Americans throughout our Nation's history died defending our flag and the ideals it represents. To burn a flag is to disrespect America and disrespect democracy. For our enemies, those who embrace terrorism, communism, and totalitarianism, burning the American flag is a sign of defiance, because freedom threatens the existence of tyranny. For our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, our flag is motivation to keep fighting, to move ahead, and reason to liberate a people from fear of oppression, as it has been in every conflict in which our Nation has fought.

For our veterans, the desecration of the flag is a slight for everything they fought for. And it serves to dishonor their friends and fellow soldiers who gave their lives for our country. To the parts of Europe occupied by the allied powers during World War II, the sight of our flag brought tears of joy because it symbolizes an end to atrocity and oppression and the return of freedom.

A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration is not the end of our first amendment liberties. The Constitution was drafted as a living document that is capable of changing when called for by the overwhelming desire of the American people.

The debate to end flag desecration is an important issue that carries the overwhelming public support needed to pass an amendment to our Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of our government, and modifying it should not be taken lightly. However, the American citizens have consistently spoken in favor of this amendment for more than 10 years, and it is an issue that is more than 3 decades old.

Our laws provide an opportunity for every citizen to express their opinions freely. If someone does not like the policies of our Nation, the party in power, our military, or even a specific law, they have the ability to protest, to voice concerns, write letters to their Congressmen without the consequences of death or imprisonment.

This freedom is not found in all nations. The desecration of the American flag, however, is not a form of free speech. It is a challenge to the institution that defends liberty. Although some may disagree, the United States is not the root of the world's problems; rather, we have provided relief from subjugation and freedom to many nations.

For those liberated by America and those who cherish freedom, our flag represents more than a Nation, government, or people. It is an emblem of liberty and justice. Our flag deserves to be respected and protected because it is more than just star-studded fabric; it is the symbol of democracy.

With that in mind, I request unanimous support of this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, if the gentleman will yield, since the Supreme Court decision, in response to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), since 1994 it is my understanding that there have been at least 119 reports of incidents involving flag desecration.

The Supreme Court ruling, that 5 to 4 decision that allowed flag desecration, flag burning as part of free speech, that was 1989. Since 1994, to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my understanding is 119 incidents.

In response to the gentleman, no, I do not know.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in response to a number of the points that my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), just made so eloquently.

He asked me a little while ago about the incidences that had occurred, the 119 since 1994, and how many of those were burnings in contrast to how many might be other forms of desecration. I did not have that information for him at the moment, but I do now, and I want to share that with him; 75 of those actually were burnings.

I want to anecdotally mention one of those 75. In April 18, 2005, this occurred in Topeka, Kansas, this burning. Fire and police investigators looked into a case of arson in which flags were burned at the Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library. Someone came into the library grounds between 12:21 a.m. and 1:15 a.m. They lowered the library's flags and they burned them near the building.

Now, it was not illegal then and now to burn your own flag. It was illegal to burn someone else's. But that is the point that I wanted to make; that in fact 75 of 119 were burnings. Furthermore, I want to also mention that the word ``desecration'' in this constitutional amendment resolution was selected because of its broad nature in encompassing many actions against the flag.

Such broad terms are commonly used in constitutional amendments. For example, free exercise in the first amendment; unreasonable searches and seizures, probable cause, in the fourth amendment; due process and equal protection in the 14th. Thus, it is essential that we continue to use broad terms in constitutional amendments such as the word ``desecration'' in order to give Congress discretion when it moves to enact implementing legislation. Debate and discussion as to what forms of desecration should be outlawed, such as burning, will come at a later date in Congress.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) was talking about in regard to his own amendment. The Supreme Court decision in 2003, Virginia v. Black, held that ``a ban on cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate is proscribable under the first amendment,'' allowable under the first amendment. So it is really unnecessary to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit cross burnings, since statutes prohibiting cross burnings with the intent to harm are currently enforceable.

In contrast, the Supreme Court has concluded in Texas v. Johnson in 1989 that, 5 to 4 decision, that flag desecration is protected by the first amendment, leaving a constitutional amendment as the only remaining option to protect the flag, since statutes doing so in 50 States, 48 States before 1989, are currently unenforceable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers at this time. I plan to reserve the balance of my time, but I will be happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) in the interest of continuation of this colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time our side has remaining?

Mr. Speaker, that was my mistake. I intended to yield that time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) rather than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). I apologize for that mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In closing, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for introducing this legislation and to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for being steadfast and persistent in trying to bring resolution to the issue of flag desecration.

On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress approved the stars and stripes design as the official flag of the United States in order to designate and protect our ships from friendly fire at sea.

Since 1994, 119 incidents of flag desecration, and yes, 75 of those were flag burnings, have been reported in the United States and its territories. A constitutional amendment will send a strong message of respect for our country and what it represents. Every Memorial Day, civic groups volunteer their time placing flags on the graves of our fallen soldiers. It was said earlier on Flag Day, June 14, that very few of our citizens took their liberty to display their personal flags. It is regrettable. It is regrettable that on Memorial Day, instead of honoring our fallen, our KIAs in this great country, people, many people, most people, in fact, just use it as a long weekend, another day, a holiday, not really remembering. But, of course, we do not throw out Memorial Day just because our citizens are not paying the proper respect.

Whenever a soldier or a government leader dies, a flag is given to his or her family in honor of their service to our country. Our flag means something to these civic groups, these family members, our veterans, our soldiers, and all Americans.

Every day men and women selflessly give of themselves to protect our country and our liberties, and they do not deserve to be dishonored, just as our firefighters and our policemen in the great City of New York gave of themselves on that fateful day of 9/11.

During our war against terrorism, we need to send a strong message to the

enemies of America and the enemies of freedom by protecting the symbol and values of our Nation. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this rule, to oppose the Watt substitution, and pass the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.