F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am willing to stipulate that everybody who has debated this question today, on either side of the issue, is just as patriotic as everybody else. There is a legitimate difference of opinion on whether or not we should propose a constitutional amendment for the States to consider and ratify to protect the United States flag from physical desecration. I think that the case is overwhelming on why we ought to do that. I would just like to cite one legal decision from my home State, in the case of the State of Wisconsin v. Matthew C. Janssen, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, decided on June 25, 1998, where the State Supreme Court, citing the Johnson and Eichman cases as precedent, declared unconstitutional the Wisconsin flag desecration statute in the case where the defendant defecated on the American flag. And there the court determined that because the defendant claimed that this disgusting act was a political expression, he could not be criminally prosecuted because the statute was unconstitutional. Now, if there ever was a reason why we should overturn the Johnson and Eichman cases, this decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I believe, is a case in point. I think that whether one supports or opposes House Joint Resolution 36 goes down to a question of values. We have heard those values spoken today very eloquently on both sides. But I think that protecting the flag should be one of our paramount goals, because the flag does stand for all Americans. The flag does stand for the principles that are contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The flag does stand for the values that 700,000 young men and young women died for in the wars that this country has fought over the last 225 years. If we can say that it is a Federal crime to burn a dollar bill, we ought to be able to say it is a Federal crime to burn the American flag. I urge the defeat of the substitute and the passage of the constitutional amendment.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the principal author of this very important resolution. (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 36 proposes to amend the United States Constitution to allow Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The proposed amendment reads, ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' The amendment itself does not prohibit flag desecration; it merely empowers Congress to enact legislation to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag and establishes boundaries within which it may legislate. The American flag serves as a unique symbol of the ideas upon which America was founded. It is a national asset that helps preserve our unity, our freedom, and our liberty as Americans. This symbol represents our country's many hard-won freedoms, paid for with the lives of thousands of young men and women. The American people want their elected representatives to protect this cherished symbol. Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in 1989 in Texas v. Johnson, 48 States and the Federal Government had laws prohibiting desecration of the flag. Since that ruling, however, neither the States nor the Federal Government have been able to prohibit its desecration. In Johnson, the court, by a 5 to 4 vote, held that burning an American flag as part of a political demonstration was expressive conduct protected by the first amendment. In response to Johnson, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which amended the Federal flag statute to focus exclusively on the conduct of the actor, irrespective of any expressive message he or she might be intending to convey. In 1990, the Supreme Court, in another 5 to 4 ruling, in U.S. v. Eichman, struck down that act as an infringement of expressive conduct protected by the first amendment, despite having also concluded that the statute was content-neutral. According to the Court, the Government's desire to protect the flag ``is implicated only when the person's treatment of the flag communicates a message to others.'' Therefore, any flag desecration statute, by definition, will be related to the suppression of free speech, and, thus, run afoul of the first amendment. Prohibiting physical desecration of the American flag is not inconsistent with first amendment principles. Until the Johnson and Eichman cases, punishing flag desecration had been viewed as compatible with both the letter and spirit of the first amendment, and both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison strongly supported government actions to prohibit flag desecration. The first amendment does not grant individuals an unlimited right to engage in any form of desired conduct. Urinating in public or parading through the streets naked may both be done by a person hoping to communicate a message; yet both are examples of illegal conduct during which political debate or a robust exchange occurs. As a result of the Court's misguided conclusions in Johnson and Eichman, however, flag desecration, or what Justice Rehnquist described as a ``grunt,'' now receives first amendment protection similar to that of the pure political speech that the first amendment speech clause was created to enhance. In the years since the Johnson and Eichman rulings were handed down, 49 States have passed resolutions calling upon Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to protect the flag and send it back to the States for ratification. Although a constitutional amendment should only be approached after much reflection, the Supreme Court's conclusions in Johnson and Eichman have left the American people with no other alternative but to amend the Constitution to provide Congress the authority to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. In a compelling dissent from the Johnson majority's conclusion, Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices O'Connor and White stated: ``The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another `idea' or `point of view' competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with almost mystical reverence, regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have.'' Mr. Speaker, this proposed amendment is bipartisan legislation supported by Americans from all walks of life because they know the importance of this cherished national symbol. I urge my colleagues to support this important constitutional amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 36.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 189, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 36) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2001, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the twenty-two preceding years I have served in the Congress. Assets ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Real property Dollars ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single family residence at 609 Ft. Williams Parkway, $689,400.00 City of Alexandria, Virginia, at assessed valuation. (Assessed at $689,400). Ratio of assessed to market value: 100% (Encumbered)............................... Condominium at N76 W14726 North Point Drive, Village of 107,600.00 Memomonee Falls, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at assessor's estimated market value. (Unencumbered)...... Undivided 25/44ths interest in single family residence 424,090.90 at N52 W32654 Maple Lane, Village of Chenequa, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at 25/44ths of assessor's estimated market value of $746,400...............................

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the author of the bill. (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1914. Without question, the family farmer has always played and continues to play a critical role in our Nation's economic health and well-being. Unfortunately, bad weather, rising energy costs, volatile marketplace conditions, competition from large agribusinesses, and the economic forces experienced by any small business affect the financial stability of some family farmers. In response to the special needs of small family farmers in financial distress, our bankruptcy laws offer a particularized form of bankruptcy relief available only to these individuals and businesses. Typically referred to as chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, this form of bankruptcy relief was enacted on a temporary basis as a part of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees and Family Farmers Bankruptcy Act of 1986. That has subsequently been extended on several occasions, most recently on February 28 of this year, and the extension expired on June 1. While statistically chapter 12 is utilized rarely; in fact, less than 250 chapter 12 cases were filed in the 12-month period ending March 31, 2001, its availability is crucial to family farmers. Absent chapter 12, family farmers would be forced to file for bankruptcy relief under the code's other alternatives. None of these forms of bankruptcy relief, however, work quite as well for farmers as chapter 12. Chapter 7, for example, would require a farmer to sell the farm and to pay the claims of the creditors. With respect to chapter 13, many farmers would simply be ineligible to file under that form of bankruptcy relief because of its debt limits. Chapter 11 is an expensive and often time-consuming process that does not readily accommodate the special needs of farmers. By virtue of H.R. 1914, chapter 12 will be reenacted retroactive to June 1 of this year and extended for 4 months through October 1, 2001. It is, however, important to note that H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001, which the House passed by an overwhelming majority earlier this spring and its Senate counterpart, which the other body also passed by a substantial margin, would make chapter 12 a permanent fixture of the Bankruptcy Code for family farmers. It is my sincere hope that in the very near future, we will be able to proceed to conference on pending House and Senate bankruptcy legislation and to present a conference report for approval by both Houses. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1914. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.R. 1914, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1914) to extend for 4 additional months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1209, the Child Status Protection Act of 2001, was introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). This bill is another example of Congress having to clean up a mess made by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Under current law, aliens residing in the United States who are eligible for permanent resident status must adjust their status with the INS. However, INS processing delays have caused up to a 3-year wait for adjustment. For alien children of U.S. citizens, this delay in processing can have serious consequences, for once they turn 21 years of age, they lose their immediate relative status. An unlimited number of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens can receive green cards each year. However, there are a limited number of green cards available for the adult children of U.S. citizens. If a U.S. citizen parent petitions for a green card for a child before that child turns 21, but the INS does not get around to processing the adjustment of status application until after the child turns 21, the family is out of luck. The child goes to the end of the waiting list. The child is being punished because of the INS ineptitude, and that is not right. H.R. 1209 corrects this outcome by providing that a child shall remain eligible for immediate relative status as long as an immigrant visa petition was filed for him or her before turning 21. The fact that we have to consider debate and pass this bill is just one more reason why the Immigration and Naturalization Service needs to be dismantled and restructured. I await eagerly for the administration's INS reform proposal, because it cannot come too soon. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.R. 1209, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1209) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to determine whether an alien is a child, for purposes of classification as an immediate relative, based on the age of the alien on the date the classification petition with respect to the alien is filed, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to codify and enact certain general and permanent laws, related to public buildings, property, and works, as title 40 of the United States Code. This bill has been prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives as a part of the responsibilities of that Office to prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary, for enactment into positive law, all titles of the United States Code. This bill makes no change in the substance of existing law. Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of the bill and a description of the bill, containing a section-by-section summary, should contact the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20505-6711. The Telephone number is (202) 226-2411. Persons wishing to comment on the bill should submit those comments to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel no later than September 10, 2001.