F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this debate here and now is not on the appropriation for the Department of Veterans Affairs; it is on whether or not the Congress can pass the constitutional amendment reversing two Supreme Court decisions and prohibiting the physical desecration of the American flag. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who is a veteran, and I am not, stated the position of every veterans organization in the country: They are for this. The vote at hand is going to be on the Watts substitute amendment. As I stated in my earlier argument, what this substitute amendment does is constitutionally codify the Johnson and the Eichman decisions, which state that flag desecration is protected free speech under the first amendment of the United States Constitution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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. 4.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 4 is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would simply return to Congress the authority that it possessed for over 200 years to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. H.J. Res. 4 does not outlaw flag desecration; rather, this proposal merely sets the boundaries by which Congress can enact subsequent implementing legislation, if it so chooses, to prohibit such conduct. The flag is the most revered and beloved symbol of our great Nation, representing all that is American and reminding the world of our undying love of freedom and democracy. The flag serves as a shining bedrock of our principles and values as a country, leading our men and women into conflicts around the globe and draping the caskets of those same individuals when they return home after giving the ultimate sacrifice in defense of such values. It is the flag to which we pledge allegiance here in the halls of Congress and in schools throughout our country. It is this object and all that it represents that we as Americans hold so dear. While the Federal Government and almost every single State validly protected the flag without constitutional objection for numerous years, this protection was circumscribed by the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson in 1989. In the Johnson case, a majority of five justices held that burning the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Congress responded to this decision in 1990 by enacting a Federal statute to outlaw such conduct in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson. However, the Supreme Court that same year ruled in United States v. Eichman that the recently enacted Federal statute also violated the Constitution. Thus, the American people are now left with no other alternative but to amend the Constitution in order to protect their flag. House Joint Resolution 4 will simply overturn these two erroneous Supreme Court decisions, restoring the original interpretation to the First Amendment that had persisted for over two centuries since the birth of our country. When considering the powers of our respective branches of government in effecting the will of the American people, we should be reminded of the words of Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861, ``If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.'' Thus, because the Constitution expressly designates ``We the People'' as possessing the ultimate authority in this great Nation, and not the Supreme Court, we as representatives of the people must respond and act according to the will of the people in approving this proposed constitutional amendment. Contrary to what opponents of House Joint Resolution 4 will claim, this proposal does not amend the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights for the first time in history. Rather, it was the Supreme Court that first amended our constitutional rights and liberties as Americans in this area of the law in 1989 by denying the American people the authority to protect their flag. H.J. Res. 4 will simply restore this sacred right and the original understanding of the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights that had persisted since the very beginning of our country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, the father of our Constitution, both agreed that the government could prohibit acts of flag desecration. Rights guaranteed under the First Amendment are not unlimited. Rather, Americans are constrained in their speech to a certain degree, whether pursuant to libel and slander laws, perjury laws, laws against inciting breach of the peace or riots, or obscenity laws. Furthermore, conduct that is arguably associated with speech has also always been validly regulated. While someone seeking publicity or wanting to protest may think that the best method to convey a particular message may be to parade nude in Lafayette Square across from the White House, that form of conduct is illegal. H.J. Res. 4 simply seeks to give Congress the authority to prohibit another particular form of conduct, flag desecration, without regard to the speech being broadcasted during such conduct. Those seeking to express themselves would be left with, as Chief Justice Rehnquist put it, ``a full panoply of other symbols and every conceivable form of verbal expression'' by which to make their ideas known. As the Supreme Court has stated, ``the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to employ every conceivable method of communication at all times and in all places.'' I urge my colleagues to recognize the wishes of the American people and restore the original interpretation and understanding of the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights to the Constitution by supporting this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the word seems to be around here that the Supreme Court decisions are sacrosanct and we should never amend the Constitution when the Congress and the several States believe the Supreme Court is wrong. I believe the Supreme Court is wrong in this, and that is why this amendment is before us. But I point out that in three of the 17 instances since the Bill of Rights was ratified, the Congress and the States have amended the Constitution to reverse Supreme Court decisions. The 11th Amendment reversed the decision relative to the judicial power of the United States. The 14th Amendment reversed the Dred Scott decision. The 16th Amendment reversed the decision on the income tax. So, three of the 17 amendments that have been ratified since 1791 have reversed Supreme Court decisions that the Congress and the States have thought were erroneous. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 255, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 4) 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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support House Resolution 180, honoring corrections officers and employees for the good work they do each and every day. This resolution passed the Committee on the Judiciary unanimously, and it is an appropriate expression of congressional support for this critical aspect of our criminal justice system. These men and women work each day to protect society from the real threat of criminal activity. They risk their lives ensuring that we are safe. They maintain peace and order in a dangerous place, while at the same time ensuring the needs of one of the most difficult groups in society are addressed. It is not often that we get the opportunity to thank them for the good work they do. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in fully supporting this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 180) supporting the goals and ideals of ``National Correctional Officers and Employees Week'' and honoring the service of correctional officers and employees.

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. Res. 180.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 330, the Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003. Attacks against Federal cemeteries and veterans' memorials uniquely affront the memory of those who have sacrificed for our freedom and undermine our collective commitment to honor their service. The egregious nature of these crimes necessitates a swift and decisive Federal response. S. 330 establishes a specific criminal penalty for the willful destruction of property commemorating service in America's Armed Forces. It provides that anyone who willfully injures or destroys or attempts to injure or destroy property that commemorates service in our Armed Forces shall be imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined for these acts of vandalism. In 1997, Congress passed legislation that directed the United States Sentencing Commission to enhance penalties for the destruction of property on Federal cemeteries. However, unlike the earlier legislation, S. 330 specifically recognizes the abhorrent nature of these offenses by establishing a new Federal crime for injuring or destroying veterans' memorials. Its purpose is to stem the disturbing prevalence of vandalism at some of America's most sacred memorials. In considering this legislation, I urge my colleagues to heed the admonitions of General John A. Logan's Memorial Day Order of May 5, 1868. Speaking to those who had fallen in America's defense, General Logan stated: ``We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All the consecrated wealth and taste of the Nation can add to their adornment and security is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let no wanton foot tread rudely on such hallowed grounds. Let no vandalism or avarice or neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten, as a people, the cost of a free and undivided Republic.'' S. 330 was reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary without amendment and passed the full Senate under unanimous consent. As our Nation prepares to honor its veterans this Memorial Day, I can think of few times in recent memory when this legislation would be more timely and appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an exchange of letters between the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and myself. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, May 19, 2003. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: I am writing with regard to S. 330, the Veteran's Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003. As you know, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure was named as an additional Committee of jurisdiction. I recognize your desire to bring this important bill before the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not exercise my Committee's right to mark up the legislation. By agreeing to waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure does not waive its jurisdiction over S. 330. In addition, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reserves its right to seek conferees on provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any request by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for conferees on S. 330. I request that you include a copy of our exchange of letters in your Committee's Report on S. 330 and in the Congressional Record during consideration on the House Floor. Thank you. Sincerely, Don Young, Chairman.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 330, the Senate bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 330) to further the protection and recognition of veterans' memorials, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the outstanding performance of Wauwatosa East High School in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national finals held here in Washington, DC this past April. These exceptional young people competed against 48 other teams from across the country, and demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental ideals and values of our constitutional government. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the program is one of the most extensive of its kind, reaching more than 26 million students at the elementary, middle and high schools. The national finals competition simulates a Congressional hearing whereby high school students testify as Constitutional experts before a panel of judges. I wish to express my sincere congratulations, respect, and best wishes to Ida Assefa, Stephen Brown, Jon Bzdawka, Michael Chay, Erin Curtis, Devin Drobka, Kathryn Finley, Ayesha Hasan, Angela Jarosz, Suzanne Jarosz, Margaret Jarvis, Elisabeth Kebbekus, Rebecca Keber, Jacob Kriegisch, Laura Krumenauer, Jaclyn Mich, Emily Nell, Meagan Parker, Jessica Ried, Heidi Simon, Madeline Smith, Kristina St. Charles, Carly Stingl, Sheila Vance, Ignatius Vishnevetsky, Sarah Wainscott, Lucas Westaas and their teacher, Beth Ratway.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2003, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the 24 preceding years I have served in the Congress. Assets real property Single family residence at 609 Ft. Williams Parkway, City of Alexandria, Virginia, at assessed valuation. (Assessed at $964,000). Ratio of assessed to market value: 100%. (Encumbered).....$964,000.00 Condominium at N76 W14726 North Point Drive, Village of Menomonee Falls, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at assessor's estimated market value. (Unencumbered)......................................109,300.00 Undivided \25/44\ths interest in single family residence at N52 W32654 Maple Lane, Village of Chenequa, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at \25/ 44\ of assessor's estimated market value of $922,900.......524,375.00

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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 the conference report for S. 151.