Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. My amendment is not disgracing anybody. I deeply resent it. * * *

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The gentleman's disrespect is out of order.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I ask that words be taken down, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would ask that the words that we were disgracing the American people with this amendment be taken down. First, I would ask that those words be read back.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, underscores our resolve to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Sometimes some people wonder if it is really worth introducing this complex and complicating factor called justice into U.S. policy toward the region. Justice may be nice, they argue, but regional stability is what is really needed in the Balkans. Insisting on the prosecution of war crimes, they continue, certainly does not help in this regard, and if our European allies are not pushing this, why should we? Mr. Chairman, in response, I ask that my colleagues make sure that time has not faded the horrific images of the Yugoslav conflict, images of prisoners interred in camps like Omarska, the mass graves of Vukovar, Srebrenica, and in recent weeks those uncovered in Serbia itself. I would just say parenthetically on a trip the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I made in the early months of the war against Croatia, we went to Osijek and Vukovar. We were there when it was surrounded by Serbian military snipers. There were MiGs flying overhead. We met with people inside of wine cellars who would not come out because every day snipers were just picking off innocent civilians, killing these people as they walked down the street, as they leveled one block after another. The people who were in Vukovar Hospital, soon after we left, just months after we left when that city under siege was overtaken, were literally taken out and killed in a terrible, a horrible way, just shot and put into a mass grave. So I would respectfully submit that we must remember those frightened, innocent peasants who we all saw the images of day in and day out on CNN fleeing over mountain passes with whatever they could carry. There were stories of snipers in Vukovar, in Sarajevo, in Mostar, in other cities, shooting anybody that crossed the street; or the militants lobbing shells at schools or kids who wrongfully hoped it would be safe enough to do a little sleigh riding in their hilly neighborhoods. It is virtually impossible for us, I would submit, to comprehend what it is like for these people who did nothing wrong, who posed no threat to anyone, to have encountered such hostility and such hatred. We must never forget nor should we ever stop seeking justice for those who fled, for those who were tortured, for those who were raped repeatedly. We had hearings, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman might recall in the Helsinki Commissions we brought in rape victims who, as a matter of state policy, the Serbian government and the Bosnian Serbs were trying to make an example of these women to break the back of those people in Serbia, in Bosnia. It was horrible to see the blank faces and the vacant look in their eyes, the look of pain, as they came forward to tell of their stories. We must put ourselves in their shoes as we consider this amendment. We must stand there on the edge of that ditch and try to ponder the notion that these drunken people had their rifles pointed at their backs, and those sons and daughters and fathers and everyone else were killed. There needs to be an accounting. We must remember that these culprits of these horrific crimes are today living their lives at large, mostly in the Republic of Srpska, and in Serbia as well. As a matter of fact, a history of ancient hatreds is really a myth. They like to throw that out, that somehow this was just all of these animosities, generation after generation. Nothing was inevitable. This did not have to happen. Those responsible for this carnage need to be held to account, people like Karadzic, Mladic, and some 30 others who have already been indicted by the tribunal who are walking the streets free today. They need to be held to account. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment. I know the chairman may raise a point of order. It does express our collective concerns as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in favor of going forward and being as aggressive and attentive as we can be. As I said at the outset, time should not fade these memories. As we learned from the Holocaust and the atrocities of Nazis, we hunt down until we bring to justice those who have committed these horrible acts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, just to respond briefly. And I know a point of order is lodged against this, or will be shortly, but the language really does focus on all governments, entities, and municipalities in the region. And, frankly, when we have a sense of impunity, and I know Kostunica and others are trying to do their part to try to rein in. While I was in Paris, at the OSCE parliamentary assembly, we had a very, very meaningful, as did other members of our delegation, meeting with the speaker of the parliament in Serbia. And I believe they really are serious about trying to rein in on the impunity that unfortunately was the modus operandi of Serbia for so long and the Republic of Yugoslavia. This language tries to say we are on your side, we want to help rid, or at least get to justice, those people who have committed these terrible crimes, because they intimidate their own people. On day two of the bombing, one of the people who had come to our Helsinki Commission and had testified on behalf of free media, at a time when Milosevic had shut down S92, and other independent media, he was murdered right after the bombing began. He was shot dead gangland-style by the thugs of Slobodon Milosevic. Some of those same people are still walking the streets. Otpor has come out, and they are naming names of police who have committed atrocities, putting themselves at considerable risk. So it seems to me that the more we encourage those democratic forces, and this is sense of the Congress language granted, the quicker they will get to a free and hopefully a robust democracy. Let me just finally say, and I say to this my good friend the chairman, our hope is that we look very seriously at a police academy for the Republic of Yugoslavia. We met with General Ralston, our delegation, on our trip, and he made it very clear that the Kosovo Academy, which has now graduated some 4,000 police, really is the model for the region. It is the way we ought to be going. If we want to exit and pull out NATO troops, U.S. troops, we need to have on the ground the kind of stability and transparency that a properly trained police academy with an emphasis on human rights can bring. And it seems to me that Bosnia and the Republic of Srpska and, of course, the Republic of Yugoslavia could benefit greatly from it. So I ask the amendment be supported by my colleagues. Point of Order

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kaptur amendment which would create a floor rather than a ceiling for the level of funding to the U.S. assistance to the Ukraine. The level of funding provided for assistance to Ukraine, as has been pointed out, $125 million, is not insignificant. However, it does represent a precipitous $44 million reduction from last year, the 2001 level of $169 million. I share the concerns about some of the recent developments in the Ukraine which are raised in the report language, including the unresolved deaths of Ukrainian journalists. In fact, I was the first Member to express concerns about murdered journalist Georgiy Gongadze following his disappearance last September. In May, the Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, held a hearing devoted exclusively to the situation in Ukraine. Clearly the downward trends and negative developments in Ukraine were enumerated, and the leadership of Ukraine were strongly encouraged to demonstrate in word, and as the chairman pointed out, in deed as well, greater respect for human rights and the rule of law. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago I co-chaired the U.S. delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Paris. One of the most moving and most powerful moments of that entire meeting was Mrs. Gongadze's acceptance of the OSCE Prize for Journalism and Democracy on behalf of her murdered husband. And as the gentlewoman pointed out, she has called on this body not to cut this funding. While we were troubled by the developments in the Ukraine, including the situation of the media and the April ouster of Ukraine's reformist Prime Minister, we cannot deny the positive developments either. These include for the first time in over a decade strong economic growth, continued good relations with her neighbors, and a cooperative partnership with the West, especially the United States. Now is not the time to cut assistance. Ukraine still has tremendous needs. For example, the Chernobyl power plant was shut down last December, but the consequences of that nuclear disaster still leaves an indelible mark on the Ukrainian nation. They need continued assistance in overcoming this devastating legacy, especially its toll in cancer and other serious illnesses. Ukraine's weak medical infrastructure still faces considerable challenges, such as the growing AIDS problem. As the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) pointed out, very little of our assistance benefits directly the Ukrainian government. Instead, it goes to programs that help NGOs and the independent media or municipal and small business development. With the parliamentary elections approaching next March, NGOs, political parties and reform-oriented local governments working to strengthen democracy in Ukraine need our support, as does the independent media. Finally, Mr. Chairman, in his address at Warsaw University during his visit to Poland last month, President Bush stated, ``The Europe we are building must include Ukraine, a nation struggling with the trauma of transition. Some in Kiev speak of their country's European destiny. If this is their aspiration, we should reward it.'' Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentlewoman's amendment is adopted as this work-in-progress makes its way through the House and conference.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point of order that the language on page 75, lines 21 through 23, is not in order because it violates clause 21 of the House rules which prohibits legislation in an appropriation bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the language on page 107, lines 11 through 17, is not in order because it violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the House rules which prohibits legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, just to make the point to my good friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, that the victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 is a new law. It was signed in late October by the President. It was the result of almost 2 years of work and working with our Senate colleagues, and it lays out criteria for the establishment of these programs, for example, prevention of trafficking, some of those programs to keep children, especially girls, in elementary and secondary schools, and to educate those persons who have been victims of trafficking. We just got, even though it was due on June 1, as prescribed, the Department was late, but it was late because I think they wanted to do an adequate job because this is a very, very important piece of information about trafficking, so they were about a month late, but it lays out all of the different countries, tier one, tier two and tier three. This is a work in progress in terms of what will the programs look like. We lay out criteria, and we want and we will demand that AID and the State Department faithfully fulfill this. Programs are in the process of being created. This is not like something that came off the shelf. So the money, I believe, will be well spent. We could spend much more in order to try to mitigate this trafficking problem, but this is at least a good start. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and myself.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to offer this amendment along with my cosponsors, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), to bring this Foreign Operations appropriations bill up to the funding level authorized by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, Public Law 106-386. As the prime sponsor of Public Law 106-386, I just want to say I am absolutely determined to fully fund each and every provision of this landmark legislation. If we are serious about ending this modern slavery and assisting abused women and children, it is the least we can do. Last week, Mr. Chairman, under the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill fully funded the law enforcement provisions of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, including $10 million for victims services programs for victims of trafficking; $10 million for grants to reduce violent crimes against women on campus; $40 million for legal assistance for victims of violence; $7.5 million for education and training to end violence and abuse of women with disabilities; and $15 million for the Safe Havens for Children pilot program. Mr. Chairman, as most Members already know, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act represents a comprehensive effort to address the growing problem of trafficking in human beings, particularly women and children, into forced prostitution and other forms of slavery. This brutal form of transnational crime is a growing problem around the world. The United States is regrettably a significant receiving country. Indeed, the Central Intelligence Agency estimates that nearly 50,000 people are trafficked into the United States each and every year. Victims who have escaped tell us about the horrible conditions that they were forced to endure. Just parenthetically, we have had hearings in our subcommittee. We have heard from the victims themselves and heard their terrible stories and heard their plea to do something. They tell us about the unspeakable acts that they often were subjected to. Our amendment, Mr. Chairman, will help to fulfill the promise of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act by appropriating the following amounts. First, section 106 of Public Law 106-386 called for $10 million for prevention, and that is what this amendment does, prevention of trafficking through support for education and training programs so that potential victims will have the moral and material resources to resist the traffickers. This $10 million could include projects such as microcredit, which the United States already funds, so long as they are targeted at potential trafficking victims. This amendment also provides $10 million for protection of trafficking victims who have been freed from their terrible bondage, fulfilling section 107 of Public Law 106-386. This money will help to pay for shelter care, rehabilitation and similar projects. And section 108 of the law would be fully funded at $10 million for assistance to foreign governments who wish to reform their laws and practices to meet with the minimum standards established in section 108 for the elimination of trafficking set forth in the Act, again to help these countries punish the perpetrators and protect the victims of these awful crimes. I encourage Members, if they have not, to look at the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, the report that has just been issued by the State Department, with its tierage, tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3, where countries are named. Then there is a narrative about countries that are problems. Many of the countries are mentioned, but especially the tier 3 countries, those that really need to get their act together about what they might do in order to reform themselves. Mr. Chairman, I want to make some observations about where this money will come from. This amendment does not mandate reductions in any particular program. It simply identifies six accounts out of which the State Department and AID is currently funding antitrafficking initiatives. I am told that the Department's unofficial estimate is that they currently spend between 13 and $15 million. It mandates that the total be increased to the levels authorized by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. All told, these accounts include billions of dollars; and the Department and AID would need to find an additional $15 million to fully fulfill this legislation. This is not only doable, Mr. Chairman, it is a moral imperative. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be very clear about the reasons for inclusion of the Migration and Refugee Account in this amendment. The refugee account is woefully underfunded. In real dollars we spend substantially less on refugee protection than we did 6 or 7 years ago. It also exists for a particular purpose, protection and assistance to refugees and other persons of similar concern. The sponsors of this amendment have absolutely no intention that the State Department or AID should begin funding law enforcement assistance or development assistance projects out of the refugee account. However, certain antitrafficking initiatives such as grants to the International Organization for Migration for the purposes of reintegrating returned trafficking victims who have voluntarily returned to their home countries may legitimately be funded out of the Migration and Refugee Account. My understanding is that the current amount of such funds is about $1.5 million, and the intention of this amendment is that antitrafficking expenditures from the account should remain in that range until new money is found in the Migration and Refugee Account, so as not to force further reductions in other urgent refugee protection projects. Mr. Chairman, this bill, again which is a work in progress, currently provides $715 million for refugee protection. I would hope that we could up that amount of money. Of course, that is something that needs to be done in conference. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is bipartisan. I think it is needed. When we worked through the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act last year, we had many, many meetings with Members on both sides of the aisle and with our Senate counterparts working out these amounts. It is doable. It has good support from all of the NGOs that will provide these services. I ask for its support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to send our condolences to the survivors of those who died. Let me say briefly, Mr. Speaker, 10-year- old Zhang Yanhong was a good student; and she always listened to her teachers. As a result, on March 6 of this year she and 36 other of her third and fourth grade classmates all lost their lives. For years, the parents of the children in the Fanglin elementary school which is in the small village 480 miles southwest of Shanghai, had complained that their children were being forced by school officials to manufacture large firecrackers at school. Every day, the young children were required to spend hours mounting fuses and detonators into the firecrackers that were then sold by local Communist party officials. The underpaid teachers and government officials running the child labor scheme also set a sliding production quota in order to maximize their profits. It started at 1,000 firecrackers per day for the youngest children and reached 10,000 firecrackers per day for the fifth graders. Mr. Speaker, something terrible was bound to happen and soon it did. On a Tuesday afternoon, the firecrackers exploded in the elementary school and took the lives of 42 people including 37 young children. Chinese Prime Minister Zhu immediately denied that there had been any forced labor involved in Fanglin. Instead, Communist party officials invented a story about a mad man who entered the school and set off the explosion as part of his suicide attempt. According to news accounts, Communist Party officials blocked off roads into the village to prevent journalists from seeing the scene of the accident for themselves and interviewing residents. Residents who let journalists through the roadblocks anyway were reportedly arrested, and some families had their telephones disconnected to prevent contact with the outside world. However, thanks to the brave and determined reporting of both Chinese and international journalists, and to the parents of the children, many of whom refused to go along with the official cover-up of the deaths of their loved ones, Prime Minister Zhu was forced to eventually acknowledge what really happened and apologize in a nationally broadcast message. The forced labor and child labor condoned by the government of the People's Republic of China violates several conventions of the International Labor Organization; but, unfortunately, the ILO has no enforcement powers. For now all we can do is express our deep condolences to the parents and thank the journalists who risked their lives and their freedom to report the story.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the preamble.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 121) expressing the sincerest condolences of the House of Representatives to the families of the 42 people, including 37 children, killed in the March 6, 2001, explosion at the Fanglin elementary school in the Jianxi province of the People's Republic of China, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 50 to disapprove of the extension of MFN to the PRC. The point was well taken by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). We are not talking about embargo. We are talking about most favored or permanent normal trading relationship with China. Unlike the grain embargo that was just mentioned by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), there we had Ronald Reagan and many presidents thereafter not allowing MFN to go forward for the Soviet Union because of their egregious human rights abuses and because of their gross mistreatments. Let me say briefly, Mr. Speaker, that, as we speak, two American citizens are being held hostage in China, Dr. Li Shaomin, who may get out and hopefully will get out but not after he had a kangaroo trial, and Mr. Wu Jianmin. Additional U.S. residents, including Dr. Gao Zhan, are being held. Recently we had a hearing in the Committee on International Relations and we heard from the relatives who were asking us, pleading with us to reach out to these American citizens. These are Americans being held hostage by a dictatorship while we are conferring normal trading relationship to a country that is anything but normal. Its dictatorship is grossly abnormal. Let us not kid ourselves. This is a big, fat payday for a brutal dictatorship. Eighty billion dollars is the balance in trade right now. That will grow potentially to $100 billion. The average person is not reaping that benefit and certainly the religious believer, be he or she a Buddhist or a Catholic or a Uighur or a Falun Gong or anyone else. The underground Protestant church, the Buddhists in Tibet are not reaping these benefits. They are suffering unbelievable torture as a direct result of the policy of this dictatorship. Look at the country reports on human rights practices. They make it very clear. Torture is absolutely pervasive, government-sponsored torture. If we are arrested in China for practicing our faith outside the bounds of the government, we get tortured. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the Rohrabacher resolution. Human rights should matter. Let us send a clear message to the Beijing dictatorship.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I rise today to join with the vast majority of American citizens who support an amendment to the Constitution to protect the Flag of the United States from physical desecration. It was just over 12 years ago that the Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-to-4 decision, ruled that all Federal and State statutes prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag were unconstitutional. The flag of the United States of America needs to be protected as a sign of our freedom. I believe that flag desecration is a slap in the face to the millions of American veterans who fought and died to protect the flag, and the democracy and liberty for which it symbolizes. Over the years of our Republic's existence, countless men have marched into battle under the banner of Old Glory. Many have died or risked their lives to prevent the flag of their unit from falling into enemy hands. The number of accounts of heroism to protect the flag in the heat of battle are so numerous that they cannot be counted. But let me recount just one true tale of such bravery. Many of my colleagues have seen the movie, Glory, which tells the story of the 54th Massachusetts Colored Infantry--an African American unit which fought at Fort Wager, South Carolina, in July 1863. One soldier who saw action in this battle was Sergeant William Carney, a 23-year-old ex-slave. During the action, the color bearer of the 54th Massachusetts was wounded. Dropping his weapon, Sergeant Carney picked up the flag before it hit the ground. He marched forward with his unit. However, in the subsequent engagement, the 54th Massachusetts suffered staggering casualties in a frontal assault on a fortified position, and his unit was forced to pull back. Sergeant Carney, at great risk to his safety, retrieved the flag so it would not fall into Confederate hands. Crossing a marsh in waist- high water, he was shot in the chest, and in his right arm. Yet still he held onto the flag. He was then shot in the leg. Still, he clenched the flag tightly to his chest, protecting it from harm and capture. Another bullet grazed his head. A passing soldier from a different unit offered to relieve him, but he refused, saying ``No one but a member of the 54th will ever carry these colors.'' Sergeant Carney, bleeding from multiple gunshot wounds, returned the flag to his camp, telling his comrades, ``Boys, I only did my duty. Our flag never touched the ground.'' William Carney was later awarded the Medal of Honor for his extraordinary heroism under enemy fire. He was the first African American in American history to earn the nation's highest honor for bravery in combat. To this very day, military units still field a color guard to honor the flag. The flag has served, and continues to serve, as a source of inspiration, courage, and purpose. I ask my colleagues: how can we justify allowing the flag to be blatantly desecrated or burned, when so many of our brave soldiers have died, been wounded, or took enormous risks to protect the flag from harm? What could we possibly say to these persons, now that the Supreme Court has allowed the flag to be desecrated? That their sacrifice was in vain? That they were stupid and silly to have ever taken such risks? That they sweated, ducked bullets, and bled to protect the flag from harm so some social miscreant could just trash it a few years later? How can a symbol continue to be so enduring, and function to inspire such deeds of heroism, when we allow it to be desecrated? My colleagues, I submit that if we do not take action to protect our flag, it will simply become one more element in the ongoing coarsening of our society. If we do not respect the flag, it will send a subtle, yet powerful, message that nothing is worth respecting. Flag burning is not free speech. It is an act of hatred and nihilism. It is not a call for reform. It is a disgrace. The right to dissent does not include the right to desecrate. To desecrate the flag crosses a line of ugliness. I know people the world over who cherish the American flag and the hope it has held for people in different crises around the globe. Freedom is not free. The cherished freedoms, rights, and liberties we all enjoy today were purchased only through the enormous sacrifices of the men and women in our military today--veterans, past and present. If we allow our flag to be desecrated, and fail to protect it, we dishonor their sacrifice and their service. Mr. Speaker, the Court was wrong in deciding the Texas v. Johnson case. It was wrong one year later when it reaffirmed this position in another 5-to-4 decision in United States v. Eichman. The amendment to the constitution we are now considering, H. J. Res. 36, will overturn both decisions of the Court and grant the Congress the authority to enact constitutionally-permitted language to protect the flag. The Supreme Court's 5-to-4 rulings on flag burning were most unfortunate and an erroneous interpretation of what our forefathers, and we as a people, define as free speech. The opponents of this amendment have tried to depict this as an infringement on the first amendment rights of all Americans. This is simply false. Mr. Speaker, I yield to no one in my support of the first amendment. As Vice Chairman of the International Relations Committee and Co- Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have continually fought for the expansion of these freedoms throughout the world. I have worked for the release of countless prisoners of conscience whose only crime has been that they wanted to express political or religious ideas that their governments opposed. I have worked just as hard to insure that these same freedoms-- freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion-- continue to be strongly protected here in the United States. However, Mr. Speaker, no right is unlimited. There are those who claim that any limitation of the right to free speech is an intolerable infringement upon our rights guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. Upon single examination this proves to be totally false. In a unanimous 1942 Supreme Court decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Court said: . . . it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ``fighting'' words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. Mr. Speaker, there is also an important distinction to be drawn between the freedom to express an idea and the freedom to use any method to express that idea. While one has a right to express virtually any idea in a public forum, the means of expression can be regulated. As Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent: Presumably a gigantic fireworks display or a parade of nude models in a public park might draw even more attention to a controversial message, but such methods of expression are nevertheless subject to a regulation. In his dissent in Texas v. Johnson, Justice Stevens said that the Court was wrong in asserting that the flag burner was prosecuted for expressing a political idea. Rather, Stevens went on to say, he ``was prosecuted because of the method he chose to express his [idea].'' And again, Justice Stevens stated: It is moreover, equally clear that the prohibition [against flag desecration] does not entail any interference with the speaker's freedom to express hie or her ideas by other means. As Oliver Wendell Holmes asserted years ago, no one has the right to shout fire in a crowded movie theater. Mr. Speaker, despite some of the claims made here today, it is constitutionally permissible to regulate both the content and the means of expression of free speech, provided that it is done only in certain very narrow and well-defined circumstances and only if an overriding public interest is threatened. Let me emphasize that the circumstances must be narrow, well defined and justified in the public interest. Mr. Speaker, prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag is both a narrow and well-defined restriction. Despite arguments to the contrary, it is not the first step toward curtailing political dissent, nor is it impossible to define. This argument represents at best a gross distortion of the effect of this amendment. This leaves only the question of whether the protection of the flag serves a purpose worthy of special consideration. On this point, as Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I join with the overwhelming majority of the American public who say, emphatically, yes. Since the creation of the American flag, it has stood as a symbol of our sacred values and aspirations. Far too many Americans have died in combat to see the symbol of what they were fighting for reduced to just another object of public derision. Simply put, it is a gross insult to every patriotic American to see the symbol of their country publicly desecrated. They will not tolerate it, and neither will I. Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the Constitution we are considering today will restore the flag to its proper position as a symbol of our Nation, without restricting the freedom of expression for any of our citizens. I would hope that all of my colleagues would join with me in support of this amendment.