Cliff Stearns: “I rise against the substitute offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). We have seen this debate before…”

“I rise against the substitute offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). We have seen this debate before where our side has proposed the flag constitutional amendment and we have seen your side always provide a substitute. Generally, your substitute has been a method to give you the ability to vote for it and still go back to your constituents and say that you believe that the physical desecration of the flag of the United States is bad. That is what your amendment is, quite simply. Because if you were really sincere about this debate, you would not have this sentence in your substitute amendment: ``Not inconsistent with the first article of amendment to this Constitution.'' I am sure that my colleagues would be willing to explain why they would have that in if, in fact, they felt that the Congress should have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. But the fact that you put that in with a contingency would show that you do not really have your heart in this debate. This is really, in my opinion, just the opportunity for those who are in swing districts to have the opportunity to vote for something and vote against ours. When we look at what we have offered in the original flag constitutional amendment, H.J.Res. 36, we are simply saying that our flag is not just a piece of cloth, we are saying it is something much more.…”