Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, June 22, 1990 TAG: 9006220288
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
The 254-177 tally left the amendment, which was supported by President Bush, 34 votes short of the two-thirds majority required to amend the Constitution. Republicans voted 159-17 for it, Democrats 160-95 against.
Among Virginia congressmen, only Democrat Rick Boucher of Abingdon voted against the amendment. The other nine all voted for it.
The vote followed a sometimes impassioned day of debate featuring more than 100 speeches, including a rare address by the speaker of the House, Rep. Thomas S. Foley, D-Wash.
"We should not amend the Constitution of the United States to reach the sparse and scattered and despicable conduct of a few who would dishonor the flag and defile it," said Foley, who also cast a rare speaker's vote to register his opposition to the amendment. By tradition, the speaker does not normally engage in debate or vote.
Countered Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.: "Let us take the flag out of the gutter where the counterculture has dragged it and is smearing it. We have 10 amendments that guarantee us all sorts of rights. How about one amendment that gives us a duty?"
Foley told reporters that Thursday's vote would be the last one on the amendment this year in the House, but Republicans promised to keep the issue alive.
"I am confident this debate is going to go on for a long time," Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., told the chamber. Asked about Bush's efforts on behalf of the amendment, Gingrich said, "It was very hard for the president in two days to override the speaker."
Supporters of the amendment, backed by veterans' groups seeking more time to lobby, had tried to delay Thursday's vote until next week but were defeated 231-192.
Rep. G.V. Montgomery, D-Miss., the chairman of the House Veterans Committee and the amendment's prime Democratic sponsor, said of the proposal, "I think we owe it to the brave Americans who have died for this country."
But Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., decried the attempt to modify the First Amendment.
"When I look around the politicians today, I see more people who remind me of Daffy Duck than Thomas Jefferson," he said.
The strength of the opposition was larger than expected and was aided by the unexpected support of some conservatives.
"Up until 24 hours ago, I was a sponsor of this amendment," said Rep. Tim Valentine, D-N.C. "But over the rhetoric of the past few days, I finally heard the voice of my own conscience."
The amendment read, "The Congress and the states shall have power to prohibit physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
It was first proposed in 1989 after the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was a form of protected free speech. The issue was revived last week when the court rejected last year's attempt to pass an anti-flag-burning law that the court could accept.
After the vote on the amendment, the House also rejected a new statute - not a constitutional amendment - to ban flag-burning.
The bill, narrowly drawn in hopes of avoiding court rejection, would impose fines and jail terms for people who burn flags to promote violence or who burn flags on federal property.
Republicans voted overwhelmingly against it after their leadership called it a "fig leaf" to protect Democrats who opposed the constitutional amendment, and it lost 236-179.
The Senate is expected to vote next week on the amendment, which would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers, and approval by 38 of the 50 states, for ratification. Foley said the House would not vote again this year.
Regardless of the outcome on Capitol Hill, Republicans promise to raise the issue in this fall's campaign. The House majority leader, Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., acknowledged the political tightrope members were walking.
Most Republican speakers supported the amendment; the bulk of opposition came from Democrats.
There also was a noticeable generational tilt in the debate.
House Minority Leader Bob Michel, R-Ill., a decorated World War II veteran, co-sponsored the amendment and called it "a measured, prudent, limited, thoughtful approach to the problem."
"Surely this is something different from the `assault on the Bill of Rights' some critics say it is," he said.
Rep. James H. Quillen, R-Tenn., another World War II vet, used photographs of the famed Iwo Jima flag raising and of a flag-burning protest in New York's Central Park to dramatize his support for the amendment.
But Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., a Vietnam veteran who said he would "never forget the sacrifices that have been made so that our flag can fly proudly and freely," was a leader of the opposition.
"In 200 years of our history, these basic freedoms have never been amended, never. And if we start now, who knows what freedoms will be next? . . . Where will it end?" he asked.
by CNB