would have perished without prompt medical attention. Major Brady's bravery was in the highest tradition of the military service and reflects the great credit upon himself and the United States Army. The result of that action that day in Vietnam, Major Brady was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor by this Congress and the people of the United States.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, now Major General Brady, retired, spends all of his time working to get an amendment passed to the U.S. Constitution that protects this flag, protects this flag under which these men fought and died, protects this flag which flew over the bases from which these men came and the country from which these came. But more than anything else, Major General Brady epitomizes what we in America call "the right stuff," a man who was willing to lay down his life, if necessary, to save other people.

Time magazine in a story about him, Mr. Chairman, reported that Major Brady and his unit were responsible for rescuing approximately 5,000 wounded American and allied soldiers during the Vietnam War.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to present to this committee Major General Patrick Brady.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. General, it is an honor to have you here this afternoon. Before we get to your testimony, we are going to introduce the other members of the panel, and we appreciate that very much, Mr. Janklow, and it is certainly an honor to have you as one of our panel members this afternoon.

The gentleman from New York is recognized for the purpose of making an opening statement if he would like to do it at this time. Mr. NADLER. I would, indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here we go again with the annual Republican rite of spring, a proposed amendment to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to restrict what it calls flag desecration. Why spring? Because the calendar tells us that Memorial Day will soon be upon us. June 14 is Flag Day, and then we have July 4. Members need to send out a press release extolling the need to "protect" the flag, as if the flag somehow needs Congress to protect it.

The flag is a symbol of a great nation and of the fundamental freedoms that have made this nation great. If the flags need protection at all, it is from Members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedom that the flag represents.

People have rights in this country that supercede public opinion, even strongly held public opinion. If we do not preserve those rights, the flag will then have been desecrated far beyond the capability of any individual with a cigarette lighter. But we will go through this exercise anyway.

I wonder if I am the only Member of the Subcommittee who would be willing to simply read last year's debate into the record, allow any new Members to say their pieces, consider any amendments, and move on, since the debate doesn't change from year to year.

Let there be no doubt this amendment is aimed directly at unpopular ideas. Current Federal law says the preferred way to dispose of a tattered flag is to burn it, but there are those who would

criminalize the same act if it was done to express political disagreement.

Current Federal law, which is constitutionally void, also makes it misdemeanor to use the flag for advertising or on packaging. How many Members of Congress, used car dealers, fast food restaurants, and other seemingly legitimate individuals and enterprises have engaged in this act which our laws define as criminal desecration? If I recall, at the last Republican National Convention, probably the Democratic Convention, but I recall at the Republican Convention seeing people with flag-designed sandals, t-shirts, and even shorts. This amendment would presumably make that law constitutional once more. If ratified, I think there are more than a few people who will have to redesign their campaign materials to stay out of jail.

I am proud to welcome an officer of the Port Authority Police to our committee. No New Yorker who lived through that day, the days after, and the memorials we all attended could ever forget their service and how moving it was to see that flag. I am, however, getting a bit tired of that act of terrorist barbarism being used to justify a plethora of political causes. As the President has often remarked, the people who murdered 3,000 of my neighbors did so because they hated our free society. But to use that atrocity to justify a curtailment of our American freedoms strikes me as a desecration of their memory.

Similarly, many people marched against the war, objected to the political use of their loved ones' deaths to justify the war. For example, Rita Lasar became angry when the attacks were used to justify the war. Her brother died in the North Tower, refusing to leave his quadriplegic coworker whose son was a member of Rescue Squad 288 and who died in the Trade Center said, "He would not have wanted innocent people killed in his name." She was later arrested for her dissent against the war with Iraq.

So people who claim the right to speak for the dead of September 11 show a bit of modesty. I represent that community in Congress and I can tell you they do not all hold the same views on this issue. In fact, there is probably more opposition to this proposed amendment in my district than almost anywhere else in this country.

People have died for the nation and the rights which this flag so proudly represents. We should not start destroying the way of life for which they made the ultimate sacrifice.

Let me just add one comment that what I mean when I say that this amendment is aimed not really at destroying the flag or burning the flag, it is aimed at unpopular political opinions. No one would think, no one would think that if someone made a movie about World War II and showed actors playing Nazi soldiers burned an American flag, portraying what Nazi soldiers did during the war, no one would arrest those actors and say they did a terrible thing. But if someone in a demonstration against the policy of whoever the current Administration is burned an American flag, that is presumably what this amendment is aimed against.

So the real sin is not burning the flag. Burning the flag in a movie is okay. Burning the flag to express unpopular opinions should be made criminal, and that is what this amendment gets at.

The fact of the matter is, I will say one other thing. No one is burning flags. This amendment is aimed at a problem that doesn't exist. The problem may have existed 30 years ago when this amendment was first proposed, but I'm not aware of any incidents of flag desecration in the United States, maybe in Iraq, but not in the United States, in the last 20 or 30 years.

But the point is, people-the point is, people are entitled to their opinions. The flag represents freedom, and by passing an amendment to limit free speech, which is what this amendment is, we are going against the idea that the flag represents. The idea is more important than the piece of cloth. We should protect the ideas of the freedom this nation represents, the idea that the people who fought and died under that flag fought and died for. We should protect American freedoms and reject this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman's time is expired. I will continue to introduce the panel.

Our second witness this afternoon will be Lieutenant Antonio J. Scannella. Lieutenant Scannella is a Police Lieutenant with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, where he has been for the past 15 years. Lieutenant Scannella was extensively involved in the clean-up of the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, where all but three of the police officers in his squad perished in the attacks.

Lieutenant Scannella was involved in saving what is believed to be the only American flag flying outside the World Trade Center when the terrorists struck. Since that time, Lieutenant Scannella has escorted the flag to such major events as the World Series, the Super Bowl, the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, numerous parades and civic and community gatherings across the country. We welcome you here this afternoon, Lieutenant.

Our third witness is Gary E. May. Mr. May is currently an Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of Southern Indiana and the Chairman of the Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights, an affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. Mr. May is a Vietnam veteran and has received numerous awards for service in Vietnam, including the Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Heart with Star, Vietnam Campaign, Vietnam Service, and National Defense medals. He obtained his bachelor's degree with the University of Evansville and master's degree with the University of Tennessee and we welcome you here this afternoon, Mr. May.

Our final witness is Professor Richard D. Parker. Professor Parker is a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School where he has taught since 1979 and has focused his teachings and writings on constitutional law. He clerked for such notable American jurists as Circuit Court Judge Jay Skelly Wright and United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. Prior to joining the Harvard faculty, Professor Parker was an attorney for the Children's Defense Fund. He holds a bachelor's degree from Swarthmore College with high honors and a law degree from Harvard Magna Cum Laude. We welcome you this afternoon, Professor.

At this time, if I could just advise the panelists of our rules relative to testifying. Each Member will have 5 minutes. We actually have a lighting system up there. The red light-when the yellow

light comes on, it means you have got 1 minute to wrap it up. Then when the red light comes on, we appreciate you stopping very close to that point. We give a little leeway, but not a whole lot.

In any event, this hearing will be followed immediately by a mark-up of this, so if we get finished with this, we appreciate the committee sticking around.

General Brady, we again appreciate your being here this afternoon and we are anxious to hear your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL PATRICK H. BRADY, USA (RET.), CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, CITIZENS FLAG ALLIANCE Major BRADY. Thank you very much, sir. The Citizens Flag Alliance is a nonpartisan organization. We have one mission and one mission only, and that is to return to the American people the right to protect their flag.

In 1989, in response to a flag burning by a communist, the Supreme Court took that right away when they amended the Constitution by inserting flag burning in the Bill of Rights. We do not believe that the freedom to burn the American flag is a legacy of the freedoms bestowed upon us by Madison, Jefferson, Washington, and the other great architects of our Constitution.

President Lincoln said, "If the policy of the Government is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."

Many of us have raised our right hand and swore to protect the Constitution. We believe that Americans who place their right hand over their heart and recite the Pledge of Allegiance take that same oath. Both the pledge and the oath are taken in the presence of Old Glory to emphasize that our flag is the symbol of our Constitution. To say that it is just a piece of cloth is like saying that a wedding ring is just a piece of metal.

U.S. Representative Bill Pascrell said, "The Supreme Court made a mistake." He was right. Our Government made a mistake. The Court has interfered with our Constitution by calling flag burning speech, and we the people must carry out our oath and pledge to protect the Constitution and our right to rule by ensuring that the Court's decision is not irrevocably fixed.

Justice Hugo Black, who I am told is a First Amendment absolutist, highlighted the Court's error when he said, "It passes my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars making the deliberate burning of the American flag an offense."

So the necessity and the legitimacy of our cause is beyond doubt, and so is the support. The legislatures of all 50 States support us, as do three out of four Americans and 70 percent of this great body.

But it's important to note that flag burners are not our primary concern. We will always have flag burners, as we will always have Americans who hate America. The problem is those who call flag burning speech. That is a distortion of our sacred Constitution and it must not be allowed.

Burning the American flag is not speech. Speech is the persuading power that moves people to the ballot box, and those elected to the will of the people. Flag burning is the persuading power of the mobs. It is certainly cowardice, even terrorism, to take one's

venom out on helpless individuals or objects who cannot defend themselves, and it is moral cowardice for us to ignore such acts.

Listen to Americans on this. Tommy Lasorda spoke for the uncommon common Americans when he said, "Speech is when you talk." General Norman Schwartzkopf spoke for our warriors when he said, "I regard the legal protection of our flag as an absolute necessity and a matter of critical importance to our nation."

We have heard from our opponents that the flag that our troops fight for, that our troops actually fight for the rights of flag burners. Now, who among them would stand before these men and women and tell them they are fighting in the sandstorms of Iraq so that their flag can be burned on the street corners of America? I am not to say that to my daughter, who is over there.

U.S. Representative John Murtha spoke for the House when he said, "Burning the flag is not speech. It is an act, an act that inflicts insult, insult that strikes at the very core of who we are as Americans. Flag burning is not speech."

Now, we have been diligent in addressing the concerns of those who support flag burning as speech, yet we wonder why they fear the democratic process, why they refuse to allow the American people to decide.

When they say the flag amendment would amend the Bill of Rights for the first time, we ask, if the Supreme Court in 1989 had voted to protect the flag, would they then have amended the Bill of Rights?

To those who have difficulty defining an American flag and express concern over prosecuting people who burn bikinis or lamp shades or toilet paper marked with the flag, we ask them simply, "would they put toilet paper or a bikini on the coffin of a veteran or on their own coffin?"

For those who say the flag is precious to them, we ask if they have anything that they love, that is precious to them, that they would not protect. Of all the precious symbols in America, only the flag, the most precious of all, is not protected.

Now, if they fear a tyranny of the majority, that the majority may exercise their will over a more virtuous minority, we ask if the minority on the Supreme Court who would have protected the flag was more virtuous than the majority who would not, or if the minority that would have elected their opponent was more virtuous than the majority that elected them.

But legalized burning of the flag goes beyond desecration of our Constitution. It also desecrates our values as a nation. Burning the flag is wrong, but what it teaches is worse. It teaches our children that the outrageous conduct of a minority is more important than the will of a majority. It teaches that our laws need not reflect our values and it teaches disrespect, disrespect for the values embedded in our Constitution, as embodied by our flag.

We are amazed that so many in Congress who support flag burning expressed outrage over the decision on the pledge. Why is saying "under God" in the pledge an establishment of religion and flag burning speech? Both are wrong.

The Court has also said cross burning is protected speech unless done to intimidate. I wonder if there is ever an example of cross burning not done to intimidate. One Justice got it right when he