[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18391-S18395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FLAG DESECRATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.


                           Amendment No. 3093

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
amendment No. 3093 offered by the Senator from Delaware. Under the 
previous order, there are 2 minutes of remaining debate time equally 
divided.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I normally would want the distinguished 
Senator from Delaware to go first, but let me say this. This amendment 
is doubly flawed. First, it does not offer proper protection to the 
flag. A veteran writing the name of his or her unit on a flag is a 
criminal if we pass the statute authorized by this amendment.
  Second, we have never in 206 years written a statute into the 
Constitution. This amendment is a textbook example of blurring the 
distinction between our fundamental charter, our Constitution, and a 
statutory code. We cannot do this to our Constitution.
  The same amendment was rejected 93 to 7 in 1990. And it has not 
improved with age. There is a better way to protect the flag: vote down 
the Biden amendment, and then vote for the Hatch-Heflin-Feinstein 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BIDEN. I ask that you withhold that request.
  Mr. HATCH. I withhold.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. I understand we have 1 minute.
  Mr. President, I believe that the amendment of my friend from Utah is 
fatally flawed. For the first time ever, it puts the Federal Government 
in the position of the State governments of choosing what types of 
speech they think are appropriate. My amendment protects the flag, 
plain and simple. It is straightforward. It does not allow the 
Government to choose. It defines it. It says the flag cannot be burned, 
trampled upon. It is very specific.
  I ask that my colleagues look at it closely and, hopefully, support 
it. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3093 offered by the Senator from Delaware. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 5, nays 93, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 597 Leg.]

                                YEAS--5

     Biden
     Hollings
     Levin
     Nunn
     Pell

                                NAYS--93

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato 
     
[[Page S18392]]

     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hutchison
       
  So, the amendment (No. 3093) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 3095

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment 3095, offered by 
the Senator from South Carolina.
  Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. May we have order, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me acknowledge a misunderstanding. 
When I was asked on Friday about the amendment, because I had been 
stalking my distinguished majority leader, waiting for him to put up a 
joint resolution all year long, I was asked about amendments, and I 
told him I had two. They said you would have to be able to debate them 
on Monday. I said fine. They said there will probably be a time 
limitation. I said fine.
  In no wise was any inference or reference made to relevance. As a 
result, I understand the distinguished minority leader is going to ask 
that we vote it down because, when the two leaders, majority and 
minority, make an agreement, they have to hold fast to their 
agreements--except, of course, in this case. You cannot take the 
position of being none whatsoever, because it is not a mistrust of the 
minority leader. It has been a mistake.
  Similarly, if it has been a mistake with this particular Senator, 
because if I had been asked if it had to be relevant, we would not have 
a unanimous-consent agreement and would not be voting on the flag.
  So we are sort of, as they say in the law, in pari delicto. Point 1: 
It does not necessarily have to be relevant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield from my leader time, a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Those having 
conversations, please take them to the Cloakroom. Others, take your 
seat. Could I have order in the Senate, please? Will Senators please 
take their seats or take their conversations to the Cloakroom?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished leader and Members 
themselves.
  Mr. President, I will save the Senate time by withdrawing the one on 
campaign finance. That is the best evidence that I had relative to the 
understanding or misunderstanding about relevance.
  Point 1: The 10 amendments to the Constitution were originally 
submitted as 12 amendments, the 11th being the 27th amendment, not 
relevant, of course, voted on separately. And if a point of order is 
made, then of course the flag is not relevant to balancing the budget, 
or balancing the budget is not relevant to the flag. I understand that. 
But the technical point of constitutional amendments, this has been 
submitted as a separate article, and on merit I dispute and appeal the 
ruling of the Chair.
  Otherwise, what we have is a glorious opportunity to get No. 1 in the 
contract performed. They have not been able to get term limitations or 
the matter of line-item veto or deregulation, and we can go down the 
list. But you can get, certainly, this No. 1 in the contract by voting 
today for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, word for 
word, the Dole amendment----

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent just to get 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Word for word, the Dole amendment with the Nunn 
amendment to it with respect to the limitation on judicial power. 
Otherwise, the provision that the protection in section 13301 of the 
United States Code of laws is not repealed, that protection being for 
Social Security. Section 7 of the original Dole amendment repealed that 
section. We voted just 3 weeks ago, by 97 to 2, to instruct the 
conferees that they not use Social Security moneys. So it brings it 
crystal clear into view now and into a particular vote.
  If you really want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, 
this is a wonderful opportunity, because we had five of us on this side 
of the aisle sign a letter to that effect.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will just use a couple of minutes of my 
leader time to reiterate what the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina has already informed our colleagues. There was a 
miscommunication last Friday, as the leader and I were negotiating the 
circumstances under which we would come to closure on the flag 
amendment. It was our hope we could avoid votes yesterday, stack votes 
today, but that was contingent on relevant amendments being offered, 
with some understanding as to how the time would be divided.
  I entered into that agreement recognizing the need for relevancy. As 
a result, even though I support the amendment offered by the Senator 
from South Carolina, I will also support the point of order. It is not 
relevant to this amendment. In spite of its merit, it is not an 
amendment I can support under these circumstances and given the 
agreement.
  So, therefore, I hope our colleagues could support the agreement and 
look for another day, when we can support as well the Hollings 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Is all time yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending 
Hollings amendment dealing with a balanced budget amendment violates 
the consent agreement of December 8, which states that all amendments 
must be relevant to the subject matter of flag desecration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I appeal, Mr. President. I appeal the ruling of the 
Chair. And, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? On this question, the yeas 
and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 598 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman 
     
[[Page S18393]]

     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--8

     Baucus
     Biden
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Johnston
     Leahy
     Simon
     Specter
  So the ruling of the Chair was sustained as the judgment of the 
Senate.


                      Amendment No. 3096 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Hollings 
amendment No. 3096.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3097

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the McConnell 
amendment.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there is 1 minute to explain the 
amendment. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senate will suspend until 
there is order in the Chamber.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mikulski be added 
as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my amendment will permit us to protect 
the flag and the Constitution. My amendment will make flag desecration 
illegal in three instances:

  First, when an individual desecrates a flag with the intent to incite 
patriotic Americans to imminent violence;
  Second, when someone steals a flag belonging to the U.S. Government 
and desecrates it; and
  Third, when someone steals a flag displayed on Federal property and 
desecrates it.
  This amendment differs significantly from previous statutes struck 
down by the Supreme Court and would be upheld by the Supreme Court, 
according to the CRS, and a number of other constitutional scholars.
  I revere the flag like every Senator, for the history it represents 
and the values it symbolizes. But let us not constrict freedom in the 
name of protecting the flag. After all, freedom is the American way of 
life that the flag embodies. Let us not give flag-burners--the misfits 
who hate America and the freedom we cherish--more attention than they 
deserve. Do not let those who dishonor the flag cause us to tamper with 
the freedom that has made America the Nation we love and the envy of 
the world.
  I urge a vote for my amendment.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has a minute.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the McConnell amendment would displace the 
flag amendment. It would kill the flag desecration constitutional 
amendment, the only real way the American people can protect their 
flag. The McConnell amendment offers a substitute statute. It offers 
virtually no protection for the flag. It is so narrowly drawn and 
related to flag desecration in such limited circumstances that it would 
not have changed the decision in the Johnson case. It does not protect 
the flag in cases that have not involved the breach of the peace or a 
flag stolen from the Government or a stolen flag desecrated on Federal 
property.
  Finally, we have been down this dead end before. The Supreme Court 
will not buy any statute, and it will not buy this statute any more 
than it bought the 1989 Biden flag statute.
  How can we look the American people in the eye if we adopt this 
ineffective substitute? So the Supreme Court will strike it down. How 
many times must we have the Supreme Court tell us that a statute will 
not work? So I hope everybody will vote ``no'' on the McConnell 
amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 71, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 599 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter

                                NAYS--71

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 3097) was rejected.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate must now decide: Is this picture 
of the flag being desecrated freedom or an abuse of freedom? The 
American people know the difference. They are counting on the Senate to 
understand it too.
  Do not talk to me about flag bathing suits or T-shirts.
  This is what we are talking about. This is the unique symbol of our 
country.
  Only Congress will be able to protect the flag. If we do not trust 
ourselves to protect the American flag in a responsible way, why should 
the American people trust us to do anything?
  The Supreme Court made a mistake. The Framers gave the people and 
this Senate the right to correct that mistake, through the justifiably 
difficult amendment process.
  Let the American people have the right to enact one, uniform law 
which protects one symbol of this great country and one symbol only--
Old Glory.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use a couple of minutes of my 
leader time. I know that people have schedules to keep, but I have not 
had the opportunity to talk on this amendment. I will attempt to be 
very brief.
  I think everyone understands the repercussions and all the 
ramifications of the vote we are about to take. This is the first time 
in history that we would amend the Bill of Rights; the first time in 
200 years that we would limit the freedom of speech. And the question 
really is, why? Last year, three people were arrested or called upon to 
explain themselves for destroying the flag. In 1993, not one incident 
of flag desecration occurred.
  So, Mr. President, this debate is really about protecting principle 
versus protecting a symbol. Both are important. Both should be 
protected. But do we really hold the symbol more important than the 
principle it represents? Is the flag more important than the freedom it 
stands for? The flag is important, and should be honored. But our basic 
freedoms, in my view, Mr. President, are clearly more important. For 
example, if we hold symbols to be more important than the fundamental 
right of freedom of speech, what about protecting a cross? What about 
protecting the Star of David? What about protecting a copy of the U.S. 
Constitution?
  The irony here is that we diminish the very freedom the flag 
represents by protecting its symbol. Shimon Peres, the acting Prime 
Minister, spoke of this this morning, and he reminded us of how 
critical it was that we understand what a model this U.S. Constitution 
is for the rest of the world. He said the reason it is such a model is 
because it represents tolerance. That was his word, ``tolerance.'' And 
in a democracy, sometimes we must find the strength to tolerate actions 
we abhor.
  As I was growing up, whether it was with a teacher, a Cub Scout 
leader, or 

[[Page S18394]]
my family, we all recognized that perhaps the biggest difference 
between this country and so many others is that here we teach, 
elsewhere they compel. It is important that, as we vote on this 
amendment, we understand the difference between teaching and 
compelling. Let us leave here with every bit as much resolve to go out 
and teach the young and teach all in this country the importance of 
protecting and respecting our flag, but let us not, for the first time 
in 200 years, undermine the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the 
freedom of speech by compelling people today and abrogating their 
freedom in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, during the past several days, we have heard 
a number of important legal arguments, but there has been very little 
talk about the history of the flag itself.
  On June 14, 1777, the Revolutionary Continental Congress decided to 
create an official and distinctively American flag, passing a 
resolution declaring that, ``The flag of the United States be 13 
stripes alternate red and white, and the Union be 13 stars, white in 
the blue field representing a new constellation.''
  The colors of the flag were carefully chosen: The red for the 
sacrifices in blood made for the cause of national independence. The 
white for the purity of this cause. And the blue for vigilance, 
perseverance, and justice.
  Our Nation was barely 30 years old when it went to war a second time 
against the British Empire in the war of 1812. As the British fleet 
attacked Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor, the flag waved undaunted 
throughout the night until the dawn's early light, inspiring Washington 
lawyer Francis Scott Key to write the words of the our national anthem.
  The most tragic chapter in our Nation's history began when the 
American flag was lowered at Fort Sumter, after a 33-hour bombardment. 
The Civil War that ensued gave us Barbara Frietchie, whom the poet John 
Greenleaf Whittier tells us stood face-to-face, eyeball-to-eyeball, 
with Stonewall Jackson: ``Shoot if you must, this old gray head, but 
spare your country's flag, she said.''
  Eighty years ago, in 1915, as Europe stood ravaged by World War I, 
President Woodrow Wilson established June 14 as National Flag Day. The 
purpose of Flag Day, President Wilson wrote, was to help us ``direct 
our minds with a special desire of renewal to the ideals and principles 
of which we have sought to make our great Government the embodiment.''

  One of our most enduring national images comes from the Second World 
War--the famous picture of six American brave soldiers raising Old 
Glory at the top of Iwo Jima's Mount Suribachi. Nearly 6,000 Americans 
gave their lives during their deadly ascent up that hill.
  And just 25 years after Iwo Jima, the flag made history again, as it 
was planted on the Moon by America's astronauts, some 239,000 miles 
away.
  So, the flag itself has a unique and rich history, a history of great 
sacrifice and great triumph, and one that is the birthright of every 
American.
  Mr. President, there is another point I want to emphasize today: 
Contrary to what some of my colleagues have said, this debate is not 
about amending the bill of rights or carving out an exception to the 
first amendment. It is about correcting a misguided Supreme Court 
decision that itself amended the bill of rights by overturning 48 State 
statutes and a Federal law banning the act of flag desecration. Many of 
these statutes had been on the books for decades, without in any way 
diminishing our precious first amendment freedoms.
  And if we learned anything in 1989, when we first began this debate, 
it is that we cannot overrule a Supreme Court decision on a 
constitutional matter simply by passing a statute. Fixing the Supreme 
Court's red-white-and-blue blunder requires a constitutional amendment. 
This is the only serious and honest way to correct the Texas versus 
Johnson decision.
  I respect the efforts of my distinguished colleague from Kentucky, 
Senator McConnell, who has proposed a flag-desecration statute. But as 
I said back in 1989, the statutory quick-fix just will not work. It 
failed in 1989, and it will fail again today.

  Of course, amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. 
This is serious business. That is why the framers intentionally made 
the amendment process a difficult one, requiring the assent of two-
thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the State legislatures. But 
once these legislative hurdles have been cleared, the American people 
have spoken. In fact, amending the Constitution is as American as the 
Constitution itself.
  Mr. President, I will conclude today by telling the story of a man 
named Stephan Ross, who testified earlier this year before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee.
  In 1940, at the age of nine, the Nazis seized Ross from his home in 
Krasnik, Poland. For the next 5 years, he was held in 10 different Nazi 
death camps and barely survived.
  The U.S. Army eventually liberated Ross from Dachau. As Ross traveled 
to Munich for medical care, an American tank commander jumped off his 
vehicle to lend his help to Ross and to the other victims of Nazi 
brutality. As Ross recounts: ``He gave me his own food. He touched my 
withered body with is hands and heart. His love instilled in me a will 
to live, and I fell to his feet and shed my first tears in 5 years.''
  The American soldier then gave Ross what he thought was a 
handkerchief, but he soon realized it was a small American flag, the 
first I had ever seen.

  Stephan Ross still keeps that same cherished flag at his home in 
Boston, where he works as a psychologist. Ross says:

       It became my flag of redemption and freedom. . . . It 
     represents the hope, freedom, and life that the American 
     soldiers returned to me when they found me, nursed me to 
     health, and restored my faith in mankind. . . . Even now, 50 
     years later, I am overcome with tears and gratitude whenever 
     I see our glorious American Flag, because I know what it 
     represents not only to me, but to millions around the world. 
     . . . Protest if you wish. Speak loudly, even curse our 
     country and our flag, but please, in the name of all those 
     who died for our freedoms, don't physically harm what is so 
     sacred to me and to countless others.

  And, I might add, to those who are now heading for Bosnia.
  Stephan Ross is right: We must protect that which is sacred to us as 
citizens of this great country. Our flag is sacred because it stands 
alone as the unique symbol of the principles and ideals that President 
Woodrow Wilson knew bound us together as one nation, one people.
  Throughout our country's history, thousands of brave Americans have 
followed the flag into battle to defend these principles and ideals. 
Twenty thousand Americans will serve under our flag in Bosnia. As a 
testament to the great sacrifices made by our fighting men and women, 
the flag--America's national symbol--should receive the constitutional 
protection it so richly deserves.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendment and third reading of the joint resolution.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the joint resolution to 
be read a third time.
  The joint resolution was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 600 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kassebaum 
     
[[Page S18395]]

     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--36

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are 
36. Two-thirds of the Senators voting not having voted in the 
affirmative, the joint resolution is rejected.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will wait until we get order.

                          ____________________