[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18395-S18396]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FLAG DESECRATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, while they are resolving this difficulty, 
let me say a few words about the flag amendment. I ask unanimous 
consent I be given a few minutes to say a few words about the flag 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator will suspend until we get the attention of the Senate. I 
ask that conversations be removed to the Cloakroom.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am, of course, disappointed by the 
outcome. But I predicted at the beginning unless we got three more 
Democrats, we were not going to be able to prevail, and we could not do 
that.
  I respect the decision of the Senate. I congratulate those on the 
other side of the issue.
  In particular, I congratulate the most important leader of the 
opposition. Of course, that is President Clinton. President Clinton won 
this battle. The American people, in my opinion, lost. The President's 
strong, uncompromising opposition to any amendment protecting the flag 
whatsoever, expressed on June 6, in testimony before the Constitutional 
Subcommittee, was too much for the Citizens Flag Alliance and those of 
us here to overcome.
  Had the President supported this amendment, I have no doubt, we would 
have prevailed. I do not think there is any question about it. So I 
congratulate the President on this victory.
  I assure my colleagues, this amendment is not going to go away. It is 
a simple amendment. It is a constitutional amendment. It is written in 
good constitutional form. Frankly, it is not going to go away. The 
American people are not going to allow it. We will debate it in the 
next Congress. I hope we have some changes that will enable us to pass 
it at that time.

  I want to particularly thank Senator Heflin and Senator Feinstein for 
their efforts.
  I also thank chief counsel Winston Lett, counsel Jim Whiddon, and a 
former Heflin staffer who worked very hard on this, Gregg Butrus, now 
at the Notre Dame Law School. I also want to express appreciation to 
Senator Feinstein and her counsel, Jamie Grodsky.
  On my staff, I want to thank John Yoo, Steven Schlesinger, Jasen 
Adams, and Mark Disler. These people worked long and hard, very 
sincerely, on this amendment.
  This has been not only an important debate but an interesting debate. 
I think both sides have had a full and fair opportunity to explain 
their side. I am sorry we lost. On the other hand, we have done the 
best we can under the circumstances.
  Unless there is a change in the U.S. Senate, I do not believe we are 
going to be able to pass this amendment with the current Senate, so we 
are hoping in the next Congress we will have enough votes to pass it. 
Be that as it may, it is going to come up again, whether we do or do 
not, and we are going to keep bringing it up until we pass it and 
protect the Nation's national symbol.
  I have to say, anybody who really argues this is a denigration of the 
first amendment just plain does not understand constitutional law, does 
not understand the more than 21 cases where we have limited the first 
amendment, and does not understand that this is, full and simple and 
very plain, to prevent conduct that is offensive to the flag, offensive 
to the country, and offensive to almost every citizen, and, frankly, 
the way they have spoken, to every Senator in the U.S. Senate.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I want to take occasion to pay tribute to 
my senior colleague, Senator Hatch, for his leadership on this debate 
on the flag amendment. My one regret in this whole debate has been that 
some people in the State of Utah have characterized this as an issue 
that has divided Senator Hatch and me and tried to force us into 
picking sides.
  I did, indeed, vote against the amendment. It was a close vote. These 
votes are always close matters. My reasoning is that the Constitution 
of the United States is our basic law and, as such, should be held 
inviolate from legislative activities.
  I realize this was enabling legislation, but I have the fear that, if 
we start the precedent of amending the Constitution every time there is 
a Supreme Court decision with which we disagree, we run the risk of 
seeing the Constitution turned into something other than basic law.
  Coming out of a political science background and a lifetime of 
studying the Constitution, that is where I came down on this particular 
issue. But I want to make it very clear that I am not backing down from 
my admiration for and respect for my senior colleague and his 
scholarship and his leadership.
  I hope the people of Utah will understand that this has been an 
intellectual disagreement between us, and not an emotional disagreement 
between us. We spent many hours with each other--each trying to 
understand the other's point of view. I am sure Senator Hatch 
understands and respects my point of view, as I certainly understand 
and respect his.
  So I hope the people of Utah will understand that this is not 
something that has driven a wedge between their two Senators.
  While I am on the floor, I would like to read into the Record just 
one letter that I have received that I think is illustrative of the way 
this debate has gone in the State of Utah. The proponents of the 
amendment have been mounting an advertising campaign in Utah putting up 
television ads urging the people of our State to contact, write, fax, 
or phone Senator Bennett and urge that he vote in favor of this 
amendment. That, of course, is their appropriate constitutional right. 
I received this letter in response to that campaign. I would like to 
read it into the Record. It is addressed to the Office of Senator 
Bennett regarding the flag burning amendment.

       Dear Senator Bennett: I read the article in this morning's 
     Salt Lake Tribune indicating that your position on the flag 
     burning amendment differs from that of Senator Hatch. I also 
     saw the commercial obviously put on by supporters of the 
     amendment urging that I write you about this issue. I commend 
     you for your independent and thoughtful position as indicated 
     in the Tribune article.
       I am a West Point graduate and served with the 3rd Armored 
     Division in Germany and the 5th Special Forces group in 
     Vietnam. I am not in favor of flag burning. But I really 
     don't think we need a constitutional amendment about flag 
     burning. I am strongly convinced that the constitutional 
     provisions 

[[Page S18396]]
     should be reserved for only the most important governmental issues, and 
     flag burning just is not such an issue.
       I was offended to realize that the television commercial I 
     saw this morning flashed the scene of book burning and a 
     scene of flag burning as if they were the same thing. By my 
     sense of history they are opposite. Book burning denotes the 
     suppression of ideas by government. Flag burning involves the 
     offensive and distasteful expression of protest against 
     government. Nigeria does not tolerate that. But I hope 
     America always will.
       I commend you for your courage in taking the position which 
     I suppose is probably contrary to what the opinion polls 
     would tell you to do. Sounds like political courage to 
     me. Wish there were more of us in Washington.
           Very truly yours.

  It is signed by Chris Wangsgard. I did not know Mr. Wangsgard before 
he responded to the commercial by sending me this letter.
  I can report that a majority of the calls that I have received in 
response to the commercial have been in support of the position that I 
have taken. I am grateful to Mr. Wangsgard and those who have so 
responded.
  But I conclude, again as I began, Mr. President, with a sincere 
statement of respect and admiration for my senior colleague and an 
assurance to everyone in the State of Utah that, whereas we differ 
intellectually on this issue, I do not know of two Senators who have 
worked together better to represent their home State than Senator Hatch 
and I. I know no senior colleague who has been more supportive or more 
helpful to his newcomer in the Senate than Senator Hatch has been.
  I want, now that the issue is over and settled, to take the 
opportunity to make sure the people of Utah understand the high regard 
that I hold for Senator Hatch and the highest esteem that I hold for 
his scholarship and his leadership.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will only take a few moments.
  I want to thank my colleague for his wonderful remarks. They mean a 
lot to me, and I have an equally strong feeling toward him and realize 
that he did this as a matter of principle and conscience. And I could 
never find fault with people who do that. I naturally differ with him 
on this particular issue, and I am sure we will have some differences 
in the future. But by and large we support each other, support our 
State together in a very, very good way, and I am very proud to serve 
with him. And I appreciate his service here. He is one of the more 
articulate, intelligent and hard-working people in this body. I 
personally feel honored to have him as a partner as we work together in 
the best interest of Utah and this Nation.
  So I want to thank him for his kind remarks here today.

                          ____________________