[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1765-S1793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FLAG DESECRATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S.J. Res. 14, which the clerk will report by 
title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 14) proposing an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to 
     prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
     States.

  Pending:

       McConnell amendment No. 2889, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Hollings amendment No. 2890, to propose an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States relating to contributions 
     and expenditures intended to affect elections.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the proposed 
amendment to the United States Constitution to permit Congress to 
prevent the desecration of our greatest national symbol: the American 
flag. I want to thank Chairman Hatch for his leadership on this 
important issue. Last year, Senator Hatch, on behalf of myself and many 
others, introduced S.J. Res. 14, a constitutional amendment to 
authorize Congress to protect the flag through appropriate legislation. 
Since 1998, the Judiciary Committee has held four hearings on this 
issue. I am pleased that this resolution now has 58 Senate sponsors. In 
addition, the House of Representatives has already passed an identical 
resolution, H.J. Res. 33, on June 24, 1999, by a vote of 305 to 124.
  Throughout our history, the flag has held a special place in the 
hearts and minds of Americans. Even as the appearance of the flag has 
changed with the addition of new stars to reflect our

[[Page S1766]]

growing nation, its meaning to the American people has remained 
constant. The American flag symbolizes an ideal for Americans, and or 
all those who honor the great American experiment. It represents 
freedom, sacrifice, and unity. It is a symbol of patriotism, of loved 
ones lost, and of the American way of life. The flag stands in this 
Chamber, in our court rooms, and in front of our houses; it is draped 
over our honored dead; and it flies at half-mast to mourn our heroes. 
It is the subject of our national anthem, our national march and our 
Pledge of Allegiance. In short, the flag embodies America itself. I 
believe that our nation's symbol is a unique and important part of our 
heritage and culture, a symbol worthy of respect and protection.
  This is not a new perspective. The American flag has enjoyed a long 
history of protection from desecration. Chief Justice Harlan, upholding 
a 1903 Nebraska statute proscribing use of the Flag in advertisements 
states,

       [To] every true American the Flag is a symbol of the 
     nation's power--the emblem of freedom in its truest, best 
     sense. It is not extravagant to say that to all lovers of the 
     country it signifies government resting on the consent of the 
     governed; liberty regulated by law; the protection of the 
     weak against the strong; security against the exercise of 
     arbitrary power; and absolute safety for free institutions 
     against foreign aggression. Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34, 
     41 (1907).

  It is for these reasons that Americans overwhelmingly support 
preserving and protecting the American flag. During a hearing I chaired 
in March 1998, entitled ``The Tradition and Importance of Protecting 
the United States Flag,'' the witnesses noted that an unprecedented 80 
percent of the American people supported a constitutional amendment to 
protect the flag. Recent polls show that support unchanged. In 
addition, the people's elected representatives reflected that vast 
public support by enacting flag protection statutes at both the State 
and Federal levels. In fact, 49 State legislatures have passed 
resolutions asking Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the 
States for ratification.

  Regrettably, the Supreme Court has chosen instead to impose the 
academic and elitist values of Washington, DC, on the people, instead 
of permitting and upholding the values that people attempted to demand 
of their government. In 1989, the Supreme Court ignored almost a 
century of history and thwarted the people's will in the case of Texas 
v. Johnson by holding that the American flag is just another piece of 
cloth for which no minimum of respect may be demanded.
  In response, the Congress swiftly attempted to protect the flag by 
means of a statue, the Flag Protection Act of 1989, only to have that 
statute also struck down by the Supreme Court in United States v. 
Eichman. In 1989, 1990 and 1995 the Senate voted on proposed 
constitutional amendments to allow protection of the flag--and each 
time the proposal gained a majority of votes, but not the necessary 
two-thirds super-majority needed to send the amendment to the States 
for ratification. And so we are here today to try again.
  Critics of this measure urge that it will somehow weaken the rights 
protected by the first amendment. I would draw their attention to the 
long standing interpretation of the first amendment prior to Texas v. 
Johnson. At the time of the Supreme Court's decision, the tradition of 
protecting the flag was too firmly established to suggest that such 
laws are inconsistent with our constitutional traditions. Many of the 
state laws were based on the Uniform Flag Act of 1917. No one at that 
time, or for 70 years afterwards, felt that these laws ran afoul of the 
first amendment. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself upheld a Nebraska 
statute preventing commercial use of the flag in 1907 in Halter v. 
Nebraska. As Chief Justice Rhenquist noted in his dissent in Texas v. 
Johnson, ``I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act 
of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States which make criminal 
the public burning of the flag.''
  Mr. President, I also reject the notion that amending the 
Constitution to overrule the Supreme court's decisions in the specific 
context of desecration of the flag will somehow undermine the first 
amendment as it is applied in other contexts. This amendment does not 
create a slippery slope which will lead to the erosion of Americans' 
right to free speech. The flag is wholly unique. It has no rightful 
comparison. An amendment protecting the flag from desecration will 
provide no aid or comfort in any future campaigns to restrict speech.
  Moreover, an amendment banning the desecration of the flag does not 
limit the content of any true speech. As Justice Stevens noted in his 
dissent in Texas v. Johnson, ``[t]he concept of `desecration' does not 
turn on the substance of the message the actor intends to convey, but 
rather on whether those who view the act will take serious offense.'' 
Likewise, the act of desecrating the flag does not have any content in 
and of itself. The act takes meaning and expresses conduct only in the 
context of the true speech which accompanies the act. And that speech 
remains unregulated. As the Chief Justice noted, ``flag burning is the 
equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, 
is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, 
but to antagonize others.''
  But what if we fail to act? What is the legacy we are leaving our 
children? At a time when our nation's virtues are too rarely extolled 
by our national leaders, and national pride is dismissed by many as 
arrogance, America needs, more than ever, something to celebrate. At a 
time when too many Americans have lost respect because of disrespectful 
actions of elected leaders, we need a national symbol that is beyond 
reproach. At a time when Hollywood, which once inspired Americans with 
Capra-esque tales of heroism, integrity, and national pride, now 
bestows its highest honors on works that glorify the dysfunctional, the 
miserable, the materialistic, and the amoral. America needs its flag 
untainted, representing more than some flawed agenda, but this 
extraordinary nation. The flag, and the freedom for which it stands, 
has a unique ability to unite us as Americans.
  In sum, there is no principal or fear that should stand as an 
obstacle to our protection of the flag. The American people are seeking 
a renewed sense of purpose and patriotism. They want to protect the 
uniquely American symbol of sacrifice, honor and freedom. The genius of 
our democracy is not that the values of Washington would be imposed on 
the people, but that the values of the people would be imposed on 
Washington. I urge my colleagues to join me in letting the values of 
the American people affect the work we do here. It is my earnest hope 
that by amending the Constitution to prohibit its desecration, this 
body will protect the heritage, sacrifice, ideals, freedom, and honor 
that the flag uniquely represents.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak I support of the 
joint resolution, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Utah, 
Senator Orrin Hatch, proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
authorizing Congress to prohibit physical desecration of the American 
flag.
  From the birth of our nation, the flag has represented all that is 
good and decent about our country. On countless occasions, on 
battlefields across the world, the Stars and Stripes led young 
Americans into battle. For those who paid the ultimate price for our 
nation, the flag blanketed their journey and graced their final resting 
place.
  Mr. President, the Flag is not just a piece of cloth. It is a symbol 
so sacred to our nation that we teach our children not to let it touch 
the ground. It flies over our schools, our churches and synagogues, our 
courts, our seats of government, and homes across America. It unites 
all Americans regardless of race, creed or color. The flag is not just 
a symbol of America, it is America.
  Those who oppose this constitutional amendment say it impinges on 
freedom of speech and violates our Constitution. As a veteran who was 
wounded twice in Vietnam protecting the principles of freedoms that 
Americans hold sacred, I am a strong supporter of the first amendment. 
However, I believe this is a hollow argument. There are many limits 
placed on ``free speech,'' including limiting yelling ``fire'' in a 
crowded theater. Other freedoms of speech and expression are limited by 
our slander and libel laws.
  In 1989 and 1990 the Supreme Court struck down flag protection laws 
by

[[Page S1767]]

narrow votes. The Court has an obligation to protect and preserve our 
fundamental rights as citizens. But the American people understand the 
difference between freedom of speech and ``anything goes.''
  When citizens disagree with our national policy, there are a number 
of options available to them other than destroying the American Flag to 
make their point. Let them protest, let them write to their newspaper, 
let them organize, let them march, let them shout to the rooftops--but 
we should not let them burn the flag. Too many have died defending the 
flag for us to allow it be used in any way that does not honor their 
sacrifice.
  Mr. President, in a day where too often we lament what has gone wrong 
with America, it's time to make a stand for decency, for honor and for 
pride in our nation. I urge my colleagues to support the flag 
amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, with some hesitancy I will vote in favor 
of the flag protection constitutional amendment. My hesitancy stems not 
from any doubt that our Nation should provide specially protected 
status to our flag--I firmly believe the flag should be protected from 
desecration. I am hesitant because we are voting to amend our Nation's 
Constitution and every Senator should exercise extreme caution when 
considering such changes.
  I have given careful consideration on the important amendment 
currently before the Senate. A decade ago, when the Supreme Court 
issued its 5-to-4 decision invalidating flag desecration statutes, I 
read each of the three opinions filed by Justices of the Court. I was 
convinced then, and remain convinced now, that the Court erred in its 
decision and that such statutes, if properly written, are 
constitutional. For this reason, I shall vote in favor of both the 
constitutional amendment to protect our flag and the proposed amendment 
to substitute a flag protection statute for the constitutional 
amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my thoughts on a 
constitutional amendment to ban flag burning and other acts of 
desecration.
  As a veteran of 30 years in the United States Navy and United States 
Naval Reserve, I know the pride members of the Armed Forces have in 
seeing the United States flag wherever they may be in the world. I 
share the great respect most Vermonters and Americans have for this 
symbol.
  I personally abhor the notion that anyone would choose to desecrate 
or burn the flag as a form of self-expression. Members of the Armed 
Services place their lives at risk to defend the rights guaranteed by 
the United States Constitution, including the First Amendment freedom 
of speech. It is disrespectful of these past and present sacrifices to 
desecrate this symbol.
  It seems highly ironic to me that an individual would desecrate the 
symbol of the country that provides freedoms such as the first 
amendment freedom of speech. However, in my opinion the first amendment 
means nothing if it is not strong enough to protect the rights of those 
who express unpopular ideas or choose a distasteful means of this 
expression.
  I have given this issue a great deal of thought. I must continue to 
oppose this amendment since I do not think that a valid constitutional 
amendment, one that does not infringe on the first amendment, can be 
crafted. The first amendment right of freedom of speech is not an 
absolute right though as we have in the past recognized the legitimacy 
of some limits on free speech.
  I do not think, however, that we should open the Bill of Rights to 
amendment for the first time in our history unless our basic values as 
a nation are seriously threatened. In this case, in recent years there 
have not been a significant number of incidents of this misbehavior.
  In my view, a few flag desecrations or burnings around the Nation by 
media-seeking malcontents does not meet this high standard and I 
therefore cannot support the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor, I rise today 
in support of S.J. Res. 14, which would amend the United States 
Constitution to prohibit the desecration of our flag. Opponents to this 
measure contend that the right to desecrate the flag is the ultimate 
expression of speech and freedom. I reject the proposition as I believe 
that the desecration of our flag is a reprehensible act which should be 
prohibited. It is an affront to the brave and terrible scarifies made 
by millions of American men and women who willingly left their limbs, 
lives, and loved ones on battlefields around the world.
  It is an affront to these Americans who have given the greatest 
sacrifices because of what the flag symbolizes. To explain what our 
flag represents, former United States Supreme Court Chief Justice 
Charles Evans Hughes in his work, ``National Symbol,'' said.

     The Flag is the symbol of our national unity, our national 
           endeavor, our national aspiration.
     The flag tells of the struggle for independence, of union 
           preserved, of liberty and union one and inseparable, of 
           the sacrifices of brave men and women to whom the 
           ideals and honor of this nation have been dearer than 
           life.
     It means America first; it means an undivided allegiance.
     It means America united, strong and efficient, equal to her 
           tasks.
     It means that you cannot be saved by the valor and devotion 
           of your ancestors, that to each generation comes it 
           patriotic duty; and that upon your willingness to 
           sacrifice and endure as those before you have 
           sacrificed and endured rests the national hope.
     It speaks of equal rights, of the inspiration of free 
           institutions exemplified and vindicated, of liberty 
           under law intelligently conceived and impartially 
           administered. There is not a thread in it but scorns 
           self-indulgence, weakness, and rapacity.
     It is eloquent of our community interests, outweighting all 
           divergencies of opinion, and of our common destiny.

  Former President Calvin Coolidge, echoed Chief Justice Hughes in 
``Rights and Duties.''

     We do honor to the stars and stripes as the emblem of our 
           country and the symbol of all that our patriotism 
           means.
     We identify the flag with almost everything we hold dear on 
           earth.
     It represents our peace and security, our civil and political 
           liberty, our freedom of religious worship, our family, 
           our friends, our home.
     We see it in the great multitude of blessings, of rights and 
           privileges that make up our country.
     But when we look at our flag and behold it emblazoned with 
           all our rights, we must remember that it is equally a 
           symbol of our duties.
     Every glory that we associate with it is the result of duty 
           done. A yearly contemplation of our flag strengthens 
           and purifies the national conscience.

  Given what our flag symbolizes, I find that incomprehensible that 
anyone would desecrate the flag and inexplicable that our Supreme Court 
would hold that burning a flag is protected speech rather than conduct 
which may be prohibited. I find it odd that one can be imprisoned for 
destroying a bald eagle's egg, but may freely burn our nation's 
greatest symbol. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to pass S.J. Res. 14 
so that our flag and all that it symbolizes may be forever protected.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 14, I 
am proud to rise in support of the proposed constitutional amendment 
granting Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
flag of the United States. Last June, the House of Representatives 
passed an identical resolution by the requisite two-thirds vote margin, 
so I urge that my colleagues in the Senate also pass this resolution 
with similar bipartisan support and send the proposed amendment to the 
states for ratification.
  Our flag occupies a truly unique place in the hearts of millions of 
citizens as a cherished symbol of freedom and democracy. As a national 
emblem of the world's greatest democracy, the American flag should be 
treated with respect and care. Our free speech rights do not entitle us 
to simply consider the flag as ``personal property'', which can be 
treated any way we see fit including physically desecrating it as a 
legitimate form of political protest.
  We debate this issue at a very special and important time in our 
nation's history.
  This year marks the 55th anniversary of the allies' victory in the 
Second World War. And, fifty-nine years ago, Japanese planes launched 
an attack on Pearl Harbor that would begin American participation in 
the Second World War.
  During that conflict, our proud marines climbed to the top of Mount 
Suribachi in one of the most bloody battles of the war. No less than 
6,855 men died to put our American flag on

[[Page S1768]]

the mountain. The sacrifice of the brave American soldiers who gave 
their life on behalf of their country can never be forgotten. This 
honor and dedication to country, duty, freedom and justice is enshrined 
in the symbol of our Nation--the American flag.
  The flag is not just a visual symbol to us--it is a symbol whose 
pattern and colors tell a story that rings true for each and every 
American.
  The 50 stars and 13 stripes on the flag are a reminder that our 
nation is built on the unity and harmony of 50 states. And the colors 
of our flag were not chosen randomly: red was selected because it 
represents courage, bravery, and the willingness of the American people 
to give their life for their country and its principles of freedom and 
democracy; white was selected because it represents integrity and 
purity; and blue because it represents vigilance, perseverance, and 
justice.
  Thus, this flag has become a source of inspiration to every American 
wherever it is displayed.
  For these reasons and many others, a great majority of Americans 
believe--as I strongly do--that the American flag should be treated 
with dignity, respect and care--and nothing less.
  Unfortunately, not everyone shares this view.
  In June of 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act 
of 1989, legislation adopted by the Congress in 1989 generally 
prohibiting physical defilement or desecration of the flag, was 
unconstitutional. This decision, a 5-4 ruling in U.S. v. Eichman, held 
that burning the flag as a political protest was constitutionally-
protected free speech.
  The Flag Protection Act had originally been adopted by the 101st 
Congress after the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that 
existing Federal and state laws prohibiting flag-burning were 
unconstitutional because they violated the first amendment's provisions 
regarding free speech.
  I profoundly disagreed with both rulings the Supreme Court made on 
this issue. In our modern society, there are still many different 
forums in our mass media, television, newspapers and radio and the 
like, through which citizens can freely and fully exercise their 
legitimate, constitutional right to free speech, even if what they have 
to say is overwhelmingly unpopular with a majority of American 
citizens.
  Accordingly, in 1995, I also joined as an original cosponsor of a 
proposed constitutional amendment granting Congress the power to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. 
Although the House of Representatives easily passed that resolution by 
the necessary two-thirds vote margin, the Senate fell a mere three 
votes short.
  I am hopeful that today's effort will deliver the three additional 
votes that are needed to send this proposed amendment to the states for 
ratification. Of note, prior to the Supreme Court's 1989 Texas v. 
Johnson ruling, 48 states, including my own state of Maine, and the 
Federal government, had anti-flag burning laws on their books for 
years--so it's time the Congress gave the states the opportunity to 
speak on this issue directly.
  Mr. President, whether our flag is flying over a ball park, a 
military base, a school or on a flag pole on Main Street, our national 
standard has always represented the ideals and values that are the 
foundation this great nation was built on. And our flag has come not 
only to represent the glories of our nation's past, but it has also 
come to stand as a symbol for hope for our nation's future.
  Let me just state that I am extremely committed to defending and 
protecting our Constitution--from the first amendment in the Bill of 
Rights to the 27th amendment. I do not believe that this amendment 
would be a departure from first amendment doctrine.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to uphold the great symbol of our 
nationhood by supporting the flag amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 14. 
This important joint resolution calls for an amendment to the United 
States Constitution that would allow the United States Congress to 
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
  For years now I have been among the strongest supporters in the 
United States Senate of amending the United States Constitution to 
allow Congress to prohibit physical desecration of the United States 
flag. I was pleased the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed 
a resolution identical to S.J. Res. 14 on June 24, 1999, by a vote of 
305-124, and I look forward to voting for S.J. Res. 14 in the near 
future.
  In 1989, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in the 
case of Texas v. Johnson, stated that the First Amendment prevented a 
state from protecting the American flag from acts of physical 
desecration. Since that time, a number of individuals have sought to 
seize on this misguided Supreme Court decision to justify flag burning. 
Mr. President, why would any citizen, who wishes to continue enjoying 
the great privileges of being an American, need a legal right to burn 
our Nation's flag in public?
  No amount of tortured legal argumentation can overcome common sense 
and the plain meaning of the First Amendment. The first amendment to 
the Constitution states that no law shall abridge the ``freedom of 
speech.'' The key word in this portion of the amendment is ``speech.'' 
Laws that do not abridge ``speech'' are not prohibited by this section 
of the amendment. Simply put, burning the United States flag is not 
speech. A flag is not burned with words. Rather, a flag is burned with 
fire. As such, burning a flag is more appropriately classified as 
conduct, which is not protected by the first amendment.
  The proposition that our greatness as a nation rests on whether or 
not an individual is permitted to burn Old Glory simply does not add 
up. At a time in our national history when disparate influences appear 
to be dividing people, the American flag represents unity. During the 
American Revolution, and subsequent conflicts, the flag has unified our 
diverse nation. Our flag symbolizes the freedoms we enjoy everyday. 
Generations of Americans have gone forth from our shores to stop 
enemies abroad from taking away these freedoms.
  In addition, our great nation has always used the flag to honor those 
who, proudly in the uniform of our military, made great sacrifices. 
These are startling statistics that tend to be forgotten with the 
passage of time: World War II, 406,000 U.S. service members killed; 
Korea 55,000 U.S. service members killed; Vietnam, 58,100 U.S. service 
members killed, and Persian Gulf, 147 U.S. service members killed. For 
all those who gave their life, let us not forget that their caskets 
were draped in our flag as the final expression of our nation's 
thankfulness.
  The memory and honor of those who have fought under our flag demands 
that our flag be protected against reckless conduct presenting itself 
as ``free speech.''


                           Amendment No. 2890

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be up 
to 2 hours of debate on the Hollings amendment No. 2890, to be equally 
divided in the usual form between the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, and the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings.
  The Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond, is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for Senate Joint Resolution 14, the constitutional amendment to 
protect the flag of the United States. I believe it is vital that we 
enact this amendment without further delay.
  We have considered this issue in the Judiciary Committee and on the 
Senate Floor many times in the past decade. I have fought to achieve 
protection for the flag ever since the Supreme Court first legitimized 
flag burning in the case of Texas v. Johnson in 1989.
  The American flag is much more than a piece of cloth. During moments 
of despair and crisis throughout the history of our great Nation, the 
American people have turned to the flag as a symbol of national unity. 
It represents our values, ideals, and proud heritage. There is no 
better symbol of freedom and democracy in the world than our flag. As 
former Senator Bob Dole said a few years ago, it is the one symbol that 
brings to life the Latin phrase that appears in front of me in

[[Page S1769]]

the Senate Chamber, e pluribus unum, which means, ``out of many, one.''
  Ever since the American Revolution, our soldiers have put their lives 
on the line to defend what the flag represents. We have a duty to honor 
their sacrifices by giving the flag the protection it once had, and 
clearly deserves today.
  In our history, the Congress has been very reluctant to amend the 
Constitution, and I agree with this approach. However, the Constitution 
provides for a method of amendment, and there are a few situations 
where an amendment is warranted. This is one of them.
  The only real argument against this amendment is that it interferes 
with an absolute interpretation of the free speech clause of the first 
amendment. However, restrictions on speech already exist through 
constitutional interpretation. In fact, before the Supreme Court ruled 
on this issue, the Federal government and the States believed that flag 
burning was not constitutionally protected speech. The Federal 
government and almost every state had laws prohibiting desecration that 
were thought to be valid before the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in 
1989.
  Passing this amendment would once again give the Congress the 
authority to protect the flag from physical desecration. It would not 
reduce the Bill of Rights. It would simply overturn a few very recent 
judicial decisions that rejected America's traditional approach to the 
flag under the law.
  Flag burning is intolerable. We have no obligation to permit this 
nonsense. Have we focused so much on the rights of the individual that 
we have forgotten the rights of the people?
  I strongly urge all my colleagues to join with us today and support 
this amendment. We are on the side of the American people, and I am 
firmly convinced that we are on the side of what is right. Once and for 
all, we should pass this constitutional amendment and give the flag of 
the United States of America the protection it deserves.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to make remarks generally on the 
flag amendment. Frankly, I think it is a travesty on this 
constitutional amendment to bring up campaign finance reform as a 
constitutional amendment to this amendment. But be that as it may, any 
Senator has a right to do that.
  I hope my colleagues will vote down the Hollings amendment, as it 
should be voted down. That is a serious debate that has to take place, 
and it should not take place as a constitutional amendment. Having said 
that, let me comment about why we are here.
  The Senate began today's session with the Pledge of Allegiance to our 
American flag. Today, we resume debate over a proposal that will test 
whether the pledge we make--with our hands over our hearts--is one of 
consequence or just a hollow gesture. We resume debate over S.J. Res. 
14, a constitutional amendment to permit Congress to enact legislation 
prohibiting the desecration of the American flag. Now all we are 
asking, since the Court has twice rejected congressional statutes, is 
to give Congress the power to protect our flag from physical 
desecration. It seems to me that is not much of a request.
  It should be a slam dunk. But, unfortunately, politics is being 
played with this amendment. Congress would not have to act on it if it 
didn't want to, but it would have the power to do so. It also involves 
the separation of powers doctrine.
  The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, has indicated that flag 
burning, defecating on the flag, or urinating on the flag is a form of 
free speech.
  I don't see how anybody in his right mind can conclude that. There is 
no question that is offensive conduct and it ought to be stamped out. 
On the other hand, all we are doing is giving Congress the power to 
enact legislation that would prohibit physical desecration of the flag. 
Congress doesn't have to, if it doesn't want to; it can, if it wants 
to.
  When we enacted those prior statutes to protect the flag, they passed 
overwhelmingly. It was also under the guise that we were trying to 
protect the flag through statutory protection, which I of course 
pointed out very unfailingly in both cases was unconstitutional. Of 
course, the Supreme Court upheld what I said they would uphold.
  Symbols are important. The American flag represents, in a way that 
nothing else does, the common bond shared by the people of this nation, 
one of the most diverse in the world. It is our one overriding symbol 
of unity. We have no king; we won our independence from him over 200 
years ago. We have no state religion. What we do have is the American 
flag.
  Whatever our differences of party, politics, philosophy, race, 
religion, ethnic background, economic status, social status, or 
geographic region, we are united as Americans in peace and in war. That 
unity is symbolized by a unique emblem, the American flag. Its stars 
and stripes and rich colors are the visible embodiment of our Nation 
and its principles and values and ideals.
  The American flag has come to symbolize hope, opportunity, justice, 
and freedom--not just to the people of this Nation but to people all 
over the world. Failure to protect the flag would lessen the bond among 
us as Americans and weaken the symbolism of our sovereignty as a 
nation.
  This proposed amendment recognizes and ratifies James Madison's 
view--and the constitutional law that existed for centuries--that the 
American flag is an important and unique incident of our national 
sovereignty. As Americans, we display the flag in order to signify 
national ownership and protection. The Founding Fathers made clear that 
the flag reflects the existence and sovereignty of the United States, 
and that desecration of the flag was a matter of national--I repeat--
national concern that warranted government action. This same 
sovereignty interest does not exist for our national monuments or our 
other symbols. While they are important to us all, the flag is unique. 
It is flown over our ships. We carry it into battle. We salute it and 
pledge allegiance to it. We do these things because the flag is the 
unique symbol unity and sovereignty.
  The proposed amendment reads simply: ``The Congress shall have the 
power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United 
States.'' S.J. Res. 14 is not an amendment to ban flag desecration, but 
an amendment to allow Congress to make the decision on whether to 
prohibit it. It is not self-executing, so a statute defining the terms 
and penalties for the proscribed conduct will need to be enacted, 
should this amendment be approved by two-thirds of the Senate today, or 
whenever.
  While it would be preferable to enact a statute, and not take the 
rare and sober step of amendment the Constitution, our amendment is 
necessary because the Supreme Court has given us no choice in the 
matter.
  I understand there is some lack of knowledge in this body where 
people have not realized that for 200 years we have protected the flag 
and that 49 States have anti-flag-desecration language. But in two 
narrow 5-4 decisions, breaking from over 200 years of precedent--Texas 
v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman--the Court overturned prior 
State statutes prohibiting the desecration of the flag.
  Make no mistake about it: The United States Senate is the forum of 
last resort to ensure that our flag is protected. H.J. Res. 33--an 
identical measure--has already won the necessary two-thirds vote in the 
House of Representatives by a vote of 305 to 124, with overwhelming 
bipartisan support. In fact, nearly 50 percent of the Democrats in the 
House voted for the measure.
  In addition, the people, expressing themselves through 49 State 
legislatures, have expressed their readiness to ratify the measure by 
calling upon Congress to pass this constitutional amendment to protect 
the flag. Protecting the flag is not a partisan gesture, nor should it 
be. Especially at a time of election-year partisan rhetoric, this 
amendment to protect our flag is an opportunity for all Americans to 
come together as a country and honor the symbol of what we all are. 
This effort will not only reaffirm our allegiance to the flag, it will 
reestablish our national unity.
  The American people revere the flag of the United States as the 
unique symbol of our Nation and the freedom we enjoy as Americans. As 
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent in Texas v. 
Johnson:


[[Page S1770]]


       [A] country's flag is a symbol of more than ``nationhood 
     and national unity.'' It also signifies the ideas that 
     characterize the society that has chosen that emblem as well 
     as the special history that has animated the growth and power 
     of those ideas. . . . So it is with the American flag. It is 
     more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, 
     and the gifts of a nation that transformed 13 fledgling 
     colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of 
     equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill 
     for other peoples who share our aspirations.'' [491 U.S. at 
     437 (dissenting)]

  In the long process of bringing this amendment to the floor, we have 
gone more than half way to address the concerns of critics. I think it 
is time for opponents of the amendment to join with us in offering the 
protection of law to our beloved American flag.
  Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent in the Texas v. Johnson 
decision, said it best:

       The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible 
     force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. 
     Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale 
     and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at 
     Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. 
     If those ideas are worth fighting for--and our history 
     demonstrates that they are--it cannot be true that the flag 
     that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of 
     protection from unnecessary desecration. [491 U.S. at 439]

  I want to talk a little bit about the arguments that I have heard 
over the past several years, and again this week, from some of my 
colleagues who oppose this amendment. Opponents contend that preventing 
the physical desecration of the flag actually tramples on the sacred 
right of Americans to speak freely. Although I respect many people who 
have this view, I strongly disagree with it. I hope that, as I have 
come to understand their perspective, they too will be open to mine 
and, together, we will be able to achieve consensus on the most 
important issue of all--protecting and preserving the American flag.
  Restoring legal protection to the American flag would not infringe on 
free speech. If burning the flag were the only means of expressing 
dissatisfaction with the nation's policies, then I imagine that I, too, 
might oppose this amendment. But we live in a free and open society. 
Those who wish to express their political opinions--including any 
opinion about the flag--may do so in public, private, the media, 
newspaper editorials, peaceful demonstrations, and through their power 
to vote.
  Certainly, destroying property might be seen as a clever way of 
expressing one's dissatisfaction. But such action is conduct, not 
speech. Law can be, and are, enacted to prevent such actions, in large 
part because there are peaceful alternatives equally expressive. After 
all, right here in the United States Senate, we prohibit speeches or 
demonstrations of any kind in the public galleries, even the silent 
display of signs or banners. As a society, we can, and do, place 
limitations on both speech and conduct.
  Mutilating our Nation's great symbol of national unity is simply not 
necessary to express an opinion. Those individuals who have a message 
to the country should not confuse their right to speak with a supposed 
``conduct right,'' which allows one to desecrate a symbol that embodies 
the ideals of a Nation that Americans have given their lives to 
protect.
  For this reason, I must reiterate strongly that the flag protection 
amendment does not effectively amend the first amendment. It merely 
reverses two erroneous decisions of the Supreme Court and restores to 
the people the right to choose what law, if any, should protect the 
American flag.
  I have heard some of my colleagues miss this point and talk about how 
we cannot amend the Bill of Rights or infringe on free speech, and I 
was struck by how many of them voted for the flag protection statute in 
1989. Think about that. They cannot have it both ways. How can they 
argue that a statute that bans flag burning does not infringe on free 
speech, and yet say that an amendment that authorizes Congress to enact 
such a statute banning flag burning does infringe on free speech?
  Moreover, the argument that a statute will suffice is an illusion. We 
have been down this road before, and it is an absolute dead end, having 
been rejected by the Supreme Court less than 30 days after oral 
argument, in a decision of fewer than 8 pages. They will do the same to 
any other statute of general applicability to the flag. A 
constitutional amendment is necessary because the Supreme Court has 
given us no choice in this matter.

  We all understand the game that is being played. We have people who 
changed their vote at the last minute to prevent the flag amendment 
from passing, as they did on the balanced budget amendment. The same 
people who voted for the statute are claiming their free speech rights 
would be violated by this amendment, but I guess not by the statute 
that allows them to ban desecration of the flag--a statute that I think 
they all know would be automatically held unconstitutional by the 
Supreme Court. It is a game. It is time for people to stand up for this 
flag.
  Some of my colleagues argue that because the Supreme Court has spoken 
we can do little to override this newly minted, so-called 
``constitutional right.'' In my view, this concedes far too much to the 
judiciary.
  No human institution, including the Supreme Court, is infallible. 
Suppose that the year is 1900 and we are debating the passage of an 
amendment to override the Plessy versus Ferguson decision. That was the 
decision in which the Supreme Court rules that separate-but-equal is 
equal, and that the Constitution requires only separate-but-equal 
public transportation and public education. The Plessy decisions was 
almost unanimous, 8-1 in contrast to the Johnson and Eichman decisions, 
which were 5-4. Would any of my colleagues be arguing that we could not 
pass an amendment to provide that no state may deny equal access to the 
same transportation, public education, and other public benefits 
because of race or color simply because the Court had spoken the final 
word? Would any one of my colleagues argue that the Plessy decision had 
to stand because an amendment might change the 14th amendment? Of 
course not.
  The suggestion by some that restoring Congress' power to protect the 
American flag from physical desecration tears at the fabric of our 
liberties is so overblown that it is difficult to take seriously. In 
fact, I think it is phony. These arguments ring particularly hollow 
because until 1989, 48 states and the federal government had flag 
protection laws. Was there a tear in the fabric of our liberties then? 
Of course not.
  It goes without saying that among the most precious rights we enjoy 
as Americans is the right to govern ourselves. It was to gain this 
right that our ancestors fought and died at Concord and Bunker Hill, 
Saratoga, Trenton, and Yorktown. And it was to preserve that right that 
our fathers, brothers, and sons bravely gave their lives at New 
Orleans, Flanders, the Bulge, and Mt. Suribachi. The Constitution 
exists for no other purpose than to vindicate this right of self-
government by the people. The Framers of the Constitution did not 
expect the people to meekly surrender their right to self-government, 
or their judgment on constitutional issues, just because the Supreme 
Court decides a case a particular way. Nor, when they gave Congress a 
role in the amendment process, did the Framers expect us to surrender 
our judgment on constitutional issues just because another, equal and 
co-ordinate branch of government, rules a particular way. The amendment 
process is the people's check on the Supreme Court. If it were not for 
the right of the people to amendment the Constitution, set out in 
Article 5, we would not even have a Bill of Rights in the first place. 
It was the people through their elected representatives--not the 
courts--who enshrined the freedom of speech in the Constitution.
  The Framers did not expect the Constitution to be routinely amended, 
and it has not been. The amendment process is difficult and 
exceptional. But it should not be viewed as an unworthy or unrighteous 
process either. The amendment process exists to vindicate the most 
precious right of the people to determine under what laws they will be 
governed. It is there to be used when the overwhelming majority of 
voters decide that they should make a decision rather than the Supreme 
Court.
  In Texas versus Johnson and United States versus Eichman the Supreme 
Court decided for Americans that a

[[Page S1771]]

statute singling out the flag for special protection is based on the 
communicative value of the flag and therefore violates the first 
amendment. The Court decided that what 48 states and the federal 
government had prohibited for decades was now wrong. Since the Johnson 
and Eichman decisions, several challenges have been brought against the 
state statutes prohibiting flag desecration. State courts considering 
these types of statutes have uniformly held these statutes 
unconstitutional.
  One recent case, Wisconsin versus Janssen, involved a defendant who 
confessed to, among other things, defecating on the United States flag. 
Relying on the Supreme Court's Johnson decision, the Wisconsin high 
court invalidated a state statute prohibiting flag desecration on the 
ground that the statute was overbroad and unconstitutional on its face.
  In reaching that decision, the court noted that it was 
deeply offended by Janssen's conduct, and stated that ``[t]o many, 
particularly those who have fought for our country, it is a slap in the 
face.'' The court further explained that ``[t]hough our disquieted 
emotions will eventually subside, the facts of this case will remain a 
glowing ember of frustration in our hearts and minds. That an 
individual or individuals might conceivably repeat such conduct in the 
future is a fact which we acknowledge only with deep regret.'' What was 
particularly distressing about this decision is that the court found 
the statute constitutionally invalid even though the state was trying 
to punish an individual whose vile and senseless act was devoid of any 
significant political message, as so many of them are.

  The court noted ``the clear intent of the legislature is to proscribe 
all speech or conduct which is grossly offensive and contemptuous of 
the United States flag. Therefore, any version of the current statute 
would violate fundamental principles of first amendment law both in 
explicit wording and intent.'' Under prevailing Supreme Court 
precedent, then, the Court found that the proscribed conducted was 
protected ``speech.'' The Wisconsin decision, like those before it, 
demonstrates that, because of the narrow Johnson and Eichman decisions 
of the U.S. Supreme Court, any statute, state or federal, that seeks to 
prohibit flag desecration will be struck down.
  The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, noted that all was not lost. 
The Court opined that ``[i]f it is the will of the people in the 
country to amend the United States Constitution in order to protect our 
nation's symbol, it must be done through normal political channels,'' 
and noted that the Wisconsin legislature recently adopted a resolution 
urging Congress to amend the Constitution to prohibit flag desecration.
  Clearly, with the House having already sent us the amendment on a 
strong, bipartisan vote, the ball is firmly here in the Senate's court. 
If we are serious about protecting the American flag, it is up to this 
body, at this time, to take action and to send this proposed amendment 
to the people of the United States.
  After all the legal talk and hand-wringing on both sides of this 
issue, what is comes down to is this: Will the Senate of the United 
States confuse liberty with license? Will the Senate of the United 
States deprive the people of the United States the right to decide 
whether they wish to protect their beloved national symbol, Old Glory? 
Forty-nine state legislatures have called for a flag protection 
amendment. By an overwhelming and bipartisan vote, the House of 
Representatives has passed the amendment. Now it is up to the Senate to 
do its job. Let us join together and send this amendment to the people.
  This resolution should be adopted, and the flag amendment sent to the 
states for their approval. Our fellow Americans overwhelmingly want to 
see us take action that really protects the flag and this, my friends, 
can do just that. I urge you to support the flag protection amendment 
and, by doing so, preserve the integrity and symbolic value of the 
American flag.
  It is now time for the Senate to heed the will of the people by 
voting for the flag protection constitutional amendment. Doing so will 
advance our common morality and the system of ordered liberty 
encompassed in our history, laws and traditions. We must restore the 
Constitution and the first amendment, send the flag amendment to the 
States that have requested it with near unanimity, and return to the 
American people the right to protect the United States flag. It is time 
to let the people decide.
  Again, I come back do that major point. All this amendment does is 
recognize that there are three separated powers in this country--the 
legislative, executive, and judicial branches of Government. When the 
judicial branch says we can no longer enact by statute the protection 
of the flag and suggests we have to pass a constitutional amendment if 
we want to protect the flag, then this amendment gives the Congress the 
right to be coequal with the other branches of Government. It gives us 
the right to protect the flag through a constitutional amendment and it 
gives us the right, if we so choose, to pass legislation similar to the 
legislation that a vast majority of Members of this body voted for back 
in 1989.
  Last but not least, in this day and age, many of our young people 
don't even have a clue to what happened back between 1941 and 1945. 
They don't even realize what happened in the Second World War.
  Sending this amendment to the 50 States would create a debate on 
values, which is necessary in this country, like we have never had 
before. It will be up to the people to decide. That is all we are 
asking. Let the people, through their State legislatures, decide 
whether or not we should protect the flag. That is not a bad request. 
It is something that needs to be done. Above all, it restores to the 
Congress the coequal power as a coequal branch of Government that is 
gone because of the very narrow set of 4-5 Supreme Court decisions. I 
reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH. How much time does our side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 1 hour, the 
Senator from South Carolina has 1 hour, and the Senator from Vermont 
has a half hour.
  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I control the 
time on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will take a very 
short time. I speak in favor of the flag protection amendment to the 
Constitution. It is an honor for me to be a cosponsor of this 
constitutional amendment, 1 of 58. Most everything has been said, I 
suppose, that needs to be said about it. Of course, no one here is in 
favor of desecration of the flag. What we have is a difference of view 
as to how to deal with that issue.
  This constitutional amendment has been around for a very long time 
and has been considered several times. Certainly, this symbol of the 
flag is one that should be held in the highest regard. Most everyone 
agrees with that.
  This measure states:

       The Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical 
     desecration of the flag of the United States.

  That should be the case. It seems to me what that does is helps to 
define freedom of speech. We can do that.
  What we are saying is it is illegal to physically desecrate the flag 
of the United States. I cannot imagine how people can disagree with 
that. The Senate has voted on this matter in the past in 1989, 1990, 
and 1995, and each time a majority was in favor. The House passed an 
identical measure in June of 1999 by a vote of 305-124 with a 
sufficient majority. Each year we get a little closer to passing it.

[[Page S1772]]

  Why do we need a flag protection amendment? Forty-nine State 
legislatures have already passed resolutions urging this constitutional 
amendment. The flag, obviously, is a sacred symbol and deserves 
protection from desecration. It is a symbol of national unity and 
identification. We all know of the sacrifices that have been made, and 
this flag typifies that; this flag is symbolic of that. It is an 
inspiration for people.
  The attempts in the past have failed in terms of statutory issues. 
The Supreme Court struck down the Texas v. Johnson in 1989 in a 5-4 
decision. In 1990, there was another 5-4 decision.
  This is a reasonable request to accommodate and I believe most 
Americans want to protect this flag. If this is the necessary way to do 
it, then I am for that.
  I am very pleased to be a cosponsor, and I urge this be passed in the 
Senate. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If neither side yields time, time runs 
equally.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand we are on the flag 
amendment. That is why I waited for them to complete their hour and I 
begin mine.
  Mr. HATCH. My understanding is, it is the Hollings amendment that is 
being debated.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is what Senator Hatch says, but that is not what 
the Chair says.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate currently has under consideration 
the Hollings amendment No. 2890.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. All this time has been taken off the Hollings 
amendment? Come on. We have been talking about the flag. I approached 
the Chair when we started. Right to the point, the Parliamentarian said 
they are arguing the flag amendment. Senator Thurmond started, and then 
Senator Hatch talked on the flag amendment. The others have been 
talking on the flag amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding the Hollings 
amendment is an amendment to the flag amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. We can use our time any way we want to on our side. The 
amount of time is still remaining for Senator Hollings on his side. As 
I understand it, we are debating the Hollings amendment, but I talked 
generally about the flag amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Hollings amendment is an amendment to the 
flag amendment and is under consideration.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 1 hour.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I'm addressing the so-called freedom of 
speech with respect to campaign financing. I explained yesterday 
afternoon how we, in the 1974 act, tried to clean up the corruption. 
Cash was being given, all kinds of favors and demands were being made 
on members of the Government, as well as in the private sector. 
Numerous people were convicted. We enacted the 1974 act after the 
Maurice Stans matter in the Nixon campaign.
  We debated one particular point--that you could not buy the office. 
Now the contention is that you can buy the office because under the 
first amendment protecting freedom of speech, and money being speech, 
there is no way under the Constitution that it can be controlled. Of 
course, that is a distortion by the Buckley v. Valeo decision for the 
simple reason that we finally have Justice Stevens saying that ``money 
is property.'' Justice Kennedy goes right into the distortion. I quote 
from the case of Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC:

       The plain fact is that the compromise the Court invented--
     --

  I emphasize the word ``invented''----

     in Buckley set the stage for a new kind of speech to enter 
     the political system. It is covert speech. The Court has 
     forced a substantial amount of political speech underground, 
     as contributors and candidates devise ever more elaborate 
     methods of avoiding contribution limits, limits which take no 
     account of rising campaign costs. The preferred method has 
     been to conceal the real purpose of the speech.
  Then further:

       Issue advocacy, like soft money, is unrestricted . . . 
     while straightforward speech in the form of financial 
     contributions paid to a candidate . . . is not. Thus has the 
     Court's decision given us covert speech. This mocks the First 
     Amendment.

  I hope everybody, particularly the other side of the aisle, 
understands that I am reading from Justice Kennedy:

       This mocks the First Amendment.

  He goes on to say:

       Soft money must be raised to attack the problem of soft 
     money. In effect, the Court immunizes its own erroneous 
     ruling from change.

  We have it foursquare. There is no question that the majority in 
Buckley has mocked the first amendment. Four Justices in Buckley v. 
Valeo found that you could control spending. They treated money as it 
has been treated in the Congress--as property and not speech.
  Let's look, for example, at the hearing we had. When the Senate is 
asked to consider contributions, they consider them property. So we had 
the Thompson investigation. Seventy witnesses testified in public over 
a total of 33 days; 200 witness interviews were conducted; 196 
depositions were conducted under oath; 418 subpoenas were issued for 
hearings, depositions, and documents; and more than 1.5 million pages 
of documents were received.
  They did not say that Charlie Trie, Johnny Huang and others had free 
speech. The lawyers in those particular cases would be delighted to 
hear a Congressman who now takes the position that: Oh, it is all free 
speech. Don't worry about any violations because the first amendment 
protects this money. The first amendment protects it as free speech. 
That is out of the whole cloth. They have been singsonging because they 
enjoy this particular corruption.
  What corruption? As I pointed out yesterday, we used to come in here 
and work. Thirty years ago, under Senator Mansfield, we would come in 
at 9 o'clock Monday morning and we would have a vote. The distinguished 
leader at that time usually had a vote to make sure we got here and 
started our week's work--and I emphasize ``week's work.'' We worked 
throughout Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and we were 
lucky to complete our work by Friday evening at 5 o'clock.
  Now: Monday is gone. Tuesday morning is gone. We don't really work 
here. We are waiting and not having any votes. People are coming back 
into town. Nobody is here to listen. On Wednesday and Thursday we have 
to have windows so we can go fundraise. Can you imagine that? That 
ought to embarrass somebody. But I have asked for windows, too, because 
that is the way it is.
  The money chase--the amount of money that must be chased--has 
corrupted this Congress. Everybody knows it. The people's business is 
set aside. On Friday, we go back home. What do we do? We have fund-
raisers. We don't have free-speech raisers, like they are talking about 
on the floor of the Senate now.
  They get all pontifical and stand up and talk oh so eruditely about 
the Constitution and the first amendment. They know better than anyone 
that this is property. But as long as they can sell everybody that 
there are no limits, there are no restrictions on money because it is 
free speech, then it is ``Katie bar the door'' and we have really gone 
down the tube.
  It is not that bad; it is worse. We used to have a break, I think it 
was on February 12, for Lincoln's birthday. It might have been a long 
weekend, but it was not a 10-day break. Now, January is gone. Then we 
had a 10-day break in February. We had a 10-day break again in March. 
We will have another 10-day break in April. We will have another 10-day 
break in May and at the beginning of June. Then we will have the Fourth 
of July break. Then we will have the month of August off--all of this 
keeping us from doing the people's business.

  I thought once our campaigns were over we would come up here and go 
to work on behalf of the people's business. Instead, we work on behalf 
of our own business: reelection. All in the name of this tremendous 
volume of money, money, money everywhere. They are trying to defend it 
on the premise of: Give me the ACLU and the Washington Post. Then they 
put up a sandwich

[[Page S1773]]

board about newspapers: If the Hollings amendment is passed, the 
newspapers can't write editorials. I never heard of such nonsense.
  This does not have to do with anybody's freedom of speech. We cannot, 
should not and would not ever take away anybody's speech. But we can 
take away the money used in campaigns and limit it just like every 
other country does. In England, they limit the amount of time in which 
you can actually conduct the campaign. They do not talk about campaigns 
in reference to the Magna Carta: Wait a minute, you have taken away my 
speech here in the Parliament. There is none of that kind of nonsense. 
But here, it is the kind of thing we are having to put up with.
  The question is, Can this problem be solved another way?
  That is exactly what the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, says: 
We have a problem. Let's solve it in another way. He puts in a 
statutory amendment with respect to the flag.
  With respect to campaign financing, give me a break. We have tried 
for 25 years--everything from public finance to free TV time, to soft 
money, to hard money limitations, to any and every idea.
  Now we have the Vice President proposing an endowment to finance 
federal campaigns. They think all you have to do is come up with a new 
idea and then you are really serious about this. If you are going to 
get serious, vote for this amendment. Then, by gosh, we are playing for 
keeps.
  There are a lot of people on McCain-Feingold getting a free ride 
voting for it, knowing it is never going anywhere because the Senator 
from Kentucky is manifestly correct, it is patently unconstitutional. 
There is no question that this Court would find McCain-Feingold 
unconstitutional. Everybody knows that. This is one grand charade, as 
the corruption continues.
  I emphasize that this amendment does not take a side with McCain-
Feingold, with hard money, with soft money, with the Vice President's 
endowment, with anything else or any idea one may have about 
controlling spending in Federal elections. It is not pro, it is not 
con, it is not for, it is not against. It merely gives authority to the 
Congress to do what we intended back in 1974 with the amended version 
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971; and that is, to stop 
people from buying the office.
  The corruption is such that you have to buy the office. We are 
required to buy it. I can tell you, because two years ago I spent more 
of my time raising $5.5 million for my seventh reelection to the Senate 
than I did campaigning. So I speak advisedly. I have asked for windows. 
I have asked for parts of this corruption that we are all involved in. 
The only way it is going to be cleaned up is a constitutional 
amendment.

  What does Justice Kennedy say? He says: Buckley mocks the first 
amendment. Mind you, there was only one Justice who called money 
property, but another said it mocked the first amendment. Then I read 
from the decision:

       Soft money must be raised to attack the problem of soft 
     money. In effect, the Court immunizes its own erroneous 
     ruling from change.

  Imagine that. The Court has immunized the ruling from change; namely, 
you cannot change it by statute. Listen Senator Conrad, and any other 
Senator interested in playing games with this corruption, saying we 
will put in a little statute. There have been 2,000 or 20,000 
amendments to the Constitution. Give me a break. The last five or seven 
amendments had to do with elections. None of them is as important as 
this particular national corruption of Congress. We all know about it. 
We all participate in it. We have no time to be a Congress. We are just 
a dignified bunch of money raisers for each other and for ourselves.
  It is sad to have to say that on the floor of the Senate, but it is 
time we give the people a chance. This does not legislate or provide 
anything. It just says, come November, as a joint resolution, let the 
people decide. I think the people have decided. That is why my 
amendment is timely. During this year's presidential primaries everyone 
was talking about campaign finance reform--reform, reform, reform. 
Candidates were saying, I am the reform candidate.
  The one thing they are trying to reform is campaign financing, this 
corruption. Now even the Vice President has come out and said: The 
first day I am your President, I will submit McCain-Feingold--knowing 
it is an act in futility. Let's pass McCain-Feingold unanimously. The 
Court throws it out later this year. It is not going anywhere. The 
Court has time and again said soft money is speech. That is the 
majority of this crowd. But I admonish the four Justices in Buckley v. 
Valeo who said they could do it. Now we have two other Justices talking 
sense. We know good and well that the people want a chance to talk on 
this, to vote on this.
  I had no sooner put this up years ago, back in the 1980s, and the 
States' Governors came and, by resolution, asked that we amend the 
Hollings amendment so as to include the States. So that now the 
Hollings amendment reads that Congress is hereby empowered to regulate 
or control spending in Federal elections, and the States are hereby 
allowed to regulate or control spending in State elections.
  It should be remembered that the last, I think, six out of seven 
amendments, took an average of 17 or 18 months. This is very timely for 
the people to vote on in November, when the issue has already been 
discussed and debated throughout the primaries. The people are ready to 
vote on campaign finance reform. And both presidential candidates, Bush 
and Gore, are now trying to position themselves as reformers on 
campaign finance. We can solve that by having the people vote on the 
issue in and of itself. Within 17 months, on average, we can have the 
people vote and by this time next year have it confirmed by the 
Congress and this mess will cleaned up. Then we can go back to work for 
the people of America and cut out this money machine operation that we 
call a Congress.
  We not only have to go out during breaks and raise money, we now have 
``power hours.'' We have the ``united fund,'' your fair share 
allocation that you are supposed to raise and contribute to the 
committee. It becomes more and more and more. Every time I turn around, 
instead of trying to get some work done, we have more money demands.
  So if you want to stop the corruption and stop the charade of calling 
campaign contributions free speech, this amendment is the solution. We 
are not taking away anybody's speech. We in Congress don't call it 
speech when we conduct these hearings, year-long hearings with hundreds 
of witnesses and millions of pages of testimony to get the scoundrels. 
For what? Not for exercising their free speech but for violating 
limitations on money contributions. We treat money as property when we 
have these fund raisers. We don't call them free-speech raisers. We 
treat it as property, except when we try to really stop the corruption.

  I hope we will stop it today and vote affirmatively on the Hollings-
Specter amendment so that we can move on and get back to our work.
  Go up to the majority leader and ask him: Mr. Leader, I would like 
you to bring up TV violence. He will say: Well, that will take 3 or 4 
days. We don't have time.
  Why don't we have time? We don't work on Monday. We don't work on 
Friday, just the afternoons on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday. We 
can't even allow amendments.
  We are going in this afternoon at 3:30 to the Budget Committee, but 
we have been putting that off again and again. I just checked an hour 
ago and it was said: We really don't know whether the vote is fixed. 
They try to fix the jury, fix the vote so there are no amendments to be 
accepted. The vote is fixed. It is an exercise--if you don't go along 
with their fix--in futility. Yet Members go around and say: I am a 
Member of the most deliberative body in the United States, most 
deliberative body in the world. The money chase has corrupted us so 
that we are fixed in a position where we can't deliberate. We don't 
deliberate. We have forgotten about that entirely and, in fact, rather 
enjoy it. So long as nobody raises any questions and we all can go back 
home and continue to raise money, we think we are doing a good job.
  It is a sad situation. I hope we can address it in an up-front manner 
and support the amendment.

[[Page S1774]]

  I retain the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that time under the quorum call 
not be charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object, is the time going to be 
divided equally?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time would ordinarily be divided equally. 
Under this request, if I understand the request of the Senator from 
South Carolina, the time will be divided equally. As the time runs, it 
will be subtracted equally from both sides.
  There is a deadline of 12:30, which the Senator's unanimous consent 
request would violate if time was not charged. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Parliamentary inquiry. Is the time to be charged against 
this amendment equally referring to the amendment of the Senator from 
South Carolina?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senator from South Carolina asked 
that the time not be charged while the Senate is in a quorum call. 
However, the Senate is under a previous order of a deadline of 12:30. 
Therefore, the time would have to be charged one way or another. The 
time expires at 12:30.
  Mr. HATCH. I have no objection to the request as long as the time is 
divided equally on his amendment to my constitutional amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is my request, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time will be divided 
equally between now and 12:30.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on the matter of the Hollings 
amendment, we----
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, as I understand it there is an 
hour for debate on the underlying constitutional amendment between 
11:30 and 12:30 against which this time will not be charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct--just a second.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
charged equally only against the amendment of the distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina and that the hour for debate between 11:30 and 
12:30 remain the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we had extensive debate yesterday on 
the Hollings amendment. Let me repeat some of that for the record 
today.
  The Hollings amendment is at least very straightforward. As I 
understand what the Senator from South Carolina is saying, in order to 
enact the various campaign finance schemes that have been promoted 
around the Senate over the last decade or so, you have to, in fact, 
amend the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I think he is 
correct in that. I happen to think, however, that is a terrible idea.
  His amendment would essentially eviscerate the first amendment to the 
U.S. Constitution, change it dramatically for the first time in 200 
years, to allow the Government--that is us here in the Congress--to 
determine who may speak, when they may speak and, conceivably, even 
what they may speak. Of course, under this amendment, the press would 
not be exempt. So everyone who had anything to say about American 
political matters in support of or in opposition to a candidate would 
fall under the regulatory rubric of the Congress. The American Civil 
Liberties Union called this a ``recipe for repression.'' It is the kind 
of power the Founding Fathers clearly did not want to reside in elected 
officials.
  So this is a step we should not take. The good news is the last time 
we voted on the Hollings amendment in 1997, it only got 38 votes. I am 
confident this will not come anywhere near the 67 votes it would need 
to clear the Senate.
  I am rarely aligned with either Common Cause or the Washington Post 
on the campaign finance issue. They oppose the Hollings amendment. 
Senator Feingold, of McCain-Feingold fame, also opposes the Hollings 
amendment.
  This would be a big step in the wrong direction. I am confident the 
Senate will not take that step when the vote occurs sometime early this 
afternoon.
  Now, some random observations on the subject of campaign finance 
reform. There has been a suggestion that this has become a leading 
issue nationally and will determine the outcome of the Presidential 
election. I think, first, it is important to kind of look back over the 
last few months at how this issue has fared with the American people, 
since it has been discussed so much by the press. There was an ABC-
Washington Post poll right after the New Hampshire primary among both 
Republicans and Democrats, weighting the importance of issues. Among 
Republicans, only 1 percent--this was a national poll--thought campaign 
finance reform was an important issue and, among Democrats, only 2 
percent.
  Earlier this year, in January, another poll--a national poll--asked: 
What is the single most important issue to you in deciding whom you 
will support for President? Campaign finance was down around only 1 
percent of the people nationally who thought that was an important 
issue in deciding how to vote for President. Further, a more recent 
CNN-Gallup-USA Today poll, in March--essentially after the two 
nominations for President for both parties had been wrapped up, after 
Super Tuesday--asked: What do you think is the most important problem 
facing this country today? It was open-ended. American citizens could 
pick any issue they wanted to as the most important problem facing this 
country today.
  In this poll of the American public, over 1,000 adults all across 
America, 32 different issues were mentioned. It was an open-ended poll 
among American citizens as to what they thought was the most important 
issue. Not a single person mentioned campaign finance reform in this 
open-ended survey after Super Tuesday, after this issue had been much 
discussed in the course of the nomination fights for both the Democrats 
and the Republicans. Of course, in California, on the very same day as 
the Super Tuesday vote, there was, in fact, a referendum on the ballot 
in California providing for taxpayer funding of elections and all of 
the various schemes promoted by the reformers here in the Senate in 
recent years. It was defeated 2-1.

  So we have substantial evidence among the American people as to what 
they feel about this issue in terms of its importance in casting votes 
for the President of the United States or, for that matter, for Members 
of Congress as well.
  It has been suggested by the reformers on this issue over the years 
that if we will just pass various forms of campaign finance reform, the 
public will feel better about us, their skepticism about us will be 
reduced, and their cynicism about politics will subside. A number of 
other countries have passed the kind of legislation that has been 
proposed here over the last 15 or 20 years. Most of those--or all of 
those countries don't have a first amendment, so they don't have that 
impeding legislative activity. I think it is interesting to look at 
these other countries and what the results have been in terms of public 
attitudes about government that have come after they have passed the 
kinds of legislation that has been advocated around here in one form or 
another over the years.
  Let's look at some industrialized democracies. Our neighbor to the 
north, Canada, has passed many of the types of regulations supported by 
the reformers in the Senate over the years. They have passed spending 
limits for all national candidates. All national candidates must abide 
by these to be eligible to receive taxpayer matching funds. The Vice 
President just yesterday came out with a taxpayer-funded scheme for 
congressional elections. I have seen survey data on that. It would be 
more popular to vote for a congressional pay raise than to vote to 
spend tax money on buttons and balloons and commercials. That is what 
the Vice President came out for yesterday. We look forward to debating, 
in the course

[[Page S1775]]

of the fall election, how the American people feel about having their 
tax dollars go to pay for political campaigns.
  Nevertheless, other countries have done that. I was talking about 
Canada. Candidates can spend $2 per voter for the first 15,000 votes 
they get, a dollar per voter for all votes up to 25,000, and 50 cents 
per voter beyond 25,000. They have spending limits on parties that 
restrict parties to spending the product of a multiple used to account 
for the cost of living. This is an incredibly complex scheme they have 
in Canada-- a product of a multiple used to account for cost of living 
times the number of registered voters in each electoral district in 
which that party has a candidate running for office.

  It almost makes you laugh just talking about this.
  Right now, in Canada, it comes out to about $1 per voter. They have 
indirect funding via media subsidies. The Canadian Government requires 
that radio and TV networks provide all parties with a specified amount 
of free air time during the month prior to an election. The Government 
also provides subsidies to defray the cost of political publishing and 
gives tax credits to individuals and corporations which donate to 
candidates and/or parties. It sounds similar to the Gore proposal of 
yesterday.
  They have this draconian scheme up in Canada in which nobody gets to 
speak beyond the Government's specified amount. The Government's 
subsidies are put into both campaigns and parties and media subsidies.
  What has been the reaction of the Canadian people in terms of their 
confidence expressed toward their Government?
  The most recent political science studies of Canada demonstrate that 
despite all of this regulation of political speech by candidates and 
parties, the number of Canadians who believe that ``the Government 
doesn't care what people like me think'' has grown from roughly 45 
percent to approximately 67 percent.
  The Canadians put in this system presumably to improve the attitude 
of Canadians about their Government, and it has declined dramatically 
since the imposition of this kind of control over political speech. 
Confidence in the national legislature in Canada declined from 49 
percent to 21 percent, and the number of Canadians satisfied with the 
system of government has declined from 51 percent to 34 percent.
  Here we have in our neighbor to the north, Canada, an example of a 
country responding to concerns about cynicism about politics in 
government put in all of these speech controls, and the people in 
Canada have dramatically less confidence in the Government now than 
they did before all of this was enacted.
  Let's take a look at Japan.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, ``Japanese election 
campaigns, including campaign financing, are governed by a set of 
comprehensive laws that are the most restrictive among democratic 
nations.''
  After forming a seven-party coalition government in August, 1993 
Prime Minister Hosokawa--this sounds like the Vice President--placed 
campaign finance reform at the top of his agenda, just as Vice 
President Gore did yesterday. He asserted that his reforms would 
restore democracy in Japan. In November 1994, his legislation passed. 
After this legislation, the Japanese Government imposed the following 
restrictions on political speech. Listen to this. This is the law in 
Japan:
  Candidates are forbidden from donating to their own campaigns.
  Any corporation that is a party to a Government contract, grant, 
loan, or subsidy is prohibited from making or receiving any political 
contributions for 1 year after they receive such a contract, grant, 
loan, or subsidy.
  In addition, there are strict limits on what corporations and unions 
and individuals may give to candidates and parties.
  There are limits on how much candidates may spend on their campaigns.
  Candidates are prohibited from buying any advertisements.
  Listen to this: Candidates are prohibited from buying any 
advertisements in magazines and newspapers beyond the five print media 
ads of a specified length that the Government purchases for each 
candidate.
  Parties are allotted a specific number of Government-purchased ads of 
a specified length.
  The number of ads a party gets is based on the number of candidates 
they have running.
  It is illegal for these party ads to discuss individual candidates in 
Japan. It is illegal.
  In Japan, candidates and parties spend nothing on media advertising 
because not only are they prohibited from purchasing print media ads, 
they are also prohibited from buying time on television and radio.
  Talk about speech controls--in Japan, candidates can't buy any time 
on television and radio.
  The Government requires TV stations to permit parties and each 
candidate a set number of television and radio ads during the 12 days 
prior to the election. Each candidate gets to make one Government-
subsidized television broadcast.
  The Government's Election Management Committee--that is a nice 
title--provides each candidate with a set number of sideboards and 
posters that subscribe to a standard Government-mandated format.
  The Election Management Committee also designates the places and 
times that candidates may give speeches.
  In Japan, the Government designates the times and places candidates 
may give speeches.
  This is the most extraordinary control over political discussion 
imaginable. All of this campaign finance reform in Japan was enacted 
earlier in the 1990s.
  What makes it even more laughable is, after all of this happened, all 
of these regulations on political speech that amount to a reformers 
wish list were imposed, you have to ask the question: Did cynicism 
decline? Did trust in government increase? ``Not so should be noted,'' 
as we say down in Kentucky. Following the disposition of these 
regulations, the number of Japanese who said they had ``no confidence 
in legislators''--the Japanese passed campaign finance reform that 
Common Cause could only drool over. They did it in Japan. And after 
they did it, following the imposition of these regulations, the number 
of Japanese who said they had ``no confidence in legislators'' rose to 
70 percent.
  Following the enactment of this draconian control of political 
discourse that I just outlined, in Japan only 12 percent of Japanese 
believe the Government is responsive to the people's opinions and 
wishes.
  After the enactment of all of this control over political discussion 
in Japan, the percentage of Japanese ``satisfied'' with the nation's 
political system fell to a mere 5 percent and voter turnout continued 
to decline.
  Let's take a look at France.
  In France, there is significant regulation of political activity:
  Government funding of candidates;
  Government funding of parties;
  Free radio and television time, reimbursement for printing posters 
and for campaign-related transportation;
  They banned contributions to candidates by any entity except parties 
and PACs;
  Individual contributors to parties are limited;
  Strict expenditure limits are set for each electoral district;
  And every single candidate's finances are audited by a national 
commission to ensure compliance with the rules.
  Despite these regulations, the latest political science studies in 
France demonstrate that the French people's confidence in their 
Government and political institutions has continued to decline, and 
voter turnout has continued to decline.
  Let's take a look at Sweden.
  Sweden has imposed the following regulations on political speech:
  In Sweden, there is no fundraising--none at all--or spending for 
individual candidates. Citizens merely vote for parties and assign 
seats on proportion of votes they receive.
  The Government subsidizes print ads by parties.
  Despite the fact that Sweden has no fundraising or spending for 
individual candidates since these requirements have been in force, the 
number of Swedes disagreeing with the statement that ``parties are only 
interested in people's votes, not in their opinions'' has declined from 
51 percent to 28 percent.
  The number of people expressing confidence in the Swedish Parliament 
has declined from 51 percent to 19 percent.

[[Page S1776]]

  So we could follow the rest of the world and trash the first 
amendment and enact all of these draconian controls over political 
discussion, and there is no evidence anywhere in the world that 
produces greater faith in government or greater confidence in the 
process. In fact, there is every bit of evidence that it declines 
dramatically after the enactment of these kinds of reforms.
  I am confident we will not start repealing the first amendment today 
through the passage of the Hollings amendment. Only 38 Senators voted 
for this in 1997 when it was last before us, and I am certain there 
won't be many more than that today.
  Mr. President, how much time remains in opposition to the Hollings 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Three minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Wisconsin is here to speak in 
opposition to the Hollings amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if I could speak 
for 15 minutes in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is under the control of the Senator 
from Utah.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Since there are 3 minutes more in opposition to the 
Hollings amendment, I am happy to give the Senator from Wisconsin my 3 
minutes and hope he might be accommodated for a few more minutes to 
complete his statement.
  Mr. HATCH. I am happy to give the Senator 3 minutes, and I ask the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina if he would give some time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We have no time. I have the Senator from Pennsylvania 
coming. I want to be accommodating but time is limited.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Obviously, both sides have the same amount of time. I 
ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes, if 
necessary adding on to the time. Obviously, if the opponents were to 
feel the same, I have no opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised we have a deadline of 
12:30. Therefore, the Senator's unanimous consent request would 
necessarily have to come out of Senator Hollings' time, after the 3 
minutes have been used from the opposition.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the debate on the 
Judiciary Committee amendment to the Constitution be moved to 11:45 to 
accommodate the distinguished Senator, with the time divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I certainly thank the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the proposed constitutional 
amendment offered by the junior Senator from South Carolina, Senator 
Hollings.
  First I would like to say a few words about the Senator from South 
Carolina. Our colleague Senator Hollings has been calling for 
meaningful campaign finance reform for perhaps longer than any other 
Member of the U.S. Senate. I disagree with this particular approach. 
But I certainly do not question his sincerity or commitment to reform.
  Back in 1993, my first year in the Senate, Senator Hollings offered a 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment to take up a constitutional amendment 
very similar to the one that is before us today. I remember we had a 
very short period of time before that vote came up, and I decided to 
vote with the Senator from South Carolina on that day. I did so because 
I believed that other than balancing the Federal budget, there was 
perhaps no more fundamental issue facing our country than the need to 
reform our election laws.
  Such a serious topic I believed at the time merited at least a 
consideration of a constitutional amendment. And I will certainly 
confess to a certain level of frustration at that time with the fact 
that the Senate and other body had not yet acted to pass meaningful 
campaign finance reform in that Congress.
  To be candid, I immediately realized, even as I was walking back to 
my office from this Chamber, that I had made a mistake. I started 
rethinking right away whether I really wanted the U.S. Senate to 
consider amending the first amendment, even to address the extremely 
important subject of campaign finance reform.
  Then, 18 months later, my perspective on this question began to 
change even more as I was presented with two new development here in 
the Senate.
  First I was given the privilege of serving on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, and, second, I learned that the 104th Congress, newly under 
the control of what remains the majority party, was to become the 
engine for a trainload of proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I had a very good seat to 
witness first hand the surgery that some wanted to perform on the basic 
governing document of our country, the Constitution.
  It started with a proposal right away for a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment. Soon we were considering a term limits 
constitutional amendment, and then a flag desecration constitutional 
amendment, then a school prayer amendment, then a super majority tax 
increase amendment, and then a victims rights amendment. In all over 
100 constitutional amendments were introduced in the 104th Congress. A 
similar number were introduced in the last Congress as well. And in 
this Congress already we have seen over 60 constitutional amendments 
introduced.
  As I saw legislator after legislator suggest that every sort of 
social, economic, and political problem we have in this country could 
be solved merely with enactment of a constitutional amendment, I chose 
to oppose strongly not only this constitutional amendment but others 
that also sought to undermine our most treasured founding principle. I 
firmly believe we must curb this reflexive practice of attempting to 
cure each and every political and social ill of our Nation by tampering 
with the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution of this country was not a 
rough draft. We must stop treating it as such.
  We must also understand that even if we were to adopt this 
constitutional amendment, and the states were to ratify it, which we 
all know is not going to happen, it will not take us one single, 
solitary step closer to campaign finance reform. It is not a silver 
bullet. This constitutional amendment empowers the Congress to set 
mandatory spending limits on congressional candidates. Those are the 
kind of mandatory limits that were struck down in the landmark Buckley 
v. Valeo decision.
  Here is the question I pose for supporters of this amendment: If this 
constitutional amendment were to pass the Congress and be ratified by 
the States, would campaign finance reformers have the necessary 51 
votes--or more likely the necessary 60 votes--to pass legislation that 
includes mandatory spending limits? I don't think so.
  We do not even have 60 votes to pass a ban on soft money at this 
point. And we probably don't even have a bare majority of the Senate 
who support spending limits, much less mandatory spending limits.
  I have been working for many years with the senior Senator from 
Arizona, Senator McCain, on a bipartisan campaign finance proposal. 
While our proposal has changed over the years, we have consistently 
been guided by a desire to work within the guidelines established by 
the Supreme Court. Although our opponents disagree, we are confident 
that the McCain-Feingold bill is constitutional and will be upheld by 
the courts.
  I am mystified by the comments of the Senator from South Carolina who 
stated pointblank: Everyone knows the McCain-Feingold bill is 
unconstitutional. In fact, the recent Missouri Shrink case said by a 6-
3 margin such limitations on contributions are constitutional. It was a 
supermajority of the Supreme Court. It is not credible, I believe, for 
anyone to argue at this point that a ban on soft money is 
unconstitutional.
  Our original proposal, unlike the law that was considered in Buckley 
v. Valeo, included voluntary spending limits. We offered incentives in 
the form of free and discounted television time to encourage but not 
require candidates to limit their campaign spending. That kind of 
reform is patterned on the Presidential public funding system that was 
specifically upheld in Buckley.

[[Page S1777]]

  Later versions of our bill have focused on abolishing soft money, the 
unlimited contributions from corporations, unions, and wealthy 
individuals to political parties. Very few constitutional scholars, 
other than a current nominee to the FEC, Brad Smith, believe that the 
Constitution prevents us from banning soft money. As I indicated, the 
Missouri Shrink case makes that clear.
  The key point is this: We don't need to amend the Constitution to do 
what needs to be done. Of course, when we bring a campaign finance bill 
to the floor we are met with strong resistance. In fact, so far we have 
been stopped by a filibuster. The notion that this constitutional 
amendment will somehow magically pave the way for legislation that 
includes mandatory spending limits simply ignores the reality of the 
opposition that campaign finance reformers face in the Senate, and I 
think we face in the Senate even after a ratification of the Hollings 
amendment.
  This amendment, if ratified, would remove the obstacle of the Supreme 
Court from mandatory spending limit legislation, but it will not remove 
the obstacle of those Senators such as the Senator from Kentucky, who 
believe we need more money, not less, in our political system.
  Most disconcerting to me is what this proposed constitutional 
amendment would mean to the first amendment. I find nothing more sacred 
and treasured in our Nation's history than the first amendment. It is 
perhaps the one tenet of our Constitution that sets our country apart 
from every type of government formed and tested by mankind throughout 
history. No other country has a provision quite like our first 
amendment.
  The first amendment is the bedrock of the Bill of Rights. It has as 
its underpinning the notion that every citizen has a fundamental right 
to disagree with his or her government. It says that a newspaper has an 
unfettered right to publish expressions of political or moral thought. 
It says that the Government may not establish a State-based religion 
that would infringe on the rights of those individuals who seek to be 
freed from such a religious environment.

  I have stood on the floor of the Senate to oppose the proposed 
constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to prohibit the 
desecration of the U.S. flag, and I do so again this week. I do so 
because that amendment, for the first time in our history, would take a 
chisel to the first amendment. It would say that individuals have a 
constitutional right to express themselves--unless they are expressing 
themselves by burning a flag.
  Just as I deplore as much as anyone in this body any individual who 
would take a match to the flag of the United States, I am firmly 
convinced that unrestrained spending on congressional campaigns has 
eroded the confidence of the American people in their government and 
their leaders. I believe we should speak out against those who 
desecrate the flag. I believe we should take immediate steps to 
fundamentally overhaul our system of financing campaigns. But I do not 
believe, as the supporters of this constitutional amendment and other 
amendments believe, that we need to amend the U.S. Constitution to 
accomplish our goals.
  Nothing in this constitutional amendment before the Senate today 
would prevent what we witnessed in the last election. Allegations of 
illegality and improprieties, accusations of abuse, and the selling of 
access to high-ranking Government officials would continue no matter 
what the outcome of the vote on this constitutional amendment. Only the 
enactment of legislation that bans soft money contributions will make a 
meaningful difference.
  I see Members of the Senate as having three choices. First, they can 
vote for constitutional amendments and one-sided reform proposals that 
basically have predetermined fates of never becoming law. That allows 
you to say you voted for something and put the matter aside. Second, 
they can stand with the Senator from Kentucky and others who tell us 
``all is well'' with our campaign finance system and we should not be 
disturbed that so much money is pouring into the campaign coffers of 
candidates and parties.
  A third option is that Senators can join with the Senator from 
Arizona and myself and others who have tried to approach this problem 
from a bipartisan perspective and have tried to craft a reform proposal 
that is fair to all, and constitutional.
  Without meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform, the American 
people will continue to perceive their elected leaders as being for 
sale. They will continue to distrust and doubt the integrity of their 
own Government. And they will have good reason for that distrust and 
doubt. This system of legalized bribery threatens the very foundations 
of our democracy.
  Senator McCain and I intend to make sure that the Senate will have 
another opportunity to address this issue. We have had many debates on 
campaign finance reform, and we will have many more until we pass it. I 
understand and share the frustration of those who support reform and 
are tired of seeing our efforts fail. I want to finish this job too. 
But the way to address the campaign finance problem is to pass 
constitutional legislation, not a constitutional amendment. We must 
redouble our efforts to break the deadlock and give the people real 
reform this year, not 7 or more years from now.
  I urge the Members of the Senate to reject this amendment. It is not 
necessary to tinker with the first amendment in order to accomplish 
campaign finance reform. I greatly admire the sincerity and commitment 
of the Senator from South Carolina, but I do not think his amendment 
will bring us any closer to passing campaign finance reform.
  I thank the Senator from Utah, again, for his courtesy in allowing me 
to address this issue. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Wisconsin. I only hasten to add that this particular amendment has 
nothing to do with favoring or opposing the McCain-Feingold amendment. 
I have voted for that at least four or five times already.
  Read the Nixon v. Shrink decision when they say money is speech, and 
in the Colorado v. FEC decision when they allowed soft money. One can 
tell a majority of the Court has no idea. Money talks; money is 
speech--that is the way the Court is going. I reiterate, McCain-
Feingold is an act in futility.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article by Jonathan 
Bingham, ``Democracy or Plutocracy? The Case for a Constitutional 
Amendment to Overturn Buckley v. Valeo'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         [From the Annals of the American Academy, Jul., 1986]

  Democracy or Plutocracy? The Case for a Constitutional Amendment to 
                       Overturn Buckley v. Valeo

                         (By Jonathan Bingham)

       Abstract: In the early 1970s the U.S. Congress made a 
     serious effort to stop the abuses of campaign financing by 
     setting limits on contributions and also on campaign 
     spending. In the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme 
     Court upheld the regulation of contributions, but invalidated 
     the regulation of campaign spending as a violation of the 
     First Amendment. Since then, lavish campaigns, with their 
     attendant evils, have become an ever more serious problem. 
     Multimillion-dollar campaigns for the Senate, and even for 
     the House of Representatives, have become commonplace. 
     Various statutory solutions to the problem have been 
     proposed, but these will not be adequate unless the 
     Congress--and the states--are permitted to stop the 
     escalation by setting limits. What is needed is a 
     constitutional amendment to reverse the Buckley holding, as 
     proposed by several members of Congress. This would not mean 
     a weakening of the Bill of Rights, since the Buckley ruling 
     was a distortion of the First Amendment. Within reasonable 
     financial limits there is ample opportunity for that 
     ``uninhibited, robust and wide-open'' debate of the issues 
     that the Supreme Court correctly wants to protect.
       The First Amendment is not a vehicle for turning this 
     country into a plutocracy,'' says Joseph L. Rauh, the 
     distinguished civil rights lawyer, deploring the ruling in 
     Buckley v. Valeo.\1\ It is the thesis of this article that 
     the Supreme Court in Buckley was wrong in nullifying certain 
     congressional efforts to limit campaign spending and that the 
     decision must not be allowed to stand. While statutory 
     remedies may mitigate the evil of excessive money in politics 
     and are worth pursuing, they will not stop the feverish 
     escalation of campaign spending. They

[[Page S1778]]

     will also have no effect whatever on the spreading phenomenon 
     of very wealthy people's spending millions of dollars of 
     their own money to get elected to Congress and to state 
     office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       When the Supreme Court held a national income tax 
     unconstitutional, the Sixteenth Amendment reversed that 
     decision. Buckley should be treated the same way.


                               background

       The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was the first 
     comprehensive effort by the U.S. Congress to regulate the 
     financing of federal election campaigns. In 1974, following 
     the scandals of the Watergate era, the Congress greatly 
     strengthened the 1971 act. As amended, the new law combined 
     far-reaching requirements for disclosure with restrictions on 
     the amount of contributions, expenditures from a candidate's 
     personal funds, total campaign expenditures, and independent 
     expenditures on behalf of identified candidates.
       The report of the House Administration Committee 
     recommending the 1974 legislation to the House explained the 
     underlying philosophy:
       ``The unchecked rise in campaign expenditures, coupled with 
     the absence of limitations on contributions and expenditures, 
     has increased the dependence of candidates on special 
     interest groups and large contributors. Under the present law 
     the impression persists that a candidate can buy an election 
     by simply spending large sums in a campaign.
       ``Such a system is not only unfair to candidates in 
     general, but even more so to the electorate. The electorate 
     is entitled to base its judgment on a straightforward 
     presentation of a candidate's qualifications for public 
     office and his programs for the Nation rather than on a 
     sophisticated advertising program which is encouraged by the 
     infusion of vast amounts of money.
       ``The Committee on House Administration is of the opinion 
     that there is a definite need for effective and comprehensive 
     legislation in this area to restore and strengthen public 
     confidence in the integrity of the political process.'' \2\
       The 1974 act included a provision, added pursuant to an 
     amendment offered by then Senator James Buckley, for 
     expedited review of the law's constitutionality. In January 
     1976 the Supreme Court invalidated those portions that 
     imposed limits on campaign spending as violative of the First 
     Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
       In his powerful dissent, Justice White said, ``Without 
     limits on total expenditures, campaign costs will inevitably 
     and endlessly escalate.'' \3\ His prediction was promptly 
     borne out. Multimillion-dollar campaigns for the Senate have 
     become the rule, with the 1984 Helms-Hunt race in North 
     Carolina setting astonishing new records. It is no longer 
     unusual for expenditures in contested House campaigns to go 
     over the million-dollar mark; in 1982 one House candidate 
     reportedly spent over $2 million of his own funds.
       In 1982 a number of representatives came to the conclusion 
     that the Buckley ruling should not be allowed to stand and 
     that a constitutional amendment was imperative. In June 
     Congressman Henry Reuss of Wisconsin introduced a resolution 
     calling for an amendment to give Congress the authority to 
     regulate campaign spending in federal elections. In December, 
     with the cosponsorship of Mr. Reuss and 11 others,\4\ I 
     introduced a broader resolution authorizing the states, as 
     well as the Congress, to impose limits on campaign 
     spending. The text of the proposed amendment was:
       Section 1. The Congress may enact laws regulating the 
     amounts of contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
     elections to federal office.
       Section 2. The several states may enact laws regulating the 
     amounts of contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
     elections to state and local offices.\5\
       In the Ninety-eighth Congress, the same resolution was 
     reintroduced by Mr. Vento and Mr. Donnelly and by Mr. Brown, 
     Democrat of California, and Mr. Rinaldo, Republican of New 
     Jersey. A similar resolution was introduced in the Senate by 
     Senator Stevens, Republican of Alaska. As of the present 
     writing, the resolution has been reintroduced in the Ninety-
     ninth Congress by Mr. Vento.\6\
       No hearings have been held on these proposals, and they 
     have attracted little attention. Even organizations and 
     commentators deeply concerned with the problem of money in 
     politics and runaway campaign spending have focused 
     exclusively on statutory remedies. Common Cause, in spite of 
     my pleading, has declined to add a proposal for a 
     constitutional amendment to its agenda for campaign reform or 
     even to hear arguments in support of the proposal. A 
     constituency for the idea has yet to be developed.


                       the nature of the problem

       This article proceeds on the assumption that escalating 
     campaign costs pose a serious threat to the quality of 
     government in this country. There are those who argue the 
     contrary, but their view of the nature of the problem is 
     narrow. They focus on the facts that the amounts of money 
     involved are not large relative to the gross national product 
     and that the number of votes on Capitol Hill that can be 
     shown to have been affected by campaign contributions is not 
     overwhelming.
       The curse of money in politics, however, is by no means 
     limited to the influencing of votes. There are at least two 
     other problems that are, if anything, even more serious. One 
     is the eroding of the present nonsystem on the public's 
     confidence in our form of democracy. If public office and 
     votes on issues are perceived to be for sale, the harm is 
     done, whether or not the facts justify that conclusion. In 
     Buckley the Supreme Court itself, in sustaining the 
     limitations on the size of political contributions, stressed 
     the importance of avoiding ``the appearance of improper 
     influence'' as `` `critical . . . if confidence in the system 
     of representative government is not to be eroded to a 
     disastrous extent.' '' \7\ What the Supreme Court failed to 
     recognize was that `` \6\ confidence in the system of the 
     representative government' '' could likewise be `` `eroded to 
     a disastrous extent' '' by the spectacle of lavish spending, 
     whether the source of the funds is the candidate's own wealth 
     or the result of high-pressure fund-raising from contributors 
     with an ax to grind.
       The other problem is that excellent people are discouraged 
     from running for office, or, once in, are unwilling to 
     continue wrestling with the unpleasant and degrading task of 
     raising huge sums of money year after year. There is no doubt 
     that every two years valuable members of Congress decide to 
     retire because they are fed up with having constantly to beg. 
     For example, former Congressmen Charles Vanik of Ohio and 
     Richard Ottinger of New York, both outstanding legislators, 
     were clearly influenced by such considerations when they 
     decided to retire, Vanik in 1980 and Ottinger in 1984. Vanik 
     said, among other things, ``I feel every contribution carries 
     some sort of lien which is an encumbrance on the legislative 
     process. . . . I'm terribly upset by the huge amounts that 
     candidates have to raise.'' \8\ Probably an even greater 
     number of men and women who would make stellar legislators 
     are discouraged from competing because they cannot face the 
     prospect of constant fundraising or because they see a 
     wealthy person, who can pay for a lavish campaign, already in 
     the race.
       In ``Politics and Money,'' Elizabeth Drew has well 
     described the poisonous effect of escalating campaign costs 
     on our political system:
       ``Until the problem of money is dealt with, it is 
     unrealistic to expect the political process to improve in any 
     other respect. It is not relevant whether every candidate who 
     spends more than this opponent wins--though in races that are 
     otherwise close, this tends to be the case. What matters is 
     what the chasing of money does to the candidates, and to the 
     victors' subsequent behavior. The candidates' desperation for 
     money and the interests' desire to affect public policy 
     provide a mutual opportunity. The issue is not how much is 
     spent on elections but the way the money is obtained. The 
     point is what raising money, not simply spending it, does to 
     the political process. It is not just that the legislative 
     product is bent or stymied. It is not just that well-armed 
     interests have a head start over the rest of the citizenry--
     or that often it is not even a contest. . . . It is not even 
     relevant which interest happens to be winning. What is 
     relevant is what the whole thing is doing to the democratic 
     process. What is at stake is the idea of representative 
     government, the soul of this country.'' \9\
       Focusing on the different phenomenon of wealthy candidates' 
     being able to finance their own, often successful, campaigns, 
     the late columnist Joseph Kraft commented that ``affinity 
     between personal riches and public office challenges a 
     fundamental principle of American life.'' \10\


                   shortcoming of statutory proposals

       In spite of the wide agreement on the seriousness of the 
     problems, there is no agreement on the solution. Many 
     different proposals have been made by legislators, 
     academicians, commentators, and public interest 
     organizations, notably Common Cause.
       One of the most frequently discussed is to follow for 
     congressional elections the pattern adopted for presidential 
     campaigns: a system of public funding, coupled with limits on 
     spending.\11\ Starting in 1955, bills along these lines have 
     been introduced on Capitol Hill, but none has been adopted. 
     Understandably, such proposals are not popular with 
     incumbents, most of whom believe that challengers would gain 
     more from public financing than they would.
       Even assuming that the political obstacles could be 
     overcome and that some sort of public financing for 
     congressional candidates might be adopted, this financing 
     would suffer from serious weaknesses. No system of public 
     financing could solve the problem of the very wealthy 
     candidate. Since such candidates do not need public funding, 
     they would not subject themselves to the spending limits. The 
     same difficulty would arise when aggressive candidates, 
     believing they could raise more from private sources, 
     rejected the government funds. This result is to be expected 
     if the level of public funding is set too low, that is, at a 
     level that the constant escalation of campaign costs is in 
     the process of outrunning. According to Congressman Bruce 
     Vento, an author of the proposed constitutional amendment to 
     overturn Buckley, this has tended to happen in Minnesota, 
     where very low levels of public funding are provided to 
     candidates for state office.
       To ameliorate these difficulties, some proponents of public 
     financing suggest that the spending limits that a candidate 
     who takes government funding must accept should be waived for 
     that candidate to the extent an opponent reports expenses in 
     excess of those

[[Page S1779]]

     limits. Unfortunately, in such a case one of the main 
     purposes of public funding would be frustrated and the 
     escalation of campaign spending would continue. The candidate 
     who is not wealthy is left with the fearsome task of quickly 
     having to raise additional hundreds of thousands, or even 
     millions, of dollars.
       Another suggested approach would be to require television 
     stations, as a condition of their licenses, to provide free 
     air time to congressional candidates in segments of not less 
     than, for instance, five minutes. A candidate's acceptance of 
     such time would commit the candidate to the acceptance of 
     spending limits. While such a scheme would be impractical for 
     primary contests--which in many areas are the crucial ones--
     the idea is attractive for general election campaigns in 
     mixed urban-rural states and districts. It would be 
     unworkable, however, in the big metropolitan areas, where the 
     main stations reach into scores of congressional districts 
     and, in some cases, into several states. Not only would 
     broadcasters resist the idea, but the television-viewing 
     public would be furious at being virtually compelled during 
     pre-election weeks to watch a series of talking-head shows 
     featuring all the area's campaigning senators and 
     representatives and their challengers. The offer of such 
     unpopular television time would hardly tempt serious 
     candidates to accept limits on their spending.
       Proponents of free television time, recognizing the limited 
     usefulness of the idea in metropolitan areas, have suggested 
     that candidates could be provided with free mailings instead. 
     While mailings can be pinpointed and are an essential part of 
     urban campaigning, they account for only a fraction of 
     campaign costs, even where television is not widely used; 
     accordingly, the prospect of free mailings would not be 
     likely to win the acceptance of unwelcome campaign limits on 
     total expenses.\12\
       Yet another method of persuading candidates to accept 
     spending limits would be to allow 100 percent tax credits for 
     contributions of up to, say, $100 made to authorized 
     campaigns, that is, those campaigns where the candidate has 
     agreed to abide by certain regulations, including limits on 
     total spending.\13\ It is difficult to predict how effective 
     such a system would be, and a pilot project to find out would 
     not be feasible, since the tax laws cannot be changed for 
     just one area. For candidates who raise most of their funds 
     from contributors in the $50-to-$100 range, the incentive to 
     accept spending limits would be strong, but for those--and 
     they are many--who rely principally on contributors in the 
     $500-to-$1000 range, the incentive would be much weaker. This 
     problem could be partially solved by allowing tax credits for 
     contributions of up to $100 and tax deductions for 
     contributions in excess of $100 up to the permitted limit. 
     Such proposals, of course, amount to a form of public 
     financing and hence would encounter formidable political 
     obstacles, especially at a time when budgetary restraint and 
     tax simplification are considered of top priority.
       Some of the most vocal critics of the present anarchy in 
     campaign financing focus their wrath and legislative efforts 
     on the political action committees (PACs) spawned in great 
     numbers under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. 
     Although many PACs are truly serving the public interest, 
     others have made it easier for special interests, especially 
     professional and trade associations, to funnel funds into the 
     campaign treasuries of legislators or challengers who will 
     predictably vote for those interests. Restrictions, such as 
     limiting the total amount legislative candidates could accept 
     from PACs, would be salutary \14\ but no legislation aimed 
     primarily at the PAC phenomenon--not even legislation to 
     eliminate PACs altogether--would solve the problem so well 
     summarized by Elizabeth Drew. The special interests and 
     favor-seeking individual givers would find other ways of 
     funneling their dollars into politically useful channels, and 
     the harassed members of Congress would have to continue to 
     demean themselves by constant begging.
       PAC regulation and all the other forms of statutory 
     regulation suffer from one fundamental weakness: none of them 
     would affect the multimillion-dollar self-financed campaign. 
     Yet it is this type of campaign that does more than any other 
     to confirm the widely held view that high office in the 
     United States can be bought.
       Short of a constitutional amendment, there is only one kind 
     of proposal, so far as I know, that would curb the super-rich 
     candidate, as well as setting limits for others. Lloyd N. 
     Cutler, counsel to the president in the Carter White House, 
     has suggested that the political parties undertake the task 
     of campaign finance regulation.\15\ Theoretically, the 
     parties could withhold endorsement from candidates who refuse 
     to abide by the party-prescribed limits and other 
     regulations. But the chances of this happening seem just 
     about nil. Conceivably a national party convention might 
     establish such regulations for its presidential primaries, 
     but to date most contenders have accepted the limits imposed 
     under the matching system of public funding; John Connally of 
     Texas was the exception in 1980. For congressional races, 
     however, it is not at all clear what body or bodies could 
     make such rules and enforce them. Claimants to such authority 
     would include the national conventions, national committees, 
     congressional party caucuses, various state committees, and, 
     in some cases, country committees. Perhaps our national 
     parties should be more hierarchically structured, but the 
     fact is that they are not.
       On top of all this, the system would work for general 
     election campaigns only if both major parties took parallel 
     action. If by some miracle they did so, the end result might 
     be to encourage third-party and independent candidacies.
       Let me make clear that I am not opposed to any of the 
     proposals briefly summarized earlier. To the extent I had the 
     opportunity to vote for any of the statutory proposals during 
     my years in the House, I did so. Nor am I arguing that a 
     constitutional amendment by itself would solve the problem; 
     it would only be the beginning of a very difficult task. What 
     I am saying is that, short of effective action by the 
     parties, any system to reverse the present lethal trends in 
     campaign financing must have as a basic element the 
     restoration to the Congress of the authority to regulate the 
     process.


                    the merits of the buckley ruling

       The justices of the Supreme Court were all over the lot in 
     the Buckley case, with numerous dissents from the majority 
     opinion. The most significant dissent, in my view, was 
     entered by Justice White, who, alone among the justices, had 
     had extensive experience in federal campaigns. White's 
     position was that the Congress, and not the Court, was the 
     proper body to decide whether the slight interference with 
     First Amendment freedoms in the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     was warranted. Justice White reasoned as follows:
       ``The judgment of Congress was that reasonably effective 
     campaigns could be conducted within the limits established by 
     the Act. . . . In this posture of the case, there is no sound 
     basis for invalidating the expenditure limitations, so long 
     as the purposes they serve are legitimate and sufficiently 
     substantial, which in my view they are . . .
       ``. . . expenditure ceilings reinforce the contribution 
     limits and help eradicate the hazard of corruption. . . .
       ``Besides backing up the contribution provisions, . . . 
     expenditure limits have their own potential for preventing 
     the corruption of federal elections themselves.\16\ ''
       Justice White further concluded that
       ``limiting the total that can be spent will ease the 
     candidate's understandable obsession with fundraising, and so 
     free him and his staff to communicate in more places and ways 
     unconnected with the fundraising function.
       ``It is also important to restore and maintain public 
     confidence in federal elections. It is critical to obviate 
     and dispel the impression that federal elections are purely 
     and simply a function of money, that federal offices are 
     bought and sold or that political races are reserved for 
     those who have the facility--and the stomach--for doing 
     whatever it takes to bring together those interests, groups, 
     and individuals that can raise or contribute large fortunes 
     in order to prevail at the polls.\17\ ''
       Two of the judges of the District of Columbia Circuit 
     Court, which upheld the 1974 act--judges widely respected, 
     especially for their human rights concerns--later wrote law 
     journal articles criticizing in stinging terms the Supreme 
     Court's holding that the spending limits were invalid. For 
     example, the late Judge Harold Leventhal said in the Columbia 
     Law Review: ``The central question is what is the interest 
     underlying regulation of campaign expenses and is it 
     substantial? The critical interest, in my view, is the same 
     as that accepted by the [Supreme] Court in upholding limits 
     on contributions. It is the need to maintain confidence in 
     self-government, and to prevent the erosion of democracy 
     which comes from a popular view of government as responsive 
     only or mainly to special interests.\18\
       ``A court that is concerned with public alienation and 
     distrust of the political process cannot fairly deny to the 
     people the power to tell the legislators to implement this 
     one-word principle: Enough! \19\ ''
       Here are excerpts from what Judge J. Skelly Wright had to 
     say in the Yale Law Journal:
       ``The Court told us, in effect, that money is speech.
       ``. . . [This view] accepts without question elaborate mass 
     media campaigns that have made political communication 
     expensive, but at the same time remote, disembodied, 
     occasionally . . . manipulative. Nothing in the First 
     Amendment . . . commits us to the dogma that money is 
     speech.\20\
       ``. . . far from stifling First Amendment values, [the 1974 
     act] actually promotes them. . . . In place of unlimited 
     spending, the law encourages all to emphasize less expensive 
     face-to-face communications efforts, exactly the kind of 
     activities that promote real dialogue on the merits and leave 
     much less room for manipulation and avoidance of the 
     issues.\21\ ''
       The Supreme Court was apparently blind to these 
     considerations. Its treatment was almost entirely 
     doctrinaire. In holding unconstitutional the limits set by 
     Congress on total expenditures for congressional campaigns 
     and on spending by individual candidates, the Court did 
     not claim that the dollar limits set were unreasonably 
     low. In the view taken by the Court, such limits were 
     beyond the power of the Congress to set, no matter how 
     high.
       Only in the case of the $1000 limit set for spending by 
     independent individuals or groups ``relative to a clearly 
     identified candidate'' did the Court focus on the level set 
     in the law. The Court said that such a limit ``would appear 
     to exclude all citizens and

[[Page S1780]]

     groups except candidates, political parties and the 
     institutional press from any significant use of the most 
     effective modes of communication.'' \22\ In a footnote, the 
     Court noted:
       ``The record indicates that, as of January 1, 1975, one 
     full-page advertisement in a daily edition of a certain 
     metropolitan newspaper cost $6,971.04--almost seven times the 
     annual limit on expenditures ``relative to'' a particular 
     candidate imposed on the vast majority of individual citizens 
     and associations.'' \23\
       The Court devoted far more space to arguing the 
     unconstitutionality of this provision than to any of the 
     other limits, presumably because of this point it had the 
     strongest case. Judge Leventhal, too, thought the $1000 
     figure for independent spending was unduly restrictive and 
     might properly have been struck down. As one who supported 
     the 1974 act while in the House, I believe, with the benefit 
     of hindsight, that the imposition of this low limit on 
     independent expenditures was a grave mistake.
       Let us look for a moment at the question of whether 
     reasonable limits on total spending in campaigns and on 
     spending by wealthy candidates really do interfere with the 
     ``unfettered interchange of ideas,'' ``the free discussion of 
     governmental affairs,'' and the ``uninhibited, robust and 
     wide-open'' debate on public issues that the Supreme Court 
     has rightly said the First Amendment is designed to 
     protect.\24\ In Buckley the Supreme Court has answered that 
     question in the affirmative when the limits are imposed by 
     law under Congress' conceded power to regulate federal 
     elections. The Court answered the same question negatively, 
     however, when the limits were imposed as a condition of 
     public financing. In narrow legalistic terms the distinction 
     is perhaps justified, but, in terms of what is desirable or 
     undesirable under our form of government, I submit that the 
     setting of such limits is either desirable or it is not.
       Various of the solutions proposed to deal with the 
     campaign-financing problem, statutory and nonstatutory, raise 
     the same question--for example, the proposal to allow tax 
     credits only for contributions to candidates who have 
     accepted spending limits, and the proposal that political 
     parties should impose limits. All such proposals assume that 
     it is good public policy to have such limits in place. They 
     simply seek to avoid the inhibition of the Buckley case by 
     arranging for some carrot-type motivation for the observance 
     of limits, instead of the stick-type motivation of compliance 
     with a law.
       I am not, of course, suggesting that those who make these 
     proposals are wrong to do so. What I am suggesting is that 
     they should support the idea of undoing the damage done by 
     Buckley by way of a constitutional amendment.
       Summing up the reason for such an amendment, Congressman 
     Henry Reuss said, ``Freedom of speech is a precious thing. 
     But protecting it does not permit someone to shout `fire' in 
     a crowded theater. Equally, freedom of speech must not be 
     stressed so as to compel democracy to commit suicide by 
     allowing money to govern elections.\25\


           independent expenditures in presidential campaigns

       Until now the system of public financing for presidential 
     campaigns, coupled with limits on private financing, has 
     worked reasonably well. Accordingly, most of the proposals 
     mentioned previously for the amelioration of the campaign-
     financing problem have been concerned with campaigns for the 
     Senate and the House.
       In 1980 and 1984, however, a veritable explosion occurred 
     in the spending for the presidential candidates by allegedly 
     independent cmmittees--spending that is said not to be 
     authorized by, or coordinated with, the campaign committees. 
     In both years, the Republican candidates benefited far more 
     from this type of spending than the Democratic: In 1980, the 
     respective amounts were $12.2 million and $45,000; in 1984, 
     $15.3 million and $621,000.\26\
       This spending violated section 9012(f) of the Presidential 
     Campaign Fund Act, which prohibited independent committees 
     from spending more than $1000 to further a presidential 
     candidate's election if that candidate had elected to take 
     public financing under the terms of the act. In 1983 various 
     Democratic Party entities and the Federal Election 
     Commission, with Common Cause as a supporting amicus curiac, 
     sued to have section 9012(f) declared constitutional, so as 
     to lay the groundwork for enforcement of the act. These 
     efforts failed. Applying the Buckley precedent, the three-
     judge district court that first heard the case denied the 
     relief sought, and this ruling was affirmed in a 7-to-2 
     decision by the Supreme Court in FEC v. NCPAC in March 
     1985.\27\
       The NCPAC decision clearly strengthens the case for a 
     constitutional amendment to permit Congress to regulate 
     campaign spending. For none of the statutory or party-action 
     remedies summarized earlier would touch this new eruption of 
     the money-in-politics volcano.
       True, even with a constitutional amendment in place, it 
     would still be possible for the National Conservative 
     Political Action Committee or other committees to spend 
     unlimited amounts for media programs on one side of an issue 
     or another, and these would undoubtedly have some impact on 
     presidential--and other--campaigns. However, the straight-out 
     campaigning for an individual or a ticket, which tends to be 
     far more effective than focusing on issues alone, could be 
     brought within reasonable limits.


                             looking ahead

       The obstacles in the way of achieving a reversal of Buckley 
     by constitutional amendment are, of course, formidable. This 
     is especially true today when the House Judiciary Committee 
     is resolutely sitting on other amendments affecting the Bill 
     of Rights and is not disposed to report out any such 
     amendments.
       In addition to the practical political hurdles to be 
     overcome, there are drafting problems to solve. The simple 
     form so far proposed \28\--and quoted previously--needs 
     refinement.
       For example, if an amendment were adopted simply giving to 
     the Congress and the states the authority to ``enact laws 
     regulating the amount of contributions and expenditures 
     intended to affect elections,\29\ the First Amendment 
     question would not necessarily be answered. The argument 
     could still be made, and not without reason, that such 
     regulatory laws, like other powers of the Congress and the 
     states, must not offend the First Amendment. I asked an 
     expert in constitutional law how this problem might be dealt 
     with, and he said the only sure way would be to add the words 
     ``notwithstanding the First Amendment.'' But such an addition 
     is not a viable solution. The political obstacles in the way 
     of an amendment overturning Buckley in its interpretation of 
     the First Amendment with respect to campaign spending are 
     grievous enough; to ask the Congress--and the state 
     legislatures--to create a major exception to the First 
     Amendment would assure defeat.
       The answer has to be to find a form of wording that says, 
     in effect, that the First Amendment can properly be 
     interpreted so as to permit reasonable regulation of campaign 
     spending. In my view, it would be sufficient to insert in the 
     proposed amendment,\30\ after ``The Congress,'' the words 
     ``having due regard for the need to facilitate full and free 
     discussion and debate.'' Section 1 of the amendment would 
     then read, ``The Congress, having due regard for the need to 
     facilitate full and free discussion and debate, may enact 
     laws regulating the amounts of contributions and expenditures 
     intended to affect elections to federal office.'' Other ways 
     of dealing with this problem could no doubt be devised.
       Another drafting difficulty arises from the modification in 
     the proposed amendment of the words ``contributions and 
     expenditures'' by ``intended to affect elections.'' This 
     language is appropriate with respect to money raised or spent 
     by candidates and their committees, but it does present a 
     problem in its application to money raised and spent by 
     allegedly independent committees, groups, or individuals. It 
     could hardly be argued that communications referring solely 
     to issues, with no mention of candidates, could, consistent 
     with the First Amendment, be made subject to spending limits, 
     even if they were quite obviously ``intended to affect'' an 
     election. Accordingly, a proper amendment should include 
     language limiting the regulation of ``independent'' 
     expenditures to those relative to ``clearly identified'' 
     candidates, language that would parallel the provisions of 
     the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended.\31\
       These are essentially technical problems that could be 
     solved with the assistance of experts in constitutional law 
     if the Judiciary Committee of either house should decide to 
     hold hearings on the idea of a constitutional amendment and 
     proceed to draft and report out an appropriate resolution.
       Many of those in and out of Congress who are genuinely 
     concerned with political money brush aside the notion of a 
     constitutional amendment and focus entirely on remedies that 
     seem less drastic. They appear to assume that Congress is 
     more likely to adopt a statutory remedy, such as public 
     financing, than go for an enabling constitutional amendment 
     that could be tagged as tampering with the Bill of Rights. I 
     disagree with that assumption.
       Incumbents generally resist proposals such as public 
     financing because challengers might be the major 
     beneficiaries, but most incumbents tend to favor the idea of 
     spending limits. The Congress is not by its nature averse to 
     being given greater authority; that would be especially true 
     in this case, where until 1976 the Congress always thought it 
     had such authority. I venture to say that if a carefully 
     drawn constitutional amendment were reported out of one of 
     the Judiciary Committees, it might secure the necessary two-
     thirds majorities in both houses, with surprising ease.
       The various state legislatures might well react in similar 
     fashion. A power they thought they had would be restored to 
     them.
       The big difficulty is to get the process started, whether 
     it be for a constitutional amendment or a statutory remedy or 
     both. Here, the villain, I am afraid, is public apathy. 
     Unfortunately, the voters seem to take excessive campaign 
     spending as a given--a phenomenon they can do nothing about--
     and there is no substantial consistency for reform. The House 
     Administration Committee, which in the early 1970s was the 
     spark plug for legislation, has recently shown little 
     interest in pressing for any of the legislative proposals 
     that have been put forward.
       The 1974 act itself emerged as a reaction to the scandals 
     of the Watergate era, and it may well be that major action, 
     whether statutory or constitutional, will not be a practical 
     possibility until a new set of scandals bursts into the open. 
     Meanwhile, the situation will only get worse.

[[Page S1781]]

                               footnotes

     \1\ Personal communication with Joseph L. Rauh, Mar, 1985; 
     Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. (1976).
     \2\ U.S., Congress, House, Committee on House Administration, 
     Federal Election Campaign Act, Amendments of 1974; Report to 
     Accompany H.R. 16090, 93rd Cong., 2d sess., 1974, H. Rept. 
     93-1239, pp. 3-4.
     \3\ 424 U.S., p. 264.
     \4\ The other representatives were Mrs. Fenwick, Republican 
     of New Jersey; Ms. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland; and 
     Messrs. Bevil, Democrat of Alabama; Donnelly, Democrat of 
     Massachusetts; D'Amours, Democrat of New Hampshire; Edgar, 
     Democrat of Pennsylvania; LaFalce, Democrat of New York; and 
     Wolpe, Democrat of Michigan.
     \5\ U.S., Congress, House, Proposing an Amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States Relative to Contributions 
     and Expenditures Intended to Affect Congressional, 
     Presidential and State Elections, 97th Cong., 2d. sess., 
     1982, H.J. Res. 628, p. 2.
     \6\ Ibid., 99th Cong., 1st sess., 1985, H.J. Res. 88.
     \7\ 424 U.S., p. 27, quoting CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 
     548, 565 (1973); see also 424 U.S., p. 30.
     \8\ Quoted by Congressman Henry Reuss, in U.S., Congress, 
     House, Congressional Record, daily ed., 97th Cong., 2d sess., 
     1982, 128(81):H3900.
     \9\ New Yorker, 6 Dec. 1982, pp. 55-56.
     \10\ Washington Post, 2 Nov. 1982.
     \11\ In the Buckley case the Supreme Court simply assumed 
     that limits on spending were not a violation of free speech 
     when acceptance of such limits was made the condition for 
     receiving public funds. 424 U.S., pp. 85-110. See also 
     Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., ``Should There Be Public Financing 
     of Congressional Campaigns?'' this issue of The Annals of the 
     American Academy of Political and Social Science.
     \12\ A variation of the idea of free television and/or mail, 
     proposed by Common Cause and others, would provide for such 
     privileges as a means of answering attacks made on candidates 
     by allegedly independent organizations or individuals. See 
     Fred Wertheimer, ``Campaign Finance Reform: The Unfinished 
     Agenda,'' this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of 
     Political and Social Science.
     \13\ See ibid.
     \14\ The Obey-Railsback Act, which contained such 
     restrictions, actually passed the House in 1979, but got no 
     further. See ibid.
     \15\ See Lloyd N. Cutler, ``Can the Parties Regulate Campaign 
     Financing?'' this issue of The Annals of the American Academy 
     of Political and Social Science.
     \16\ 424 U.S., pp. 263-64.
     \17\ Ibid., p. 265.
     \18\ Leventhal, ``Courts and Political Thickets,'' Columbia 
     Law Review, 77:362 (1977).
     \19\ Ibid., p. 368.
     \20\ Wright, ``Politics and the Constitution: Is Money 
     Speech?'' Yale Law Journal, 85:1005 (1979).
     \21\ Ibid., p. 1019.
     \22\ 424 U.S., pp. 20-21.
     \23\ Ibid., p. 21.
     \24\ Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957); Mills 
     v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966); New York Times v. 
     Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
     \25\ U.S., Congress, House, Congressional Record, 97th Cong., 
     2d sess., daily ed., 128(81):H3901.
     \26\ New York Times, 19 Mar. 1985.
     \27\ FEC v. NCPAC, 105 S. Ct. 1459 (1985).
     \28\ U.S. Congress, House, Contributions and Expenditures; 
     H.J. Res. 628.
     \29\ Ibid.
     \30\ Ibid.
     \31\ 2 U.S. C.A. Sec. 431(17).

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, that article was 10 years after Buckley 
v. Valeo. I am constantly reminded by the opposition that I only got 38 
votes in 1997 for my amendment. There is a pleasure, an enjoyment to 
this wonderful corruption. There is not any question we used to have a 
better conscience. This article shows how even the Senator from Alaska, 
Mr. Stevens, and others cosponsored it. I had a dozen Republican 
cosponsors.
  Now the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, and the Senator from 
Texas, Mr. Gramm, have it down to a Republican article of faith: We 
have the money and they, the Democrats, have the unions, and so we are 
not going to limit the money.
  Governor George W. Bush has already raised $74 million and spent all 
but $8 million of it. He spent $64 million by March. The very idea of 
buying the office is a disgrace. It is a disgrace. As Senator Long of 
Louisiana said when we passed the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971, we want to make sure everyone can participate.
  Buckley v. Valeo has stood the first amendment on its head. It has 
taken it away. That is what the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator 
from Kentucky, and others do not understand.
  The Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, amended the first amendment to take 
away the speech of the ordinary American in important Federal 
elections. There is no question when one has to raise 5.5 million bucks 
in a little State like South Carolina--I looked around for somebody 
else to run last time. We could not get them to run for Congress 
because it cost too much. We could not even get a candidate on our side 
in the First District, in the Third District, and all around. It has 
gotten to where people say: Look, this thing costs too much; I don't 
have the time, I don't have the money.
  That is a part of the corruption.
  Look at the considerations of Justice White 25 years ago, and I read 
from his opinion. I remind everybody that four of the Justices found 
money as property and not speech; it could be controlled. It was only 
by a 1-vote margin that we are into this 25-year dilemma, like a dog 
chasing its tail around and around and the corruption growing and 
growing.
  I quote from Justice White:

       It is accepted that Congress has power under the 
     Constitution to regulate the election of Federal officers, 
     including the President and Vice President. This includes the 
     authority to protect the elective processes against the two 
     great natural and historical enemies of all republics--open 
     violence and insidious corruption.

  Then talking about the insidious corruption:

       Pursuant to this undoubted power of Congress to vindicate 
     the strong public interest in controlling corruption and 
     other undesirable uses of money in connection with election 
     campaigns, the Federal Election Campaign Act substantially 
     broadened the reporting and disclosure requirements that so 
     long have been a part of the Federal law. Congress also 
     concluded that limitations on contributions and expenditures 
     were essential if the aims of the act were to be achieved 
     fully.

  Buckley v. Valeo limited contributions. It took away freedom of 
speech under the premise here--what a terrible thing. I have the quotes 
from the distinguished Senator from Kentucky that ``we eviscerate the 
first amendment with this Hollings-Specter amendment that limits who 
may speak, when they may speak, what they may speak''--by the way, this 
applies to the press--``what they may report, when they may report and 
who may report.''
  Actually, there is no question that the decision in Buckley amended 
the first amendment. What we are trying to do is complete a uniformity 
where everybody is treated equally, the speech of the contributor as 
well as the speech of the candidate.
  Going on, I quote from Justice White:

       The congressional judgment which was ours to accept was 
     that other steps must be taken to counter the corrosive 
     effects of money in Federal election campaigns.

  This is 25 years ago:

       One of these steps is 608(e), which aside from those funds 
     that are given to the candidate or spent at his request or 
     with his approval or cooperation, limits what a contributor 
     may independently spend in support or denigration of one 
     running for Federal office.

  That is the soft money about which we are talking. Moving on, I 
quote:

       Congress was plainly of the view that these expenditures 
     also have the potential for corruption. But the Court claimed 
     more insight as to what may improperly influence candidates 
     than is possessed by the majority of Congress that passed 
     this bill, and the President who signed it. Those supporting 
     the bill undeniably include many seasoned professionals who 
     have been deeply involved in elective processes and have 
     viewed them at close range over many years.

  Then he goes on:

       I have little doubt, in addition, that limiting the total 
     that can be spent will ease the candidate's understandable 
     obsession with fundraising and so free him and his staff to 
     communicate in more places and ways unconnected with the 
     fundraising function.

  Actually talking about freedom of speech, you have time to talk to 
constituents. I remember after the last campaign, I went around the 
State, county to county, and they said: Fritz, why in the world are you 
coming around? You just won. I said: Yeah, but I really didn't get to 
talk to the voters. I had to talk to contributors. I didn't have time 
for the voters other than during the scheduled debates. I would like to 
meet the voters and talk to them in a more intimate way. That is quoted 
in the press.
  This is 25 years ago, foreseeing the corruption.
  I quote from Justice White:

       There is nothing objectionable, indeed, it seems to me a 
     weighty interest in favor of the provision in the attempt to 
     insulate the political expression of Federal candidates from 
     the influence inevitably exerted by the endless job of 
     raising increasingly large sums of money. I regret that the 
     Court has returned them all to the treadmill.
       It is also important to restore and maintain public 
     confidence in Federal elections. It is critical to obviate or 
     dispel the impression that Federal elections are purely and 
     simply a function of money, that Federal officers are bought 
     and sold, or that political races are reserved for those who 
     have the facility and the stomach for doing whatever it takes 
     to bring together those interest groups and individuals who 
     can raise or contribute large fortunes in order to prevail at 
     the polls.

  I could go on and on. There is no question that we had a very erudite 
observation here by Justice White, very visionary. Everybody says: You 
have to have somebody who has vision. That is a visionary statement in 
Buckley v.

[[Page S1782]]

Valeo. Even though it was in a dissenting opinion, it foretold what we 
were going to run into.
  Once the campaign was over, I thought we would come up here and work 
for the people of the United States, not for ourselves. We could give 
all the time to our treadmill here, as Justice White says, but we raise 
the money, raise the money, raise the money, raise the money. It goes 
on and on and it takes away from our actual function as the most 
deliberative body.
  Yes, we got only 38 votes the last time. The conscience is 
diminishing. We got a majority vote back in the 1980s back when we had 
a conscience.
  We also once had a conscience on the budget. Now we hold the totally 
false premise that a deficit is a surplus. I do not have today's data, 
but I have the day before yesterday's. We have The Public Debt To the 
Penny. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      The Public Debt to the Penny
               [Current 03/24/2000--$5,730,876,091,058.27]
Current month:                                            Amount
    03/23/2000.................................    $5,729,458,665,582.66
    03/22/2000.................................     5,727,734,275,348.06
    03/21/2000.................................     5,728,846,067,846.82
    03/20/2000.................................     5,728,253,942,273.38
    03/17/2000.................................     5,728,671,330,064.36
    03/16/2000.................................     5,724,694,663,639.63
    03/15/2000.................................     5,747,793,381,625.76
    03/14/2000.................................     5,748,566,517,856.04
    03/13/2000.................................     5,745,831,852,208.71
    03/10/2000.................................     5,745,712,662,449.10
    03/09/2000.................................     5,744,560,824,206.30
    03/08/2000.................................     5,745,125,070,490.06
    03/07/2000.................................     5,747,932,431,376.73
    03/06/2000.................................     5,745,099,557,759.64
    03/03/2000.................................     5,742,858,530,572.10
    03/02/2000.................................     5,732,418,769,036.22
    03/01/2000.................................     5,725,649,856,797.45
Prior months:
    02/29/2000.................................     5,735,333,348,132.58
    01/31/2000.................................     5,711,285,168,951.46
    12/31/1999.................................     5,776,091,314,225.33
    11/30/1999.................................     5,693,600,157,029.08
    10/29/1999.................................     5,679,726,662,904.06
Prior fiscal years:
    09/30/1999.................................     5,656,270,901,615.43
    09/30/1998.................................     5,526,193,008,897.62
    09/30/1997.................................     5,413,146,011,397.34
    09/30/1996.................................     5,224,810,939,135.73
    09/29/1995.................................     4,973,982,900,709.39
    09/30/1994.................................     4,692,749,910,013.32
    09/30/1993.................................     4,411,488,883,139.38
    09/30/1992.................................     4,064,620,655,521.66
    09/30/1991.................................     3,665,303,351,697.03
    09/28/1990.................................     3,233,313,451,777.25
    09/29/1989.................................     2,857,430,960,187.32
    09/30/1988.................................     2,602,337,712,041.16
    09/30/1987.................................     2,350,276,890,953.00
 
Note.--Looking for more historic information? Visit the Public Debt
  Historical Information archives.
 
Source: Bureau of the Public Debt.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. This is the conscience of this crowd here. When you 
can't get votes--it is amazing I get any kind of votes because the 
overwhelming majority calls this deficit a surplus. You can find out 
that on 9-30-99, the debt was $5.656 trillion. It has now grown to 
$5.730 trillion.
  I just got back from London. I had lunch there with Parliament, and I 
asked the Presiding Officer: Do you all have a deficit or a surplus? He 
said: Oh, we have a surplus. We have a balanced budget. I said: How do 
you measure it? He said: By the amount of money you have to borrow.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer is an eminent certified public 
accountant. He knows how to keep the books. He would not go along with 
the kinds of books we keep here, showing that we're borrowing money and 
calling it a surplus. It's a deficit. It is an increase in the debt.
  In addition, the interest expense on the public debt outstanding is 
$158,799,000,000. That is what we have spent just on interest costs 
since the beginning of the fiscal year. That is the real waste. We had 
a conscience under President Reagan; now it's waste, fraud, and abuse. 
I served on the Grace Commission. Surely, we could get votes in those 
days because we had a conscience.
  We don't have a conscience anymore. Thirty-eight votes; I am lucky to 
get 18. I don't mind. Somehow, somewhere, some time, this has to be 
exposed. It is one grand corruption of the Congress itself. We know it. 
Everybody else knows it. The public showed that they know it, too, 
during the primaries.
  If we do not get a hold of ourselves and do something about it in 
this particular session, we are gone goslings. That is all I have to 
say.
  It is a tragic thing when you have to stand up here and defend the 
right of the people to vote on controlling spending in elections. They 
have it at city hall with the constable. They have it in the State 
capitals with the Governor. Now we have it with the national Congress. 
Everybody wants to try to control spending.
  We go along with this farce of free speech and that we are amending 
the Constitution, really, the first amendment. In reality we are 
amending the Constitution to give the first amendment its freedom of 
speech. The first amendment gave that freedom of speech, but once money 
is attached to the speech, you take it away from those who do not have 
money. That is exactly what has occurred.
  Buckley v. Valeo has amended the first amendment. They are all so 
excited and alarmed about it and laugh as they go back into the 
Cloakroom because they know exactly what we are talking about on the 
floor. Nobody is here. It is a Tuesday morning and nobody has to vote 
until 2:15. We will have a caucus and we will go in and talk about how 
we have been doing on fundraising. Then when we get through talking 
about doing the fundraising, we will go ahead and vote this down, 
according to the Senator from Kentucky. But there will come another 
day. I am glad for the 6-year term. We have a little time left. I have 
been at it some 20 years now. We will continue. It takes a little time. 
But what Justice White stated back in Buckley v. Valeo has come to 
pass. It has brought us to where the most deliberative body can't 
deliberate.
  I retain the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a 
quorum. Does the other side have any time? Both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The other side has 3 minutes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Well, I think we will allocate the time to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is a right way and a wrong way of 
reforming our system of campaign finance. The Hollings proposal to 
amend our Constitution is simply the wrong way. It would, in effect, 
amend the first amendment to our Constitution to allow any 
``reasonable'' restrictions to be placed on independent campaign 
expenditures and contributions. Why does he propose that we amend the 
first amendment? Because the Supreme Court of the United States has 
held that restrictions on independent expenditures violate the first 
amendment's free speech protection and that such restrictions could 
only be justified upon a showing of a compelling--as opposed to any 
reasonable--reason.
  The Hollings amendment would gut the free speech protections of the 
first amendment. It would allow the curtailing of independent campaign 
expenditures that could overcome the natural advantage that incumbents 
have. It would, thus, limit free speech and virtually guarantee that 
incumbents be reelected. Thus, the Hollings amendment could change the 
very nature of our constitutional democratic form of government by 
establishing what the Founders of the Republic feared most: a permanent 
elite or ruling oligarchy. Let me explain.
  The very purpose of the first amendment's free speech clause is to 
ensure that the people's elected officials effectively and genuinely 
represent the public. For elections to be a real check on government, 
free speech must be guaranteed--both to educate the public about the 
issues, and to allow differing view points to compete in what Oliver 
Wendell Holmes called ``the market place of ideas.''
  Simply put, without free speech, government cannot be predicated 
upon, what Thomas Jefferson termed, ``the consent of the governed.'' 
Without free speech, there can be no government based on consent 
because consent can never be informed.
  The Supreme Court of the United States recognized this fundamental 
principle of democracy in the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 
(1976). The Court in Buckley recognized that free speech is meaningless 
unless it is

[[Page S1783]]

effective. In the words of Justice White, ``money talks.'' Unless you 
can get your ideas into the public domain, all the homilies and 
hosannas to freedom of speech are just plain talk. Thus, the Supreme 
Court held that campaign contributions and expenditures are speech--or 
intrinsically related to speech--and that the regulating of such funds 
must be restrained by the prohibitions of the first amendment.
  The Buckley Court made a distinction between campaign contributions 
and campaign expenditures. The Court found that free speech interests 
in campaign contributions are marginal at best because they convey only 
a generalized expression of support. But independent expenditures are 
another matter. These are given higher first amendment protection 
because they are direct expressions of speech. The Court reaffirmed the 
principles it outlined in Buckley just a few months ago in Nixon v. 
Shrink Missouri Gov't.
  Consequently, because contributions are tangential to free speech, 
Congress has a sizeable latitude to regulate them in order to prevent 
fraud and corruption. But not so with independent expenditures. In the 
words of the Court:

       A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can 
     spend necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by 
     restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of 
     their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This 
     is because virtually every means of communicating in today's 
     mass society requires the expenditure of money. [424 U.S. at 
     19-20].

  The Hollings amendment's allowance of restrictions on expenditures by 
Congress and state legislatures would impose direct and substantial 
restraints on the quantity of political speech. It would permit placing 
drastic limitations on both individuals and groups from spending money 
to disseminate their own ideas as to which candidate should be 
supported and what cause is just. The Supreme Court noted that such 
restrictions on expenditures, even if ``neutral as to the ideas 
expressed, limit political expression at the core of our electoral 
process and of the First Amendment freedoms.'' [Buckley at 39].
  Indeed, even candidates under the Hollings proposal could be 
restricted in engaging in protected first amendment expression. Justice 
Brandeis observed, in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927), 
that in our republic, ``public discussion is a political duty,'' and 
that duty will be circumscribed where a candidate is prevented from 
spending his or her own money to spread the electoral message. That a 
candidate has a first amendment right to engage in public issues and 
advocate particular positions was considered by the Buckley Court to be 
of:

       . . . particular importance . . . candidates [must] have 
     the unfettered opportunity to make their views known so that 
     the electorate may intelligently evaluate the candidates' 
     personal qualities and their positions on vital public issues 
     before choosing among them on election day. 424 U.S. at 53.

  Campaign finance reform should not be at the expense of free speech. 
This amendment--in trying to reduce the costs of political campaigns--
could cost us so much more: our heritage of political liberty. Without 
free speech our Republic would become a tyranny. Even the liberal 
American Civil Liberties Union opposes Hollings-type approaches to 
campaign reform and called such approaches a ``recipe for repression.''
  The simple truth is that there are just too many on the other side of 
the aisle that believe that the first amendment is inconsistent with 
campaign finance reform. That is why they are pushing the Hollings 
proposal. To quote House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, ``[w]hat we 
have is two important values in direct conflict: freedom of speech and 
our desire for a healthy campaign in a healthy democracy. You can't 
have both.''
  I strongly disagree. You can have both. We have to have both. For 
without both, the very idea of representative democracy is imperiled. 
That is why I oppose the Hollings amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Hollings controls the time until 11:45 
a.m.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, does the Senator from Vermont have 30 
minutes under a previous order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 22 and a half 
minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my understanding was that the Senator from 
Vermont had 30 minutes in the order entered into last week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, but the UC was amended 
by a subsequent UC that moved the time from the beginning time to 
11:45.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Vermont be restored to his full 30 minutes, following the time of 
the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If the Senator will yield, I am trying to retain some 
time for my cosponsor, Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. I heard 10 
minutes ago he was on his way to the floor. I would be glad for the 
Senator to proceed if we could reserve 10 minutes of time when Senator 
Specter gets here at 11:45.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I tell the Senator that my only concern--
and I am perfectly willing to make sure he is protected, however the 
time works. I think by mistake somebody on the other side of the aisle 
yielded some of my time without my permission.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be restored to a full 30 minutes, 
without in any way interfering with the time of the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Was that starting time 30 minutes from this 
moment and then to reserve the 10 minutes for Senator Specter?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, I will start now. But the distinguished Senator from 
South Carolina will not lose any of the time reserved for him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He will retain his 10 minutes, that is 
correct. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on April 20, 1999, 14 young students and a 
teacher lost their lives at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. 
That was one of a series of deadly incidents of school violence over 
the last 2 years. The day that happened, the Senate Judiciary Committee 
was not engaged in working on crime proposals or public safety issues. 
That day, like today, we were devoting our attention to the symbolism 
of this proposed amendment to the Constitution, which would weaken the 
first amendment for the first time in history, so that we might make 
criminal the burning of the American flag.
  Scores of our Nation's children have been killed and wounded over the 
last 2 years. They haven't been killed or wounded by burning flags. 
They have been killed and wounded by firearm violence. Our loss has 
been from school violence that has shaken communities across this 
country.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the Senate and the House 
have not found time to have the juvenile crime bill conference meet and 
resolve the differences. So even though we have passed a juvenile crime 
bill, one that has modest gun control in it, the gun lobby said we 
can't meet on that. We cannot have meetings on it. We cannot resolve 
those differences. Instead, we step forward and say to the American 
people: We will protect your children, we will protect your schools, we 
will make sure we have a constitutional amendment banning the burning 
of flags.
  Like all Americans, all parents, I abhor the burning of flags. But 
like American parents, especially those with children in school, I know 
the danger to those children of gun violence and other criminal 
activity in this country is far more of a danger than the burning of a 
flag.

  The Republican majority has not moved the emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill that is needed to provide Federal assistance to 
victims of Hurricane Floyd, or to help those who need fuel assistance, 
or to fund our men and women engaged in international peacekeeping 
efforts in Kosovo. Nor has the Republican majority moved responsibly to 
help fill the 77 judicial vacancies plaguing the Federal courts around 
the Nation. Nor has the majority yet moved a budget resolution to meet 
the April 1 and April 15

[[Page S1784]]

deadlines of the Budget Act. I recall that 2 years ago no final budget 
resolution passed the Congress, and I hope that experience of 
congressional inattention will not be repeated. We need to raise the 
minimum wage, pass a Patients' Bill of Rights, approve prescription 
drug benefits, and authorize the FDA to help stem the public health 
hazard of tobacco products. There is a lot to be done, and very little 
is being done.
  I came to the Senate again last week to urge action on the juvenile 
crime conference. This Congress has kept the country waiting too long 
for action on juvenile crime legislation and sensible gun safety laws. 
We are fast approaching a first-year anniversary of the shooting at 
Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, without any response from 
Congress except for a bill that passed the Senate 3-to-1, a bill that 
we all praised and took credit for, a bill that, unfortunately, didn't 
go anywhere. It sat in a closed conference, behind a door that says: 
Parents of America cannot be admitted.
  If we did all our work, if we did something about gun violence, if we 
did something about our children who are dying in the streets of 
America, if we did something about school safety and something about 
juvenile justice, if we passed our budget on time, as the law requires, 
if we did something on medical privacy, if we did those things, fine, 
set aside a couple of weeks for symbolic actions. But let's do our work 
first. Let's do the things that should be done first.
  Next month, Americans have to have their tax returns in, by April 15, 
because it is the law. It is also the law that says we are supposed to 
get our budget done. But we won't. The Congress of the United States 
has shown 2 years ago that we have not followed the law.
  For some time I have been urging the Senate to rededicate itself to 
the work of helping parents, teachers, police and others to curb school 
violence. On May 11 last year, the Republican majority in the Senate 
allowed us to turn our attention to the important problems of school 
violence and juvenile crime. Over the ensuing two weeks the Senate 
worked its way through scores of amendments. The Hatch-Leahy juvenile 
justice legislation that passed the Senate last May 20, received a 
strong bipartisan majority of 73 votes. Under the plan put forward by 
the Republican leader, this juvenile justice legislation had become the 
vehicle for the anti-violence amendments adopted by the Senate last 
May.
  I urged a prompt conference. When things bogged down, I took the 
unusual step of coming to the Senate to offer a unanimous consent 
request to move to conference on the legislation, which eventually 
provided the blueprint for finally agreeing to conference on July 28.
  Unfortunately, the conference was convened for a single afternoon of 
speeches. Democrats from the House and Senate tried to proceed, to 
offer motions about how to proceed, and to begin substantive 
discussion, but we were ruled out of order by the Republican majority.
  Since that time I have returned to the Senate a number of times to 
speak to these important issues and to urge the Republican to reconvene 
the juvenile crime conference. I have joined with fellow Democrats to 
request both in writing and on the floor that the majority let us 
finish our work on the conference and send a good bill to the 
President. On October 20, 1999, all the House and Senate Democratic 
conferees sent a letter to Senator Hatch and Congressman Hyde calling 
for an open meeting of the juvenile crime conference. On March 3, 2000, 
after yet another shocking school shooting involving 6-year-old 
classmates in Michigan, Representative Conyers and I wrote again to 
Senator Hatch and Congressman Hyde requesting an immediate meeting of 
the conference. The response has been resounding silence.
  I worry that after a major debate on the floor, one in which we have 
both Republicans and Democrats bring up amendments and pass some and 
vote down others, we then let the subject of juvenile justice languish. 
We have seen press releases, but the families of America have yet to 
see a bill.
  Three weeks ago, I was honored to be invited to a White House summit 
by the President of the United States. He had three other Members of 
Congress--the distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, 
Henry Hyde; the distinguished chairman of our Judiciary Committee, 
Senator Hatch; and the distinguished ranking member of the House 
Judiciary Committee, Congressman Conyers. We met in the Oval Office in 
a rather extraordinary meeting. I have been to many over 25 years, and 
I do not remember one where the President stayed so engaged for such a 
long period of time in such a frank and open exchange.
  The President concurs with the reconvening of the conference and 
action by the Congress to send him a comprehensive bill before the 1-
year anniversary of the Columbine tragedy. But all of his entreaties 
have been rebuffed as well. We have been in recess more than we have 
been in session since that time. Take a couple of days and wrap this 
up, and send it to the President.
  Democrats have been ready for months to reconvene the juvenile crime 
conference and put together an effective juvenile justice conference 
report that would include reasonable gun safety provisions. It bothers 
me that this Senate, under its majority leadership, cannot find the 
time nor the will to pass balanced, comprehensive juvenile justice 
legislation.
  With respect to juvenile crime, I hope the majority will heed the 
call of our Nation's law enforcement officers to act now to pass a 
strong and effective juvenile justice conference report. Ten national 
law enforcement organizations representing thousands of law enforcement 
officers have endorsed the Senate-passed gun safety amendment. They 
support loophole-free firearm laws.
  These are the ones who do:
  International Association of Chiefs of Police;
  International Brotherhood of Police Officers;
  Police Executive Research Forum;
  Police Foundation;
  Major Cities Chiefs;
  Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association;
  National Sheriffs Association;
  National Association of School Resource Officers;
  National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives; and
  Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association.
  Should we not at least listen to the law enforcement people who are 
asked every day to put their lives on the line to protect all of us, 
and should we not at least listen to them when they say, Pass this 
modest bill? But no. We see the gun lobbies run all kinds of ads 
basically telling the Congress, Don't do it; we will not allow you to 
do it. The Congress meekly says, Yes, sir; yes, sir; we will let the 
gun lobby run our schedule--not those of us who are elected to do it.
  I was in law enforcement. I spent 8 years in law enforcement. I know 
law enforcement officers in this country need help in keeping guns out 
of the hands of people who should not have them.
  I am not talking about people who use guns for hunting or for sport, 
as my neighbors and I do in Vermont, but about criminals and 
unsupervised children. The thousands of law enforcement officers 
represented by these organizations are demanding the Congress act now 
to pass a strong and effective juvenile justice conference. As leader 
of the Democrats on this side, I am willing to meet on a moment's 
notice to do that.
  Every parent, teacher and student in this country is concerned about 
school violence over the last two years and worried about when the next 
shooting may occur. They pray it does not happen at their school or 
involve their children.
  We all recognize that there is no single cause and no single 
legislative solution that will cure the epidemic of youth violence in 
our schools or in our streets. But we have an opportunity before us to 
do our part. We should seize this opportunity to act on balanced, 
effective juvenile crime legislation, and measures to keep guns out of 
the hands of children and away from criminals. It is well past the time 
for Congress to act.
  Instead, the Senate will be called upon to devote several more days 
this week to debating this proposal to amend the Constitution to 
restrict the First Amendment's fundamental protection of political 
expression for the

[[Page S1785]]

first time in our nation's history in order to criminalize flag burning 
as a form of political protest. We can debate that. But can't we take 
at least as much time to debate things that will actually involve the 
safety of our children?
  I am prepared to debate the merits of the proposed constitutional 
amendment to restrict political speech. I contributed to an extensive 
set of minority views in the Committee's report that lay out the flaws 
in the proponents' arguments and the case for protecting the 
Constitution and our Bill of Rights. We have debated this before and 
must do so, again.
  I treat proposals to amend the Constitution with utmost seriousness. 
Our role in the process is a solemn responsibility. But when we have 
concluded this debate, as we will in the next few days, I hope that the 
juvenile crime bill conference committee will complete its work. I hope 
that we will move the emergency supplemental appropriations needed to 
help our citizens hurt by Hurricane Floyd and by high fuel prices. I 
hope that we will vote to increase the minimum wage without further 
delay; I hope that we will enact a real patients' bill of rights, and 
that we will approve a meaningful prescription drug benefit, and that 
we will pass the statutory authority now needed by the FDA to regulate 
tobacco products. I hope that we will vote on the scores of judicial 
nominations sent to us by the President to fill the 77 vacancies 
plaguing the federal courts and our system of justice; and I hope that 
we will make progress on the many other matters that have been 
sidetracked by the majority.
  My friends on the Republican side of the Senate control the schedule. 
They set the priorities. But I hope they realize that these are 
priorities of the American people and will allow us to vote on them.
  Mr. President, on the proposed constitutional amendment we are 
debating, I note that the minority views in the committee report extend 
over 30 pages, yet we are asked to limit the debate on the proposal to 
2 hours. Nobody wants to filibuster a proposal. But if we are going to 
amend the Constitution, especially if we are going to amend the first 
amendment, and especially if we are going to amend the Bill of Rights 
for the first time in over 200 years, I think the American people 
deserve more than a couple of hours of chitchat and quorum calls to 
discuss what we are going to do.
  I look forward to hearing from Senator Feingold, the ranking member 
of the Constitution Subcommittee. I look forward to hearing from 
Senator Bob Kerrey, the only Congressional Medal of Honor recipient 
among us; or Senator Robb, of Virginia, who is a decorated veteran and 
distinguished Senator; and, of course, the constitutional sage of the 
Senate, the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Robert C. Byrd.
  The Senate was intended to be a place for thoughtful debate, for the 
offering of amendments and for votes on amendments. We should not 
short-change this debate. Let us do justice to the task of considering 
this constitutional amendment before we are called upon to vote, again.
  This afternoon we will first vote on the Flag Protection Act 
amendment offered by Senators McConnell, Bennett, Dorgan and Conrad 
with the support of Senators Dodd, Torricelli, Bingaman, Lieberman and 
Byrd. Having reviewed that proposal, I intend to support it as well. It 
is a statutory alternative to the proposed constitutional amendment.
  Now, let us remember one thing. No matter how Senators vote on the 
proposed amendment, either for or against it, there is one thing that 
unites every single Member of this body. We all agree that flag burning 
is a despicable and reprehensible act. It is usually done to show great 
disrespect to our country and our institutions and all it stands for. 
It has to be especially offensive to those who put their lives on the 
line for this country, whether in the Armed Forces, law enforcement, or 
elsewhere.
  But the ultimate question before us is not whether we agree that flag 
burning is a despicable and reprehensible act. We all agree that it is. 
The issue is whether we should amend the Constitution of the United 
States, with all the risks that entails, and narrow the precious 
freedoms ensured by the First Amendment for the first time in our 
history, so that the Federal Government can prosecute the tiny handful 
of Americans who show contempt for the flag. Such a monumental step is 
unwarranted and unwise.
  Proponents of the constitutional amendment note the views of 
distinguished American veterans and war heroes who have expressed their 
love of the flag and support for the amendment. Those who fought and 
sacrificed for our country deserve our respect and admiration. I 
remember very much the letters that came back from my uncle in World 
War II, and other friends and neighbors in subsequent wars.
  They know the costs as well as the joys of freedom and democracy. 
Their sacrifices are lessons for us all in what it means to love and 
honor our flag and the country and the principles for which our flag 
stands. On this question of amending our Constitution, some would like 
to portray the views of veterans as being monolithic, when in fact many 
outstanding veterans oppose the amendment.
  Above all, these veterans believe that they fought for the freedoms 
and principles that make this country great, not just the symbols of 
those freedoms. To weaken the nation's freedoms in order to protect a 
particular symbol would trivialize and minimize their service.
  Last year, we were honored to have former Senator John Glenn, my dear 
friend, who served this nation with special distinction in war and in 
peace and in the far reaches of space, come back to the Senate to 
testify before the Judiciary Committee. This is a veteran of both World 
War II and the Korean conflict.
  He told us:

       It would be a hollow victory indeed if we preserved the 
     symbol of our freedoms by chipping away at those fundamental 
     freedoms themselves. Let the flag fully represent all the 
     freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights, not a partial, 
     watered-down version that has altered its protections.
       The flag is the nation's most powerful and emotional 
     symbol. It is our most sacred symbol. And it is our most 
     revered symbol. But it is a symbol. It symbolizes the 
     freedoms that we have in this country, but it is not the 
     freedoms themselves. . . .
       Those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, who died 
     following that banner, did not give up their lives for a red, 
     white and blue piece of cloth. They died because they went 
     into harm's way, representing this country and because of 
     their allegiance to the values, the rights and principles 
     represented by that flag and to the Republic for which it 
     stands.

  These are powerful words from our former colleague, John Glenn, a man 
we all agree is a true American hero.
  Last spring I wrote to General Colin L. Powell, our Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Persian Gulf War, about this proposed 
constitutional amendment. I thank him for having answered the call and 
for adding his powerful voice to this debate. He wrote me the 
following:

       We are rightfully outraged when anyone attacks or 
     desecrates our flag. Few Americans do such things and when 
     they do they are subject to the rightful condemnation of 
     their fellow citizens. They may be destroying a piece of 
     cloth, but they do no damage to our system of freedom which 
     tolerates such desecration.
       If they are destroying a flag that belongs to someone else, 
     that's a prosecutable crime. If it is a flag they own, I 
     really don't want to amend the Constitution to prosecute 
     someone for foolishly desecrating their own property. We 
     should condemn them and pity them instead.
       I understand how strongly so many of my fellow veterans and 
     citizens feel about the flag and I understand the powerful 
     sentiment in state legislatures for such an amendment. I feel 
     the same sense of outrage. But I step back from amending the 
     Constitution to relieve that outrage. The First Amendment 
     exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression 
     applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but 
     also that which we find outrageous.
       I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer 
     a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying proudly long 
     after they have slunk away.

  Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent to have the full text of 
General Powell's letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              Gen. Colin L. Powell, USA (Ret),

                                     Alexandria, VA, May 18, 1999.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: Thank you for your recent letter asking 
     my views on the proposed flag protection amendment.

[[Page S1786]]

       I love our flag, our Constitution and our country with a 
     love that has no bounds. I defended all three for 35 years as 
     a soldier and was willing to give my life in their defense.
       Americans revere their flag as a symbol of the Nation. 
     Indeed, it is because of that reverence that the amendment is 
     under consideration. Few countries in the world would think 
     of amending their Constitution for the purpose of protecting 
     such a symbol.
       We are rightfully outraged when anyone attacks or 
     desecrates our flag. Few Americans do such things and when 
     they do they are subject to the rightful condemnation of 
     their fellow citizens. They may be destroying a piece of 
     cloth, but they do no damage to our system of freedom which 
     tolerates such desecration.
       If they are destroying a flag that belongs to someone else, 
     that's a prosecutable crime. If it is a flag they own, I 
     really don't want to amend the Constitution to prosecute 
     someone for foolishly desecrating their own property. We 
     should condemn them and pity them instead.
       I understand how strongly so many of my fellow veterans and 
     citizens feel about the flag and I understand the powerful 
     sentiment in state legislatures for such an amendment. I feel 
     the same sense of outrage. But I step back from amending the 
     Constitution to relieve that outrage. The First Amendment 
     exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression 
     applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but 
     also that which we find outrageous.
       I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer 
     a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying proudly long 
     after they have slunk away.
       Finally, I shudder to think of the legal morass we will 
     create trying to implement the body of law that will emerge 
     from such an amendment.
       If I were a Member of Congress, I would not vote for the 
     proposed amendment and would fully understand and respect the 
     views of those who would. For or against, we all love our 
     flag with equal devotion.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Colin L. Powell.

  Mr. LEAHY. Gary May lost both his legs while serving this country in 
Vietnam. He spoke about how he felt and why he did not feel that we 
should amend the Constitution on this point:

       I am offended when I see the flag burned or treated 
     disrespectfully. As offensive and painful as this is, I still 
     believe that those dissenting voices need to be heard. This 
     country is unique and special because the minority, the 
     unpopular, the dissenters and the downtrodden, also have a 
     voice and are allowed to be heard in whatever way they choose 
     to express themselves that does not harm others. The freedom 
     of expression, even when it hurts, is the truest test of our 
     dedication to the belief that we have that right . . .
       Freedom is what makes the United States of America strong 
     and great, and freedom, including the right to dissent, is 
     what has kept our democracy going for more than 200 years. 
     And it is freedom that will continue to keep it strong for my 
     children and the children of all the people like my father, 
     late father in law, grandfather, brother, me, and others like 
     us who served honorably and proudly for freedom.
       The pride and honor we feel is not in the flag per se. It's 
     in the principles that it stands for and the people who have 
     defended them. My pride and admiration is in our country, its 
     people and its fundamental principles. I am grateful for the 
     many heroes of our country and especially those in my family. 
     All the sacrifices of those who went before me would be for 
     naught, if an amendment were added to the Constitution that 
     cut back on our First Amendment rights for the first time in 
     the history of our great nation.
       I love this country, its people and what it stands for. The 
     last thing I want to give the future generations are fewer 
     rights than I was privileged to have. My family and I served 
     and fought for others to have such freedoms and I am opposed 
     to any actions which would restrict my children and their 
     children from having the same freedoms I enjoy.

  Many thoughtful and patriotic veterans object to this attempt to 
legislate patriotism. Those who testified before the Committee did not 
have to prove their patriotism. They are automatically, by their 
service to this country, true patriots. They spoke in eloquent terms 
about the importance of respect and love for country coming from the 
heart of a citizen or a soldier, not being imposed from without by the 
government.
  I have thought so many times when I have been in countries where 
dictators rule to be able to say to them, do you have laws that require 
everybody to respect the symbols of your country, and they say, of 
course we have laws and we will prosecute anybody who doesn't obey the 
laws and respect the symbols of our country.
  I say, we are better in our country. We don't need the laws. We are a 
nation of a quarter of a billion people and our people respect the 
symbols of this great nation and what it stands for, without having to 
have the ``flag police'' on the corner, without having to have laws 
passed by Congress. They do it because they honor those symbols.
  For the same reason, my family and I fly the flag proudly at our home 
in Vermont. We know it is protected by the people of Vermont. We also 
know that it would probably be a very foolish thing for anybody to step 
foot on the property to do any damage to that flag. But we don't have 
to worry about it. People drive by, smile and wave. They know what a 
proud symbol it is and how proudly we fly the flag.
  I remember what Senator Bob Kerrey, the only recipient of the 
Congressional Medal of Honor currently serving in the United States 
Congress, said last year: ``Real patriotism cannot be coerced. It must 
be a voluntary, unselfish, brave act to sacrifice for others.'' Senator 
Kerrey reminded us that in this country we believe that ``it is the 
right to speak the unpopular and objectionable that needs the most 
protecting by our government.'' Speaking specifically of the act of 
flag burning, he added: ``Patriotism calls upon us to be brave enough 
to endure and withstand such an act--to tolerate the intolerable.''
  The late John Chafee, a distinguished member of this body and a 
highly decorated veteran of World War II and Korea, pointed out that 
just as forced patriotism is far less significant than voluntary 
patriotism, a symbol of that patriotism that is protected by law will 
be not more, but less worthy of respect and love. He said: ``We cannot 
mandate respect and pride in the flag. In fact, in my view taking steps 
to require citizens to respect the flag, sullies its significance and 
symbolism.''
  James Warner, a decorated Marine flyer who was a prisoner of war of 
the North Vietnamese for six years, has made this point in graphic 
terms. He wrote:

       I remember one interrogation where I was shown a photograph 
     of some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag. 
     ``There,'' the officer said. ``People in your country protest 
     against your cause. That proves that you are wrong.''
       ``No.'' I said, ``that proves that I am right. In my 
     country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that 
     people disagree with us.'' The officer was on his feet in an 
     instant, his face purple with rage. He smashed his fist onto 
     the table and screamed at me to shut up. While he was ranting 
     I was astonished to see pain, compounded by fear, in his 
     eyes. I have never forgotten that look, nor have I forgotten 
     the satisfaction I felt at using his tool, the picture of the 
     burning flag, against him . . .
       We don't need to amend the Constitution in order to punish 
     those who burn our flag. They burn the flag because they hate 
     America and they are afraid of freedom. What better way to 
     hurt them than with the subversive idea of freedom? . . . 
     Don't be afraid of freedom, it is the best weapon we have.

  Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent to have the James Warner 
editorial printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     When They Burned the Flag Back Home--Thoughts of a Former POW

                          (By James H. Warner)

       In March of 1973, when we were released from a prisoner of 
     war camp in North Vietnam, we were flown to Clark Air Force 
     base in the Philippines. As I stepped out of the aircraft I 
     looked up and saw the flag. I caught my breath, then, as 
     tears filled my eyes, I saluted it. I never loved my country 
     more than at that moment. Although I have received the Silver 
     Star Medal and two Purple Hearts, they were nothing compared 
     with the gratitude I felt then for having been allowed to 
     serve the cause of freedom.
       Because the mere sight of the flag meant so much to me when 
     I saw it for the first time after 5\1/2\ years, it hurts me 
     to see other Americans willfully desecrate it. But I have 
     been in a Communist prison where I looked into the pit of 
     hell. I cannot compromise on freedom. It hurts to see the 
     flag burned, but I part company with those who want to punish 
     the flag burners. Let me explain myself.
       Early in the imprisonment the Communists told us that we 
     did not have to stay there. If we would only admit we were 
     wrong, if we would only apologize, we could be released 
     early. If we did not, we would be punished. A handful 
     accepted, most did not. In our minds, early release under 
     those conditions would amount to a betrayal, of our comrades 
     of our country and of our flag.
       Because we would not say the words they wanted us to say, 
     they made our lives wretched. Most of us were tortured, and 
     some of my comrades died. I was tortured for

[[Page S1787]]

     most of the summer of 1969. I developed beriberi from 
     malnutrition. I had long bouts of dysentery. I was infested 
     with intestinal parasites. I spent 13 months in solitary 
     confinement. Was our cause worth all of this? Yes, it was 
     worth all this and more.
       Rose Wilder Lane, in her magnificent book ``The Discovery 
     of Freedom,'' said there are two fundamental truths that men 
     must know in order to be free. They must know that all men 
     are brothers, and they must know that all men are born free. 
     Once men accept these two ideas, they will never accept 
     bondage. The power of these ideas explains why it was illegal 
     to teach slaves to read.
       One can teach these ideas, even in a Communist prison camp. 
     Marxists believe that ideas are merely the product of 
     material conditions; change those material conditions, and 
     one will change the ideas they produce. They tried to ``re-
     educate'' us. If we could show them that we would not abandon 
     our belief in fundamental principles, then we could prove the 
     falseness of their doctrine. We could subvert them by 
     teaching them about freedom through our example. We could 
     show them the power of ideas.
       I did not appreciate this power before I was a prisoner of 
     war. I remember one interrogation where I was shown a 
     photograph of some Americans protesting the war by burning a 
     flag. ``There,'' the officer said. ``People in your country 
     protest against your cause. That proves that you are wrong.''
       ``No,'' I said. ``That proves that I am right. In my 
     country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that 
     people disagree with us.'' The office was on his feet in an 
     instant, his face purple with rage. He smashed his fist onto 
     the table and screamed at me to shut up. While he was ranting 
     I was astonished to see pain, compounded by fear, in his 
     eyes. I have never forgotten that look, nor have I forgotten 
     the satisfaction I felt at using his tool, the picture of the 
     burning flag, against him.
       Aneurin Bevan, former official of the British Labor Party, 
     was once asked by Nikita Khrushchev how the British 
     definition of democracy differed from the Soviet view. Bevan 
     responded, forcefully, that if Khrushchev really wanted to 
     know the difference, he should read the funeral oration of 
     Pericles.
       In that speech, recorded in the Second Book of Thucydides' 
     ``History of the Peloponnesian War,'' Pericles contrasted 
     democratic Athens with totalitarian Sparta. Unlike the 
     Sparatans, he said, the Athenians did not fear freedom. 
     Rather, they viewed freedom as the very source of their 
     strength. As it was for Athens, so it is for America--our 
     freedom is not to be feared, for our freedom is our strength.
       We don't need to amend the Constitution in order to punish 
     those who burn our flag. What better way to hurt them than 
     with the subversive idea of freedom? Spread freedom. The flag 
     in Dallas was burned to protest the nomination of Ronald 
     Reagan, and he told us how to spread the idea of freedom when 
     he said that we should turn American into ``a city shining on 
     a hill, a light to all nations.'' Don't be afraid of freedom, 
     it is the best weapon we have.

  Mr. LEAHY. Those of us who oppose the constitutional amendment 
concerning flag protests understand that the political pressure for 
this amendment is strong, but our hope is that the Senate will in the 
end heed the wisdom of John Glenn, when he urged us to reject the 
amendment:

       There is only one way to weaken the fabric of our country, 
     and it is not through a few misguided souls burning our flag. 
     It is by retreating from the principles that the flag stands 
     for. And that will do more damage to the fabric of our nation 
     than 1,000 torched flags could ever do. . . . History and 
     future generations will judge us harshly, as they should, if 
     we permit those who would defile our flag to hoodwink us into 
     also defiling our Constitution.

  We should not adopt a proposal that will whittle away at the first 
amendment for the first time in our history. We act here as stewards of 
the Constitution, guardians and trustees of a precious legacy. The 
truly precious part of that legacy does not lie in outward things--in 
monuments or statues or flags. All that those tangible things can do is 
remind us of what is precious--our liberty.
  Our Constitution guards our freedoms and the first amendment is the 
marble of our democracy; it is the bedrock of our rights and 
constitutional protections. It guarantees the freedom of religion--the 
freedom to practice a religion or not to practice a religion, as you 
believe. It guarantees our freedom of speech. By doing that, it 
guarantees diversity. If you guarantee diversity, you guarantee 
democracy. Our bill of rights has been doing that for over 200 years. 
We are the envy of the world because of the way we protect our 
freedoms.
  Look at all the other countries, countries that have not achieved and 
will not achieve greatness because they stifle dissent, because they do 
not allow freedom of expression.
  If, God forbid, some natural disaster or terrorist act swept away all 
the monuments of this country, the Republic would survive just as 
strong as ever. But if some failure of our souls were to sweep away the 
ideals of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, then not all the stone, 
not all the marble, not all the flags in the world would restore our 
greatness. Instead, they would be mocking reminders of what we had 
lost.
  I trust this Senate will uphold the Constitution and the first 
amendment. I trust this Senate will uphold the lessons of history. I 
trust this Senate will tell the founders of this Nation, when they 
wrote the bill of rights, they gave us a precious gift that we would 
hold unchanged throughout our lives and the lives of our children and 
the lives of our grandchildren, because that is the way we honor our 
country.
  That is the way we honor the sacrifices of so many millions who 
protected our freedoms throughout the years.
  Mr. President, do I still have time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve seconds.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the amendment, 
whose principal sponsor is the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. 
Hollings, which would authorize the Congress and State legislatures to 
limit campaign contributions and campaign expenditures.
  Senator Hollings and I have been the principal cosponsors of this 
provision since 1988. It is denominated as a constitutional amendment, 
but, in fact, it is not a constitutional amendment, but instead it is a 
provision which would alter the opinion of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in Buckley v. Valeo which says that money was equated 
with speech. I believe that to be an incorrect constitutional 
interpretation, as do 209 professors of law who have submitted a 
statement urging the overruling of Buckley v. Valeo.
  Since the Supreme Court of the United States is not about to do that, 
the only recourse is to follow the procedure today on what is 
denominated a constitutional amendment, but it is not a constitutional 
amendment because there is nothing in the first amendment which says 
speech is money. That is not in the first amendment. The first 
amendment guarantees freedom of speech, and an opinion by a majority of 
the Supreme Court of the United States in Buckley v. Valeo has made 
that interpretation.
  Just as in the flag-burning case, there is nothing in the first 
amendment which says freedom of speech includes the right to burn an 
American flag. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court handed down 
that interpretation. It is important to note, as a matter of 
constitutional law, what the Supreme Court says is denominated as the 
opinion of the Court. If any effort were to be made to change the 
language of the first amendment, I would strenuously oppose any such 
effort. But the provision to allow Congress and State legislatures to 
control campaign contributions and expenditures does not do that.
  On a purely personal note, this decision had special significance for 
me on January 30, 1976, the day it was handed down, because at that 
time I was in the middle of a campaign for the Republican nomination to 
the Senate for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. When the campaign 
started in the fall of 1975, the campaign finance law of 1974 governed, 
which limited the contributions of an individual for his own candidacy 
to $35,000, which was about the size of my bank account.
  My opponent in the campaign was Congressman John Heinz. On January 
30, the Supreme Court said that any individual can spend whatever he 
chose, millions if he chose, and John did. That was the balance of the 
election.
  At the same time, the Supreme Court said that my brother, Morton 
Specter, who had the financial ability to finance my campaign--not in 
the Heinz style, perhaps, but adequately--was limited to $1,000 which 
was provided for in the law. The question, I think not illogically, 
came to my mind: What was the difference between John Heinz's money and 
Morton Specter's money? But that is what the Supreme Court said, and 
they said it in a very curious way.
  They said:


[[Page S1788]]


       In order to preserve the provisions against invalidation on 
     vagueness grounds--

  They cite the statute--

       it must be construed to apply only to expenditures for 
     communications that express in terms that advocate the 
     election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for 
     Federal office.

  They then drop to a footnote:

       . . . which required language such as ``vote for,'' 
     ``elect,'' ``support,'' ``cast your ballot for,'' ``Smith for 
     Congress,'' ``vote against,'' ``defeat and reject.''
  That has led to the very extraordinary so-called issue 
advertisements, which are not controllable, where they are bought by 
soft money. Listen to a couple of illustrative issue advertisements in 
the 1996 campaign for President Clinton in the summer of 1996, which 
ultimately tipped the scales:
  ``American values,'' ``do our duty to our parents,'' ``President 
Clinton protects Medicare,'' ``the Dole-Gingrich budget tried to cut 
Medicare $270 billion,'' ``protect families,'' ``President Clinton cut 
taxes for millions of working families,'' ``the Dole-Gingrich budget 
tried to raise taxes on 8 million of them,'' ``opportunity,'' 
``President Clinton proposes tax breaks for tuition,'' ``the Dole-
Gingrich budget tried to slash college scholarships,'' ``only President 
Clinton's plan meets our challenges, protects our values.''
  That is curiously, insanely categorized not as an advocacy 
advertisement, but only an issue ad. But what quality is there in the 
English language which could more emphatically say: Elect President 
Clinton, defeat Senator Dole?
  That is the consequence when millions of dollars are poured into 
campaigns in soft money, unregulated under the decision of the Supreme 
Court in Buckley v. Valeo.
  I note one very important factor: That the consequence of this 
provision, denominated as an amendment, is not to put into effect any 
specific reforms, but only to give the Congress of the United States 
the authority constitutionally to do so. This does not say what 
corporations can do, what unions can do, what individuals can do. It 
says only that the constraint of Buckley v. Valeo, the opinion of 
Justices in a split Court, will not preclude Congress from acting on 
the very important item of having democracy prevail in elections.
  It is totally antithetical, in my opinion, to have money equated with 
power in a democracy. It subverts the principle of one man-one woman 
equals to one vote if power is equal to money and the rich can dominate 
the electoral process.
  I do not believe that Members of the House and Senate sell their 
votes, although there is a widespread perception of that kind of 
corruption.
  There is a problem of access which I try to deal with by holding town 
meetings in the 67 counties in Pennsylvania. On recent economies where 
the budgets of Senators are limited as to mailing, it has not been 
possible for me to mail all of my constituents who attended the town 
meetings. But I think that is a very practical answer to those who 
complain about access.
  If Senators go to the county seat to be in the proximity of their 
constituents and let their constituents know by a postcard that the 
Senator will be present at a given time, a given place to answer their 
questions, then I think that kind of a guarantee of access would answer 
a great many skeptical comments about fundraisers and the purchase of 
access.
  That is why I am proposing legislation which would permit a Senator 
to supplement his mailing budget for one postcard, once a year, to each 
constituent in each county, providing the Senator personally appears at 
that event.
  The reality is, many Senators do not undertake town meetings anymore 
because they are very rough, tough affairs where people come in--may 
the Record show a smile on the face of the Presiding Officer, the 
distinguished Senator from Wyoming--they are rough, tough affairs.
  I think the cost would probably be fairly low because I think 
relatively few Senators would avail themselves of that opportunity.
  In conclusion, let me remind my colleagues that what Senator Hollings 
and I are proposing does not change the language of the first 
amendment, but instead it substitutes our judgment for the judgment of 
the Court on what is an opinion of the interpretation of the 
Constitution's first amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of the 209 scholars calling for 
the reversal of Buckley be printed in the Record and that the bill for 
postal mailings also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Statement in Support of Overturning Buckley v. Valeo

(This statement was organized jointly by: Brennan Center for Justice at 
   NYU School of Law, National Voting Rights Institute, U.S. Public 
                        Interest Research Group)

       In its 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court 
     of the United States held that mandatory campaign spending 
     limits are an unconstitutional denial of free speech.
       We believe that the Buckely decision should be overturned. 
     The decision overstated the extent to which reasonable limits 
     on campaign expenditures impinge on free speech. The Court 
     also underestimated the corrosive effect of unlimited 
     campaign expenditures on the integrity of our political 
     process.
       We the undersigned call for the reconsideration and 
     overturning of the Buckley decision.


                 209 scholars Opposing Buckley v. Valeo

       Prof. Lee A. Albert, Professor of Law, SUNY at Buffalo 
     School of Law.
       Prof. George J. Alexander, Elizabeth H. & John A. Sutro 
     Professor & Director, Institute of International & 
     Comparative Law, Santa Clara University School of Law.
       Prof. Dean Alfange, Jr., Professor of Political Science, 
     University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Political Science 
     Dept.
       Prof. Francis A. Allen, Huber C. Hurst Eminent Scholar 
     Emeritus, University of Florida, College of Law.
       Prof. Jose Julian Alvarez Gonzalez, Professor of Law, 
     University of Puerto Rico School of Law.
       Prof. Howard C. Anawalt, Professor of Law, Santa Clara 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Claudia Angelos, Professor of Clinical Law, New York 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Ellen P. April, Professor of Law, Loyola University 
     School of Law.
       Prof. Peter Arenella, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.
       Prof. Robert Aronson, Professor of Law, University of 
     Washington School of Law.
       Prof. Gerald G. Ashdown, Professor of Law, West Virginia 
     University College of Law.
       Prof. Gordon E. Baker, Professor Emeritus of Political 
     Science, University of California at Santa Barbara.
       Prof. Thomas E. Baker, James Madison Chair in 
     Constitutional Law and Director of the Constitutional Law 
     Resource Center, Drake University Law School.
       Prof. Fletcher N. Baldwin, Jr., S.D. Dell Research Scholar 
     & Professor of Law, University of Florida, College of Law.
       Prof. William C. Banks, Professor of Law, Syracuse 
     University College of Law.
       Prof. Loftus E. Becker, Jr., Professor of Law, University 
     of Connecticut School of Law.
       Prof. Patricia A. Behlar, Associate Professor of Social 
     Science, Pittsburg State University.
       Prof. Robert W. Benson, Professor of Law, Loyola University 
     School of Law.
       Prof. Gary L. Blasi, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.
       Prof. Vincent A. Blasi, David Lurton Massee, Jr. Professor 
     of Law, University of Virginia School of Law.
       Prof. Henry J. Bourguignon, Professor of Law & 
     Distinguished University Professor, University of Toledo 
     College of Law.
       Prof. Craig M. Bradley, James Louis Calamaras Professor of 
     Law, Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington.
       Prof. Mark E. Brandon, Assistant Professor of Political 
     Science, University of Michigan.
       Prof. Daan Braveman, Dean & Professor of Law, Syracuse 
     University College of Law.
       Prof. Richard A. Brisbin, Jr., Associate Professor of 
     Political Science, West Virginia University.
       Prof. Judith Olans Brown, Professor of Law, Northeastern 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. G. Sidney Buchanan, Baker & Botts Professor of Law, 
     University of Houston Law Center.
       Prof. Thomas D. Buckley, Professor of Law, Cleveland State 
     University, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
       Prof. Sarah E. Burns, Professor of Clinical Law, New York 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. William G. Buss, O.K. Patton Professor of Law, 
     University of Iowa College of Law.
       Prof. Richard M. Buxbaum, Jackson H. Ralston Professor & 
     Dean, International & Area Studies, University of California 
     at Berkeley School of Law.
       Prof. Bert C. Buzan, Professor of Political Science, 
     California State University, Fullerton.
       Prof. Paulette M. Caldwell, Professor of Law, New York 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Lief H. Carter, McHugh Family Distinguished 
     Professor, The Colorado College.
       Prof. Paul G. Chevigny, Professor of Law, New York 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Robert N. Clinton, Wiley B. Rutledge Professor, 
     University of Iowa College of Law.
       Prof. Joshua Cohen, Arthur & Ruth Sloan Professor of 
     Political Science & Professor of Philosophy, Massachusetts 
     Institute of Technology.

[[Page S1789]]

       Prof. William Cohen, C. Wendell & Edith M. Carlsmith, 
     Professor of Law, Stanford Law School.
       Prof. Charles D. Cole, Lucille Beeson Professor, Cumberland 
     School of Law of Samford University.
       Prof. C. Michael Comiskey, Associate Professor of Political 
     Science, Penn State, Fayette Campus.
       Prof. Robert A. Dahl, Sterling Professor Emeritus of 
     Political Science, Yale University.
       Prof. David J. Danelski, Mary Lou & George Boone 
     Centennial, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University.
       Prof. Perry Dane, Professor of Law, Rutgers University 
     School of Law, Camden.
       Prof. George Dargo, Professor of Law, New England School of 
     Law.
       Prof. Derek H. Davis, Director, J.M. Dawson Institute of 
     Church-State Studies, Baylor University School of Law.
       Prof. Howard E. David, Professor of Political Science, 
     Randolph-Macon College.
       Prof. John A. Davis, Professor Emeritus of Political 
     Science, City College of the City University of New York.
       Prof. John Denvir, Professor of Law, University of San 
     Francisco School of Law.
       Prof. David F. Dickson, Professor of Law, Florida State 
     University College of Law.
       Prof. Victoria J. Dodd, Professor of Law, Suffolk 
     University Law School.
       Prof. Jameson W. Doig, Professor, Department of Politics & 
     Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University.
       Prof. Dennis D. Dorin, Professor of Political Science, 
     University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
       Prof. Norman Dorsen, Stokes Professor of Law, New York 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Donald W. Dowd, Professor of Law, Villanova 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Rochelle C. Dreyfuss, Professor of Law & Director of 
     the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy, New York 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. J.D. Droddy, Assistant Professor of Government, 
     Western Kentucky University.
       Prof. Melvyn R. Durchslag, Professor of Law, Case Western 
     Reserve University Law School.
       Prof. Ronald M. Dworkin, Frank H. Sommer Professor of Law, 
     New York University School of Law.
       Prof. Peter D. Enrich, Professor of Law, Northeastern 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Michael Esler, Assistant Professor of Political 
     Science, Ohio Wesleyan University.
       Prof. Daryl R. Fair, Professor of Political Science, The 
     College of New Jersey.
       Prof. Antonio Fernos, Professor of Law, Inter American 
     University Law School.
       Prof. Nancy H. Fink, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School.
       Prof. Edwin B. Firmage, Samuel D. Thurman Professor of Law, 
     University of Utah College of Law.
       Prof. James E. Fleming, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Edward B. Foley, Associate Professor of Law, The Ohio 
     State University College of Law.
       Prof. W. Ray Forrester, Professor of Law, University of 
     California, Hastings, College of Law.
       Dean Arthur N. Frakt, Dean, Widener University School of 
     Law.
       Prof. Beatrice S. Frank, Clinical Associate Professor, New 
     York University School of Law.
       Prof. Paula Galowitz, Professor of Clinical Law, New York 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Daniel G. Gibbens, Regents' Professor of Law, 
     University of Oklahoma College of Law.
       Prof. Stephen Gillers, Professor of Law, New York 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. James M. Glaser, Associate Professor of Political 
     Science, Tufts University.
       Prof. Alvin L. Goldman, Dorothy Salmon Professor, 
     University of Kentucky College of Law.
       Prof. Roger L. Goldman, Professor of Law, St. Louis 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Sheldon Goldman, Professor of Political Science, 
     University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Political Science 
     Dept.
       Prof. Leslie F. Goldstein, Unidel Professor of Political 
     Science, University of Delaware.
       Prof. Howard A. Gordon, Professor Emeritus, City College of 
     Chicago.
       Prof. Howard L. Greenberger, Professor of Law, New York 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Benjamin Gregg, Assistant Professor of Government, 
     University of Texas at Austin.
       Prof. David L. Gregory, Professor of Law, St. John's 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Martin Guggenheim, Clinical Professor & Director, 
     Clinical & Advocacy Programs, New York University School of 
     Law.
       Prof. Lani Guinier, Professor of Law, University of 
     Pennsylvania Law School.
       Prof. Samuel O. Gyandoh, Jr., Professor of Law, Temple 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Michael G. Hagen, Associate Professor of Government, 
     Harvard University.
       Prof. Richard L. Hasen, Associate Professor of Law, Loyola 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Francis H. Heller, Roy A. Roberts Professor of Law & 
     Political Science Emeritus, University of Kansas School of 
     Law.
       Prof. Helen Hershkoff, Assistant Professor of Law, New York 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Richard A. Hesse, Professor of Law, Franklin Pierce 
     Law Center.
       Prof. Philip B. Heymann, James Barr Ames Professor of Law, 
     Harvard Law School.
       Prof. Daniel N. Hoffman, Associate Professor of Political 
     Science, Johnson C. Smith University.
       Prof. Thomas P. Huff, Lecturer in Law & Professor of 
     Philosophy, University of Montana School of Law.
       Prof. Joseph Richard Hurt, Dean & Professor of Law, 
     Mississippi College School of Law.
       Prof. Stewart M. Jay, Professor of Law, University of 
     Washington School of Law.
       Prof. John Paul Jones, Professor of Law, University of 
     Richmond, T. C. Williams, School of Law.
       Prof. Ronald Kahn, Monroe Professor of Politics & Law, 
     Oberlin College.
       Prof. Stephen Kanter, Professor of Law (Dean 1986-1994), 
     Lewis & Clark Northwestern School of Law.
       Prof. Kenneth L. Karst, David G. Price & Dallas P. Price, 
     Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.
       Prof. Thomas A. Kazee, Professor of Political Science, 
     Davidson College.
       Prof. Edward Kearny, Professor of Government, Western 
     Kentucky University.
       Prof. Gregory C. Keating, Professor of Law, University of 
     Southern California Law Center.
       Prof. Alan Keenan, Lecturer on Social Studies, Harvard 
     University.
       Prof. Christine Hunter Kellett, Professor of Law, 
     Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law.
       Prof. Robert B. Kent, Professor of Law Emeritus, Cornell 
     Law School.
       Prof. Mark Kessler, Chair & Professor of Political Science, 
     Bates College.
       Prof. Philip C. Kissam, Professor of Law, University of 
     Kansas School of Law.
       Prof. Robert A. Kocis, Professor of Political Science, 
     University of Scranton.
       Prof. Donald P. Kommers, Joseph & Elizabeth Robbie 
     Professor of Government & International Studies & Professor 
     of Law, Notre Dame Law School.
       Prof. Milton R. Konvitz, Professor Emeritus of Law, Cornell 
     Law School.
       Prof. J. Morgan Kousser, Professor of History & Social 
     Science, Caltech--Division of the Humanities & Social 
     Sciences.
       Prof. Paul M. Kurtz, J. Alton Hosch Professor & Associate 
     Dean, University of Georgia School of Law.
       Prof. James A. Kushner, Professor of Law, Southwestern 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Robert W. Langran, Professor of Political Science, 
     Villanova University.
       Prof. Lewis Henry LaRue, Alumni Professor of Law, 
     Washington & Lee University School of Law.
       Prof. Sylvia Ann Law, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of 
     Law, Medicine & Psychology & Co-Director, Arthur Garfield 
     Hays Civil Liberties Memorial Program, New York University 
     School of Law.
       Prof. Timothy O. Lenz, Associate Professor of Political 
     Science, Florida Atlantic University.
       Prof. Frederick P. Lewis, Professor of Political Science, 
     University of Massachusetts at Lowell.
       Prof. Peter Linzer, Law Foundation Professor of Law, 
     University of Houston Law Center.
       Prof. Robert Justin Lipkin, Professor of Law, Widener 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Stephen Loffredo, Associate Professor of Law, CUNY 
     School of Law.
       Prof. Jim Macdonald, Professor of Law, University of Idaho 
     College of Law.
       Hugh C. Macgill, Dean, University of Connecticut School of 
     Law.
       Prof. Holly Maguigan, Professor of Clinical Law, New York 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Joan Mahoney, Professor of Law & Dean Emeritus, 
     Western New England College School of Law.
       Prof. Karl M. Manheim, Professor of Law, Loyola University 
     School of Law.
       Prof. Clair W. Matz, Professor of Political Science, 
     Marshall University.
       Prof. Christopher N. May, James P. Bradley Chair in 
     Constitutional Law, Loyola University School of Law.
       Prof. William Shepard McAninch, Solomon Blatt Professor, 
     University of South Carolina School of Law.
       Prof. Wayne McCormack, Professor of Law, University of Utah 
     College of Law.
       Prof. W. Joseph McCoy, Associate Professor of Public 
     Administration, Marshall University.
       Prof. Patrick C. McGinley, Professor of Law, West Virginia 
     University College of Law.
       Prof. Wayne V. McIntosh, Associate Professor of Political 
     Science, Dept. of Government & Politics, University of 
     Maryland.
       Prof. Evan McKenzie, Assistant Professor of Political 
     Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, Political Science 
     Dept.
       Prof. Edward A. Mearns, Jr., Professor of Law, Case Western 
     Reserve University Law School.
       Prof. Frank I Michelman, Harvard Law School.
       Hon. Abner J. Mikva, Walter V. Schaefer Fellow in Public 
     Policy & Visiting Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law 
     School.
       Prof. Mark C. Miller, Associate Professor of American 
     Government, Clark University.
       Prof. Arval A. Morris, Professor of Law, University of 
     Washington School of Law.
       Prof. Kenneth M. Murchison, James E. & Betty M. Phillips 
     Professor, Louisiana State University Law Center.
       Prof. Carol Nackenoff, Chair, Department of Political 
     Science, Swarthmore College.
       Prof. James A. R. Nafziger, Thomas B. Stoel Professor of 
     Law, Willamette University College of Law.
       Prof. Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy & Law, New York 
     University School of Law.

[[Page S1790]]

       Prof. Sheldon Nahmod, Distinguished Professor of Law, 
     Chicago-Kent College of Law.
       Prof. John B. Neibel, Professor & John B. Neiber Chair, 
     University of Houston Law Center.
       Prof. Burt Neuborne, John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law & 
     Legal Director, Brennan Center for Justice, New York 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Michael DeHaven Newsom, Associate Dean for Academic 
     Affairs, Howard University School of Law.
       Prof. Nell Jessup Newton, Professor of Law, American 
     University, Washington, College of Law.
       Prof. Gene R. Nichol, Dean Emeritus & Professor of Law, 
     University of Colorado School of Law.
       Prof. Harold Norris, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, 
     Detroit College of Law at Michigan State University.
       Prof. John E. Nowak, David C. Baum Professor of Law, 
     University of Illinois College of Law.
       Prof. James M. O'Fallon, Frank Nash Professor of Law, 
     University of Oregon School of Law.
       Prof. Marcia O'Kelly, Professor of Law, University of North 
     Dakota School of Law.
       Prof. Daniel R. Ortiz, Professor of Law, University of 
     Virginia School of Law.
       Prof. Vernon Valentine Palmer, Thomas Pickles Professor of 
     Law, Tulane University School of Law.
       Prof. Simon D. Perry, Professor of Political Science, 
     Marshall University.
       Prof. Daniel H. Pollitt, Kenan Professor Emeritus of Law, 
     University of North Carolina School of Law.
       Prof. H. Jefferson Powell, Professor of Law, Duke 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Albert T. Quick, Dean & Professor of Law, University 
     of Toledo College of Law.
       Prof. Jamin Ben Raskin, Professor of Law & Pauline Ruyle, 
     Moore Scholar, American University, Washington College of 
     Law.
       Prof. John Rawls, Professor of Philosophy, Harvard 
     University.
       Prof. Clifford Rechtschaffen, Associate Professor of Law, 
     Golden Gate University School of Law.
       Prof. David A. J. Richards, Edwin D. Webb Professor of Law, 
     New York University School of Law.
       Prof. Daniel C. Richman, Associate Professor of Law, 
     Fordham University School of Law.
       Prof. Cary Rickabaugh, Associate Professor of Political 
     Science, Rhode Island College.
       Prof. Joel E. Rogers, Professor of Law & Sociology, 
     University of Wisconsin Law School.
       Prof. Rand E. Rosenblatt, Professor of Law & Associate 
     Dean, Academic Affairs, Rutgers University School of Law, 
     Camden.
       Prof. Victor G. Rosenblum, Nathaniel L. Nathanson 
     Professor, Northwestern University School of Law.
       Prof. Albert J. Rosenthal, Dean Emeritus & Maurice T. 
     Moore, Professor Emeritus of Law, Columbia University School 
     of Law.
       Prof. Gregory D. Russell, Director, Criminal Justice 
     Program & Associate Professor, Washington State University.
       Prof. Rosemary C. Salomone, Professor of Law, St. John's 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Thomas O. Sargentich, Professor of Law, American 
     University, Washington College of Law.
       Prof. Thomas M. Scanlon, Harvard University Philosophy 
     Department.
       Prof. Douglas D. Scherer, Professor of Law, Touro College, 
     Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center.
       Prof. Lawrence Schlam, Professor of Law, Northern Illinois 
     University College of Law.
       Prof. Leo L. Schmolka, Professor of Law, New York 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Jeffrey M. Shaman, Professor of Law, De Paul 
     University College of Law.
       Prof. Peter M. Shane, Dean & Professor of Law, University 
     of Pittsburgh School of Law.
       Prof. Sidney A. Shapiro, John M. Rounds Professor, 
     University of Kansas School of Law.
       Prof. Stephen Kent Shaw, Professor of Political Science, 
     Northwest Nazarene College.
       Prof. Steven H. Shiffrin, Professor of Law, Cornell Law 
     School.
       Prof. David M. Skover, Professor of Law, Seattle University 
     School of Law.
       Prof. W. David Slawson, Torrey H. Webb Professor, 
     University of Southern California Law Center.
       Prof. Rogers M. Smith, Professor of Political Science, Yale 
     University.
       Prof. Barbara R. Snyder, Professor of Law, The Ohio State 
     University College of Law.
       Dean Aviam Soifer, Dean & Professor of Law, Boston College 
     Law School.
       Prof. Rayman L. Solomon, Associate Dean, Northwestern 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Frank J. Sorauf, Regents' Professor Emeritus of 
     Political Science, University of Minnesota.
       Prof. Troy M. Stewart, Chair & Professor of Political 
     Science, Marshall University.
       Prof. Marc Stickgold, Professor of Law, Golden Gate 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Peter L. Strauss, Betts Professor of Law, Columbia 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Kenneth W. Street, Professor of Political Science, 
     Austin College.
       Prof. Frank R. Strong, Cary Boshamer Distinguished 
     Professor Emeritus of Law, University of North Carolina 
     School of Law.
       Prof. Allen N. Sultan, Professor of Law, University of 
     Dayton School of Law.
       Prof. Cass R. Sunstein, Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished 
     Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School.
       Prof. Mary Thornberry, Professor of Political Science, 
     Davidson College.
       Prof. Michael C. Tolley, Associate Professor of Political 
     Science, Northeastern University.
       Prof. James W. Torke, Professor of Law, Indiana University 
     School of Law, Indianapolis.
       Prof. Jon M. Van Dyke, Professor of Law, University of 
     Hawaii, William S. Richardson School of Law.
       Prof. Kenneth Vinson, Professor of Law, Florida State 
     University College of Law.
       Prof. Burton D. Wechsler, Alumni Distinguished Teacher & 
     Professor, American University, Washington College of Law.
       Prof. Eldon D. Wedlock, Jr., David H. Means Professor of 
     Law, University of South Carolina School of Law.
       Prof. Philip Weinberg, Professor of Law, St. John's 
     University School of Law.
       Prof. Brian A. Weiner, Assistant Professor of Politics, 
     University of San Francisco.
       Prof. Harry H. Wellington, Dean & Professor, New York Law 
     School.
       Prof. William E. Westerbeke, Professor of Law, University 
     of Kansas School of Law.
       Prof. James G. Wilson, Professor of Law, Cleveland State 
     University, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
       Prof. Louis E. Wolcher, Professor of Law, University of 
     Washington School of Law.
       Prof. Raymond L. Yasser, Professor of Law, University of 
     Tulsa College of Law.
       Prof. Steven Zeidman, Associate Professor of Law, New York 
     University School of Law.
                                  ____


                                 S. --

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. MAIL ALLOWANCES FOR SENATORS.

       Section 506 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1973 (2 
     U.S.C. 58) is amended by inserting after subsection (b) the 
     following:
       ``(c) In addition to the funds provided for in subsection 
     (b), the amount available to a Member under subsection 
     (b)(3)(A)(iii) shall include an additional amount sufficient 
     to pay the expenses that would be incurred mailing 1 letter 
     to each postal address in each county in the State of that 
     Member where the Member holds and personally attends a town 
     meeting (not to exceed 1 town meeting per county per 
     year).''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I think we have 5 more minutes. I yield 
the time to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from South Carolina. 
I think brevity is ideal, and I have said what I have to say. I would 
not oppose a constitutional amendment to limit Senators' speeches to 10 
minutes generally. But I thank my colleague from South Carolina.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I wish to commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for his 
comments about town meetings. But I hope there are Senators in this 
body who will do town meetings. I expect there probably are some. I 
think they are the most advantageous thing we could possibly do in 
rural States like mine and, I think, like the distinguished Presiding 
Officer's State. I do not think either one of us would ever come back 
here if we were not willing to do them. I think that is the experience 
of most Senators.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
amendment related to flag burning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have a unanimous consent agreement that 
actually runs over on the time we are allocated. Is the Senator asking 
unanimous consent to extend the time?
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes on the 
flag burning amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have time left. I would be glad to 
yield it to the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I have no 
objection to the 10-minute request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes left. There are 
meetings we have to get to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding we will now go to a 
quorum call rather than to have me speak for 10 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The quorum call will be charged against 
allocated time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be 
permitted, on our time, to go up to as long as 12:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S1791]]

  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, even though he is on the other side of this 
issue, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my friend and colleague from the State of Utah 
for yielding. I am aware of the fact we disagree on this issue. We have 
been friends and are adversaries only on issues without any personal 
basis.
  Mr. President, this has become a perennial issue before the Senate--
the question of whether we will amend the Constitution of the United 
States to, in fact, somehow ban the desecration of the American flag.
  Make no mistake about it, flag burning is an insensitive and shameful 
act. But the issue before us is not whether we support flag burning but 
whether we should amend the Constitution, whether we should amend the 
Bill of Rights for the first time in the history of the United States 
of America, whether we should narrow the precious freedoms ensured by 
the first amendment for the very first time in our Nation's history.
  When we trace back the origin of this flag burning amendment, we find 
that it came about as a result of an act by an individual during the 
1984 Presidential election campaign in the State of Texas during the 
Republican National Convention. A person went down there and ignited an 
American flag, and ignited the passions of many people who feel very 
strongly about that symbol of our Nation. It gave rise to an effort on 
the floor of the Congress to pass a law which would ban this sort of 
activity. Efforts were made, overturned by the Supreme Court, and then 
finally a constitutional amendment was offered.
  It is interesting, to me, to put this in some context because we are 
talking about first amendment rights--rights of expression, rights of 
speech--which, in fact, are envied around the world.
  As nations came out from under the yoke of communism and were finally 
given an opportunity to write their own future, they looked to the 
United States, not to our flag--they had their own flag--but to our 
values. They said: The United States is different. The United States 
respects the rights of individuals to express themselves, even when it 
is unpopular.
  In many of these same countries, it had been against the law, 
punishable by imprisonment, to even question the Government, let alone 
to burn the flag of the country. But they said: We are going to walk 
away from that totalitarian view of the world. We are going to stand 
for freedom, just like the United States of America.
  One after another, the leaders of these new democracies came here to 
the U.S. Capitol to appear before a joint session of Congress and 
really said, in so many words, their model, their ideal, their goal, 
was to follow our 200-plus year history of the Bill of Rights.
  Those of us who want to stand in defense of the Bill of Rights 
understand that sometimes our positions are unpopular and sometimes 
uncomfortable. I think back a year ago. Remember, it was just a year 
ago the Columbine High School massacre shocked America. It stunned us 
to believe this could happen in a school, that innocent children could 
be mowed down with guns.
  If the epicenter of this shock was at Columbine, it was certainly in 
the State of Colorado, as well, as they reflected on this violence.
  Do you recall a few days after the Columbine shootings, the National 
Rifle Association held its convention in Denver, CO? Those in the 
surrounding areas came out to peacefully protest and demonstrate 
against the National Rifle Association and its agenda and its 
insensitivity to the Columbine High School shootings.
  As much as I might disagree with the agenda of the National Rifle 
Association, I will have to stand here and say they had a right to 
meet. They had a right to meet in Denver, CO, and to express their 
points of view. As reprehensible and shameful as some might have found 
it, that is a right guaranteed by the first amendment to the 
Constitution.
  In 1998, in Idaho, white supremacists obtained a permit for a ``100-
man flag parade,'' and they marched, carrying American flags alongside 
Nazi banners. The owner of a local bookstore in Coeur D'Alene made a 
point of keeping his store opened. He observed: ``Nazis were burning 
books in the 1930s, and I don't want them closing stores in the 90s.''
  To think of it--Old Glory side by side with the Nazi banner.
  I am not certain this amendment would even touch that activity. I 
find that reprehensible; I find that disgusting. Yet I understand it. 
That is what America is all about. The real test of our belief in the 
Bill of Rights, the real test of our belief in freedom of expression is 
we stand back and say, as much as we disagree and despise every word 
you are saying, you have a right as an American to say it. That is a 
core principle of this democracy. That is a principle that is at issue 
with the offering of this amendment, this amendment which says: We will 
separate out one group of Americans who engage in this despised conduct 
of burning flags, and we will say, we will amend the Bill of Rights for 
the first time in our history to stop that activity.
  Senator Hatch, last year, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
invited a man I respect very much, Tommy Lasorda, who was a former 
manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, who came and talked about his 
strong feelings in support of this amendment. He talked about a day in 
the baseball park when someone jumped out of the stands, started to 
burn a flag, and one of the other players raced over to grab the flag 
and put out the fire, how proud he was that this player--Rick Monday--
would put out the fire of this flag.
  I asked Mr. Lasorda a question when it came my turn. I said: As I 
understand it, most of the people who jump out of the stands and run 
onto the field are not televised. A decision is made by the television 
stations and the management not to put the television cameras on these 
people who race around the field whenever they do. He said: That is 
correct. I said: Why is that? He said: Because if you give them 
attention, it just encourages that kind of activity. I said to Mr. 
Lasorda--and say today in debate--what more attention could we give to 
these dim-witted clods who would burn the flag but to amend the Bill of 
Rights for the first time in history? How seldom this occurs, how 
reprehensible it is, how awful it would be for us to respond to this 
terrible conduct by saying: You have our attention. We are going to 
amend the Bill of Rights. We will show you. Then we will see a flood of 
this kind of activity, I am afraid.
  Some of the people I respect from both sides of the aisle have been 
quoted during the course of this debate. Gen. Colin Powell, former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, no one would question his 
patriotism, whether they belong to the American Legion or the VFW, 
AMVETS, or any veterans group. He opposes this amendment. He wrote a 
letter to Senator Leahy in 1999 and said:

       We are rightfully outraged when anyone attacks or 
     desecrates our flag. Few Americans do such things and when 
     they do they are subject to the rightful condemnation of 
     their fellow citizens. They may be destroying a piece of 
     cloth, but they do no damage to our system of freedom which 
     tolerates such desecration. * * * I would not amend that 
     great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The 
     flag will still be flying proudly long after they have slunk 
     away.

  General Powell got it right, a man who has served our country, has 
put his life on the line in combat like so many other veterans who are 
quoted in the minority views and who understand they were fighting for 
something more than a piece of cloth. They were fighting for a piece of 
history, a piece of history that goes back over 200 years, when men--
and they were all men--came forward to write this document, the 
Constitution of the United States and said: We will make certain that 
no matter what any State or Federal Government should try to do, we 
will hold sacred the rights of an individual for freedom of expression 
and freedom of speech no matter how unpopular it may be.
  I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join us in condemning the action 
but not in desecrating our Bill of Rights. It is a document which has 
been a source of pride for many generations. It will continue to be.
  Some people say even the word ``desecration'' in this amendment is a 
little hard to follow. What is a physical desecration of the flag? 
Well, burning it is one illustration, but is it the only one? For 
example, I raised this in committee about 2 years ago. Would we

[[Page S1792]]

consider it a desecration of the flag for someone to use an American 
flag as a seat cover in their automobile? Some might say that is a 
desecration, sitting on the flag. I would ask them to think twice. Take 
a trip down to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. Get up close and 
see Abraham Lincoln, that son of Illinois of whom we are so proud. Look 
very closely at what he is sitting on. He is sitting on an American 
flag. I don't think that is a desecration. I think we understand the 
context is trying to indicate the importance of this President.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to oppose this amendment and yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am intrigued by the comments of my 
colleague from Illinois. I would like to focus all the attention in the 
world on those who desecrate the American flag. I think it would be a 
great thing. It would help everybody in this country to know how 
distasteful it is and how denigrating to our country it is and how 
denigrating it is for all those who have died for this country 
following the flag, how denigrating it is to everybody who served in 
the military, how denigrating it is to every schoolchild, how 
denigrating it is to people who believe in values and things that are 
right. I have no trouble focusing on somebody who runs on the field 
burning a flag. I would like to focus on that creep as much as I could. 
I think if we did a little bit more of that, we might find a renewed 
resurgence of feelings about our country out there.
  To be honest with you, if I interpret what the Senator said, he 
basically said that people ought to be able to make their statement. I 
wonder if he would be happy to have anybody who wants to make a 
statement in our gallery make any statement they want to every day that 
we meet. I think he would acknowledge that would disrupt the workings 
of the most important legislative body in the world.
  There are limitations on everything, including the first amendment. 
By the way, how do you call offensive conduct of defecating, urinating 
on the flag or burning the flag with contempt, how do you call that 
free speech? The Supreme Court apparently has done so, but then, again, 
what we are talking about here, just look at this amendment. It is a 
very simple amendment. It is not telling us to do anything about the 
flag. What it says is: The Congress shall have the power to prohibit 
the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. My gosh, it 
doesn't tell us what to do. It just says we are going to take back this 
power that we had before this other third of the three separate powers, 
the judiciary, took it away from us and took it away from 49 States, 
all of which have asked us to restore that right to the States and the 
Federal Government.
  These people are arguing against an amendment that gives the Congress 
back the power it had before, that it had for 200 years. Where is the 
logic in that? Many of these folks who are going to vote against this 
amendment voted for an anti-flag-desecration statute back in 1989. If 
they believe it is free speech today to defecate on the flag, then why 
wasn't it in 1989 when they voted for that useless statute that I stood 
up and said was unconstitutional and voted against and which later was 
declared to be what I said it would be, unconstitutional? Why didn't 
they vote against it if they are so enamored with this argument on free 
speech?
  But forget the free speech argument. What about the power of three 
separate branches of Government? Why should we let the judiciary tell 
49 States and the Congress of the United States we don't have any power 
to protect the national symbol of our sovereignty, of our patriotism, 
of our Nation? Any self-respecting Senator would want to stand up for 
the rights of the Congress, especially since this amendment doesn't say 
what we have to do. It basically says we have the right to change 
things. That is what you do with a constitutional amendment.
  Some opponents of the flag-protection amendment have argued that we 
should be passing more restrictions on gun ownership rather than 
debating our constitutional amendment to protect the American flag. 
Give me a break. Everything is gun amendments around here. We have 
20,000 laws, rules, and regulations about guns in this society that 
aren't even being enforced by this administration. While I believe 
there is no shortage of important issues for the Senate to take up, I 
believe the flag amendment is not only vital to protect our shared 
values as Americans, but also that this debate is particularly timely 
today as we all strive to recover what is good and decent about our 
country.

  We see evidence of moral decay and a lack of standards all around us. 
Our families are breaking down, our communities are being divided, and 
there are leaders who are not providing the appropriate moral 
leadership for the American public. Our popular culture, including 
movies, television, video games, and music, bombards our children with 
offensive messages of violence and selfishness. The very disturbing 
incidents of gun violence--particularly at our public schools--is a 
particular result of a culture that is afraid to teach that certain 
ideas are right or wrong. As the saying goes, you have to stand for 
something, or you will fall for anything.
  Today, the Senate has a unique opportunity to say that our country, 
and our culture, does stand for something; that on the issue of 
protecting and safeguarding an incident of national sovereignty, we 
stand for something. Today, we can reaffirm that all Americans share 
certain beliefs and values and a respect for this symbol of our 
national sovereignty. We can give a united bedrock of principle to a 
generation that is increasingly floating adrift and alone. Think about 
it. If we pass this amendment, we will create a debate on values in 
this country in all 50 States. That alone justifies this amendment--
although I could give many additional justifications even better than 
that.
  The disillusioned young people in our society today learn a very 
negative lesson by watching our Government sit powerlessly as 
exhibitionists and anarchists deface the embodiment of our sovereignty 
and our common values. What do you think they take away from watching 
people who dishonor the memory of those millions of men and women who 
have given their lives for the future of America? Allowing desecration 
of the flag lowers again the standards of elemental decency that all of 
us must and should live by. This proposed amendment affirms that 
without some aspirations to national unity, there might be no law, no 
Constitution, no freedoms such as those guaranteed by the Bill of 
Rights. The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a license to engage 
in any kind or type of behavior that one can imagine. Don't sell this 
amendment, and what it stands for, short.
  If we pass this amendment by the necessary two-thirds vote, the 
Senate will say that our symbol of sovereignty, the embodiment of so 
many of our hopes and dreams, can no longer be dragged through the mud, 
torn asunder, or defecated on. We will say to the young people of 
America that there are ideals worth fighting for and protecting. There 
is a reason we are united as Americans, and that our experiment in 
democracy has proven to be the most enlightened government in history.
  Can anyone think of a better message to send to our young people than 
to begin to reclaim the values of liberty, equality, and personal 
responsibility that Americans have defended and debated?
  The flag amendment is not a distraction from matters of violence and 
education and social decay; nor is it an abdication of responsibility, 
as it has been called by some who oppose it. If there has been an 
abdication of responsibility, it has been to defend the irresponsible 
notion that the Bill of Rights exists to allow people to engage in any 
type of behavior or conduct that one can imagine. We need more 
attention to public values and standards, not less.

  I am deeply offended by those who say the Senate has more important 
things to do than discuss a flag-protection constitutional amendment. I 
urge those of my colleagues who think the Senate is too important for 
the American flag to listen to the American people on this issue. I 
just came from a press conference where seven Congressional Medal of 
Honor recipients were there praying that the people of this country 
will get the Members of the

[[Page S1793]]

Senate to support this flag amendment.
  The vast majority of our citizens support amending the Constitution 
to protect our Nation's flag. Even then, this amendment just says it 
gives the right to the Congress to do that. To these citizens and 
elected officials, protecting the flag as the symbol of our national 
unity and community and utilizing the constitutional amendment process 
to do so is no trivial matter.
  Sitting in our gallery today are people who put their lives on the 
line to defend our flag and the principles for which it stands. These 
are the fortunate ones who were not required to make the ultimate 
sacrifice like my brother was in the Second World War, and like my 
brother-in-law was in Vietnam. Every one of these people--like tens of 
thousands of American families across our country--have traded the life 
of a loved one for a flag, folded at a funeral. Let's think about that 
trade--and about the people who made it for us--before deciding whether 
the flag is important enough to be addressed in the Senate.
  Given the great significance of the flag, it is not surprising that 
support for the flag amendment is without political boundaries. It is 
not, as some suggest, a battle between conservatives on one side and 
liberals on the other. Indeed, the flag amendment transcends all 
political, racial, religious, and socioeconomic divisions. This is 
consistently reflected in national polling, in resolutions to Congress 
from 49 State legislatures requesting Congress to send the flag 
amendment to the States for ratification, and in the support of a 
bipartisan supermajority of the House of Representatives both last year 
and during the 104th Congress.
  Is this overwhelming support for the flag amendment, as manifested 
through polling and through the actions of State and national 
legislatures, frivolity? Are we trivializing the Constitution, when a 
vast majority of Americans speaking for themselves or through elected 
representatives seek to utilize the article V amendment process, itself 
constructed by our Founding Fathers to right the wrongs of 
constitutional misinterpretation? Are we irresponsible if we simply 
restore the law as it existed for two centuries prior to two Supreme 
Court decisions, which were 5-4 decisions, hotly contested decisions? 
Does the principle of ``government by the people'' end where the self-
professed ``experts'' convince themselves that the concerns of the 
overwhelming majority of ordinary citizens and their representatives 
are not important?
  Is the Constitution, which establishes processes for its own 
amendment, wrong? I say it is the Constitution which establishes 
processes for its own amendment, and it is right. It says that the 
Constitution will be amended when two-thirds of the Congress and three-
fourths of the States want to do so. It does not say that this 
procedure is reserved for issues that some law professors think are 
important, or issues that would crumble the foundations of our great 
Republic.

  If ``government by the people'' means anything, it means that the 
people can decide the fundamental questions concerning the checks and 
balances in our Government. The people can choose whether it is 
Congress or the Supreme Court that decides whether flag desecration is 
against the law.
  I urge colleagues to think hard about what they consider to be 
``important'' before they conclude that the Senate should ignore the 
people and what they think is important and what should be considered 
important before they conclude that the Senate should ignore the 
people's desire to make decisions about the Government which governs 
them. The flag amendment is the very essence of ``government by the 
people'' because it reflects the people's decision to give Congress a 
power that the Supreme Court has taken away. This question is very 
important. I urge my colleagues not to think that this body is above 
listening to the vast majority of citizens of this country who want to 
give Congress the ability to determine whether and how to protect the 
American flag.
  People should not say that there are more important issues than this 
one. This issue involves the very fabric of our society, what we are 
all about, and what our children, we hope, will be all about. This 
issue is very important. Anybody who thinks otherwise is trivializing 
this very important issue and the 80 percent of the American people who 
are strongly for it. The other 20 percent are not strongly against it; 
only a small percentage of those are. The rest of them just don't know 
or don't care.
  You should have been with those seven Congressional Medal of Honor 
recipients, Miss America, and a whole raft of other veterans outside as 
we talked about why this amendment is important.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________