[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 29, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1833-S1843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FLAG DESECRATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT--Resumed
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the oversized posters we use
this morning be permitted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, during the past 2 days, we have heard
several Senators who oppose the flag desecration amendment speak about
the American flag as only a symbol or a piece of cloth that should not
be confused with the real freedoms that we as Americans enjoy. They
want to know why we get so worked up over a symbol, a mere piece of
cloth. They want to know why we should care if someone urinates or
defecates on the American flag. They ask: Aren't we strong enough as a
nation to overlook such behavior?
The U.S. flag is a lot more than a symbol and a lot more than a piece
of cloth. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the story of how Mike
Christian feels about the American flag. Mike Christian was one of
Senator John McCain's cellmates at the ``Hanoi Hilton'' during the
Vietnam war. He sewed an American flag on the inside of his shirt, and
he often led his prisoners of war in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
flag. One day, his captors found that flag and they beat him severely
for possessing it. Despite the risk of even more life-threatening
abuse, Mr. Christian sharpened a little piece of bamboo into a needle
and painstakingly made another flag out of bits of cloth. His new flag,
and the heroics it inspired, helped the other American prisoners
survive their prolonged captivity under brutal conditions.
If a makeshift flag can stir such emotions, it is illogical for the
Senate to ignore the feelings of the overwhelming number of Americans
who support flag protection. The flag is not just a piece of cloth or a
symbol. It is the embodiment of our heritage, our liberties, and indeed
our sovereignty as
[[Page S1834]]
a nation. The American flag unites Americans because it embodies shared
values and history.
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the U.S. and allied forces
during the gulf war, summed this up eloquently in his letter supporting
the flag amendment. General Schwarzkopf wrote:
We are a diverse people living in a complicated fragmented
society. I believe we are imperiled by a growing cynicism by
certain traditions that bind us, particularly service to our
Nation. The flag remains the single preeminent connection to
each other and to our country. Legally sanctioning flag
desecration only serves to undermine this national unity and
identity which must be preserved.
That was General Schwarzkopf, one of the great heroes of our country.
I have a few flags that will help illustrate what the flag means to
our shared history. These flags tell part of the story of how this
Nation we all call ours came to be so great.
The flag with the circle of 13 stars was the first official flag of
the United States. It was adopted by an act of Congress on June 14,
1777. According to legend, a group headed by George Washington came up
with this design and commissioned seamstress Betsy Ross to execute it
for presentation to Congress. It is a beautiful flag.
Let me go to the next flag. This design is believed by many
authorities to be the stars and stripes used by the American land
troops during the Revolutionary War. A flag such as this was flown over
the military stores at Bennington, VT, on August 16, 1777, when Gen.
John Stark's militia led Americans to victory over a British raiding
force. The original of that flag is preserved in the Bennington, VT,
museum.
The 15 stars and 15 stripes design was adopted prior to the War of
1812 after two States were added to the Union. Notice that it not only
has 15 stars but also 15 stripes. This is the design that flew over
Fort McHenry during a naval bombardment and inspired Francis Scott Key
to compose what later became our national anthem. The actual flag that
survived that night over Fort McHenry has been restored and now hangs
in the Smithsonian.
Today's flag has 50 stars and 13 stripes. Its design was born of the
need for a more practical way of adding states than adding both a star
and a stripe for each one. Congress approved this design--seven red and
six white stripes, and a star for each state--on April 4, 1818. The 50-
star flag has been in use since July 4, 1960. It's a flag like this
that Mike Christian tried to fashion from his cell in the Hanoi Hilton.
It's a flag like this that flies over the Capitol and our Federal
buildings around the world. It is a flag like this that we pledge
allegiance to every day when we open the Senate.
Mr. President, do we mean what we say when we stand here each morning
and pledge allegiance to the flag, or is it simply a hollow gesture? I
fear that the significance of these flags, and their meaning to
Americans, is being belittled by some who suggest the Senate's time is
too important for the flag protection constitutional amendment.
Listen to the American people. That is what I would like to say to
the Members of the Senate. The vast majority of our citizens support
amending the Constitution to protect our Nation's flag. To us,
protecting the flag as the symbol of our national community--and
utilizing the constitutional amendment process to do so--is no trivial
matter.
There are tens of thousands of veterans living on our country today
who have put their lives on the line to defend our flag and the
principles for which it stands. Those are the fortunate ones who were
not required to make the ultimate sacrifice, as did my brother and my
brother-in-law. For every one of those, there is someone who has 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 that sacrifice for us--
before deciding whether the flag is important enough to be addressed in
the Senate.
Would it really trivialize the Constitution, as some critics suggest,
to pass an amendment that is supported by a vast majority of Americans?
Is it somehow frivolous to employ the amendment process that our
Founding Fathers wrote into Article V of the Constitution? Are we
irresponsible if we simply restore the law as it existed for centuries
prior to two recent Supreme Court decisions?
The Constitution itself establishes the process for its own
amendment. It says that the Constitution will be amended when two-
thirds of 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 for an issue that would immediately
crush the foundations of our great republic if left unaddressed. 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. It means the people can choose whether it is
Congress or the Supreme Court that decides whether flag desecration is
against the law. The people have said that they want Congress to decide
it in the state legislatures.
I urge my colleagues to think hard about what they consider
``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. It involved the separation of power doctrine of our
Constitution.
I think we all have a pretty good idea of where the votes are on this
amendment. The question is why my colleagues wish to delay a vote on
this important measure. Perhaps they feel the need to turn a few more
votes . . . I don't know. Whatever the reason, I urge all my
colleagues, whether they support the flag amendment or not, to vote for
cloture so we can then have an up and down vote on the merits of S.J.
Res. 14.
Finally, all this amendment does is give Congress the power to
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. I
happen to think that is a wise thing to do. The vast majority of the
American people think it is a wise thing to do. A vast majority of the
House of Representatives think it is a wise thing to do. And a majority
here--although, alas, probably not enough--do believe it is a wise
thing to do as well.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is available to the Senator
from Utah and the Senator from Vermont?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 3 minutes remaining.
The Senator from Vermont has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEAHY. Thirteen? I thought the Senator from Vermont had half the
time, which would have been 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Half the time is 13 minutes to the side since
the Senate started at 9:30.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we extend debate
for 30 minutes so he can have 15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note we had discussion about whether
people want to prolong this debate. We do want to have debate on the
constitutional amendment. People have given tremendous speeches, pro
and con, on this issue. I hope everybody will vote for cloture, for
example. But let us not have any suggestion that anybody here is trying
to stop a vote on this constitutional amendment. We all want it. But
most Senators believe, if you are going to amend the Constitution, it
requires at least more debate and more time than we might give to a
simple resolution.
I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator for his tremendous leadership in
opposition to this constitutional amendment. I thank him for his
leadership on this whole issue.
the bill of rights and freedom of expression
Honoring the flag demands that we consider carefully the history of
the Bill of Rights before we choose to alter it. Many of our Founders
sought a Bill of Rights because, in their view, the Constitution failed
properly to consider and protect the basic and fundamental rights of
individuals.
[[Page S1835]]
Although many Federalists, including James Madison, felt that the
limited powers conferred on the government by the Constitution were
sufficiently narrow so as to leave those rights unquestioned, the Bill
of Rights was adopted in order to provide reluctant states with the
assurances necessary for approval of the Constitution.
From this beginning in compromise 209 years ago, the Bill of Rights
has evolved into the single greatest protector of individual freedom in
history. It has done so, in large measure, because attempts to narrow
it have, to date, been rejected.
It was fundamental to the founding of this Nation that individuals
should be free to express themselves, secure in the knowledge that
government will not suppress their expression because of its content.
Our Nation's Founders created this new country to escape oppression at
the hands of the state. They firmly believed that government should not
limit one's ability to speak out. They wrote into our fundamental
charter the ten simple words: ``Congress shall make no law . . .
abridging the freedom of speech.''
Over time, this Nation has grappled with the boundaries of free
speech, regulating defamation or obscenity. That government may
regulate some expression, however, does not change the law's
presumption against content-based regulation. In the words of Justice
Scalia: ``[T]he government may proscribe libel; but it may not make the
further content discrimination of proscribing only libel critical of
the government.''
We need not concern ourselves with the parameters of speech that can
be proscribed, because the expression in question--political
expression--is clearly protected under the first amendment. The
defining standard that has marked the history of free expression in
this Nation is that speech may not be regulated based upon its content.
The presumptive invalidity of content regulation protects all forms
of speech--that with which we agree, as well as that to which we
object. To do otherwise would make hollow, at best, the promise of free
speech. As the Supreme Court held in Street v. New York: ``[F]reedom to
differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be
a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to
differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.''
My colleagues, this amendment departs from that noble and time-
honored standard. It seeks instead to prohibit expression solely
because of its content.
Proponents of this amendment have made plain that they direct their
effort at expression that they deem ``disrespectful.'' Even more
troubling is that this amendment leaves the determination of what is
disrespectful to the government.
For the promise of free expression to be fulfilled, the first
amendment must protect those who rise to challenge the existing
wisdom--to raise those views that may anger or offend. As Justice
William O. Douglas observed, free speech, ``may indeed serve its high
purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction
with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.''
Adherence to this ideal is what separates America from oppressive
regimes across the world. We tolerate dissent and protect dissenters.
They suppress dissent and jail dissenters, or condemn dissenters to a
fate still more grave.
The first amendment to the United States Constitution is not
infallible. It cannot sanitize free expression any more than it can
impart wisdom to thoughts which otherwise have none. Nor can the first
amendment ensure that free expression will always comport with the
views of a majority of the American people or the American government.
What the first amendment does promise, however, is the right of each
individual in this Nation to stand and make a case, regardless of
particular point of view, and to do so absent fear of government
censor. This right is worthy of preserving. It is this right that is at
risk today. When we start down the road to distinguishing between whose
message is appropriate and whose is not, we risk something far greater
than the right to burn a flag as political expression.
Much of what is clearly protected expression can easily be deemed
objectionable. So it is with flag burning. As the Supreme Court has
repeatedly stated, the act of flag burning cannot be divorced from the
context in which it occurs--that of political expression. This Nation
has a proud and storied history of political expression--much of which
could easily be characterized as objectionable.
Does any Member of this body believe that if the question had been
put to the crown as to whether or not the speech and expression
emanating from the colonies, in the form of Thomas Paine's ``Common
Sense'' or the Articles of Confederation, should be sustained, the
answer would have been anything but a resounding no? Could not the same
be said of messages of the civil rights and suffrage movements?
This Nation was born of dissent. Contrary to the view that it weakens
our democracy, this Nation stands today as the leader of the free world
because we tolerate these varying forms of dissent--not because we
persecute them.
In seeking to protect the American flag, this amendment asks us to
depart from the fundamental ideal that government shall not suppress
expression solely because it is disagreeable. As Justice Brennan wrote
for the majority in Texas v. Johnson:
If there is a bedrock principle underlying the first
amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit
expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea
itself offensive or disagreeable. We have not recognized an
exception to this principle even where our flag has been
involved.
So this amendment runs counter to the very premise of the Bill of
Rights--that the rights of individuals should remain beyond the purview
of unwarranted government intervention. That is what lead to the
adoption of the Bill of Rights. In the words of Justice Jackson,
speaking for the Supreme Court in 1943:
The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw
certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political
controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and
officials, to establish them as legal principles to be
applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and
property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship
and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be
submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no
elections.
Yet, this amendment would do exactly that. It would subject the fate of
one of our most fundamental rights to turn upon the outcome of
elections. What comfort is a first amendment that tells the people that
the appropriateness of their political expression will be left to the
government?
In charting a divergent course, this amendment would create that
exception--an exception at odds with free expression and with our
history of liberty. If adopted, this amendment would for the first time
in our history, signal an unprecedented, misguided, and troubling
departure from our history as a free society.
values
During this debate and debates like it that often occur in years
divisible by four, we often hear a great deal about values. We often
hear a great deal about the kinds of things we are teaching our
children. We often hear aspirations for this amendment that appear at
least a little exaggerated: that it's going to stop the downward slide
that our culture has supposedly been on since the 1940s, that it's
going to improve our schools, that it even might help get rid of bad
movies. All kidding aside, when some proponents of the amendment start
talking about this amendment as a fight over values, I get nervous. It
reminds me of the ``culture war'' that some have invoked in the past
decade. We do not need to create one more source of division and
divisiveness. We need understanding and tolerance and community.
In any event, I am skeptical as to whether the alleged increased
incidence of disrespect for the flag, supposedly stemming from a
Supreme Court decision in 1989, has caused the purported deterioration
in our culture that some have cited. If it is, passing this amendment
is surely not going to stop it.
What this amendment will do is abridge the most precious freedom and
the most important principle that our country stands for, the right of
free speech. I do not say ``most precious'' and ``most important''
lightly. What message is curtailing that freedom going to send to our
children? What
[[Page S1836]]
values are we upholding by taking this extreme step to deal with a
problem that by all accounts is not severe at all?
A fine piece in the March 22 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that
``[o]ne academic research found fewer than 45 flag burnings between
1777, when the flag was adopted, and 1989.''
Similarly, when the Judiciary Committee examined the issue last year,
the Congressional Research Service found 36 reported cases of flag
burning or other physical acts of disrespect to the flag. And for that
we are going to amend, with unknown consequences, the most basic right
of our citizens?
I respectfully disagree with the supporters of the amendment about
the effect that this issue has on children. We can send no better, no
stronger, no more meaningful message to our children about the
principles and the values of this country than to explain to them that
the beauty and the strength of this country is in its freedoms, not in
its symbols. When we uphold first amendment freedoms despite the
efforts of misguided and despicable people who want to provoke our
wrath, we send a message to our children of what America is really
about. Our country is far too strong to be threatened by those who burn
the flag. We need to teach our children, and we should teach our
children, and virtually all of us do teach our children, that it is
wrong to burn the flag. We don't need to empower the government to put
people in jail for doing it in order to make that lesson plain and
powerful.
Ironically, some supporters of the amendment have said that the
amendment was going to help create community in this country. As if a
law that attempts to legislate patriotism can create community. As if
bringing the full wrath of the criminal law and the power of the state
down on political dissenters is going to do anything other than
encourage more people who want to grandstand their dissent and imagine
themselves ``martyrs for the cause.''
We all know that's what will happen the minute this amendment goes
into force. More flag burnings and other despicable acts of disrespect
to the flag, not fewer. Will the amendment make these acts any more
despicable than they are today? Certainly not. Will it make us love the
flag any more than we do today? No. Will the new law deter these acts?
I doubt it.
I particularly doubt it in light of the testimony we heard before the
Judiciary Committee that supporters of the amendment think that the
punishment for violators of the statute that this amendment will allow
Congress to pass ought to be a citation and a fine, or maybe some
community service or required classes, not jail time. So now it turns
out we are going to amend the Bill of Rights, the very heart of the
Constitution, in order to give the Congress of the United States the
power to issue what the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary
Committee, Senator Leahy, aptly called ``traffic tickets'' to people
who burn the flag. To me that makes no sense at all.
General Brady of the Citizens Flag Alliance told the Judiciary
Committee that the government ought to require flag burners to attend
classes on the meaning and importance of the flag. Frankly that
sanction is even more troubling. As a sanction for expressing political
dissent, the government is going to force people to take classes to
understand the ``politically correct'' way to think about the flag. Are
``reeducation'' programs to become the American way?
What this debate is really about is not whether flag burning is a
good idea, not whether we love and respect our flag, but whether the
threat to our country from those who would burn the flag is so great
that we must sacrifice the power and majesty of the first amendment to
the Constitution in order to prosecute them.
is flag burning a problem?
Some argue that we must amend the Constitution in order to preserve
the symbolic value of the U.S. flag. They do so, however, in the
absence of any evidence that flag burning is rampant today, or that it
may be in the future. Perhaps more importantly, this amendment is
offered in the absence of any evidence that the symbolic value of the
flag has in any way been compromised.
No evidence has been offered to show that the handful of misguided
individuals who may burn a flag each year have any effect whatsoever on
this Nation's love of the flag or our democratic way of life. Respect
of this Nation for the flag is unparalleled. The citizens of this
Nation love and respect the flag for varied and deeply personal
reasons--not because the Constitution imposes this responsibility upon
them. As an editorial in the Lacrosse, Wisconsin, Tribune pointed out:
Allegiance that is voluntary is something beyond price. But
allegiance extracted by statute--or, worse yet, by
Constitutional fiat--wouldn't be worth the paper the
amendment was drafted on. It is the very fact that the flag
is voluntarily honored that makes it a great and powerful
symbol.
The suggestion that we can mandate, through an amendment to the
Constitution, respect for the flag or any other symbol ignores the
premise underlying patriotism. More importantly, it belies the
traditional notions of freedom found in our Constitution.
conclusion
Mr. President, the rights at the heart of this debate are far too
fundamental and far too important to be subjected to the uncertainty
created by this amendment. We must not abandon two centuries of free
expression in favor of an unwarranted and ill-defined standard which
allows government to choose whose political message is worthy of
protection and whose is not. This is counter to the very freedoms the
flag symbolizes.
The very idea that a handful of misguided people could cause this
Nation--a Nation which has, from its inception been a beacon of
individual liberty, a Nation which has defended, both at home and
abroad, the right of individuals to be free--to retreat from the
fundamental American principle that speech should not be regulated
based upon its content is cause for great concern.
We will be paying false tribute to the flag if in our zeal to protect
it we diminish the very freedoms it represents. The true promise of
this great Nation is rooted in our Constitution. Ultimately, the
fulfillment of this promise lies in preservation of this great
covenant, not just our symbols. If we sacrifice our principles,
ultimately our symbols will represent something less than they should.
The Capitol dome is not our Constitution. The national anthem is not
our form of government. And the flag, by itself, is not our Nation.
Yes, let us honor the ``broad stripes and bright stars * * * so
gallantly streaming.'' But we best honor that for which our flag stands
when we protect the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In that way,
we will best ensure that our Star Spangled Banner shall yet wave over a
land that is still free.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the Constitution Subcommittee. He
has been a leader on this issue and so many other constitutional issues
that protect the rights of all of us. He has done that ever since he
came to the Senate. I applaud him, not only for what he said here but
for his active work in the committee.
I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator, and my friend, from
Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. I know
this letter has been referenced previously, but I want to re-reference
it in light of what the Senator read from General Schwarzkopf. No less
a distinguished general, Gen. Colin Powell, has written a letter to
Senator Leahy:
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.
I am skipping down a paragraph:
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 found 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 unanimous consent to print in the Record this
letter from Gen. Colin Powell.
[[Page S1837]]
There being no objection, the material 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.
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 the 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.
P.S. The attached 1989 article by a Vietnam POW gave me
further inspiration for my position.
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 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 when 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.
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
Spartans, 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, but our freedom is our strength.
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? 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 America 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. KERRY. Mr. President, I have enormous respect for the patriotism
and the passion which so many of my fellow veterans bring to the effort
to protect the flag of our country. Many of them are my friends, and it
is never easy to disagree with friends on issues of conscience and
emotion. While, obviously, out of approximately 250 million Americans
there are a few miscreants, as Gen. Colin Powell says, who might choose
to desecrate the flag, the vast majority of Americans know better.
Americans rightfully love the Stars and Stripes for all it
symbolizes, for all the history, the glory, the promise, and the
possibilities that are carried within its four corners. As most
Americans, I feel the long honor roll of battles won and lost when I
see Old Glory marched in for the presentation of colors. I feel
unbridled pride watching her ripple in the breeze when we join together
to sing the national anthem. I feel the cloak of patriotism draped over
the coffin of a veteran to whom we bid farewell. Our flag is a stunning
symbol of all that has made us who we are.
In the end, it is a symbol. It is not who we are. Who we are is
embodied in the rights and obligations in the Constitution itself. A
desecrated flag is replaceable. Desecrated rights are lost forever to
those who experience the loss. What makes the United States different
and, in many ways, stronger than any other nation is our aspiration for
tolerance and diversity. Thanks to our Constitution, we are the leading
proponent on the face of this planet for the greatest experiment in
freedom that is set forth in words and in practice.
At the close of our national anthem, we sing, ``land of the free and
home of the brave.'' Were this amendment to pass, make no mistake about
it, we would certainly be a little less free and a lot less brave.
In the final analysis, there are eight powerful reasons for anyone,
but I think particularly for a veteran, to vote against this
constitutional retreat. They are: Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea,
China, Cuba, Syria, and Sudan. These are the nations of the world that
have laws banning flag desecration. They used to be joined by the South
Africa of apartheid and Nazi Germany.
I ask my fellow Senators: Is that what we want to do with the freedom
of the United States of America? Is this in keeping with all that our
great Stars and Stripes stands for? Is this for what soldiers fought
and died, so we could join this list of discredited, dictatorial
regimes?
Does the United States of America, in response to an occasional act
of defiance, ignorance, stupidity, and insolence, want to tremble and,
for the first time in an extraordinary 224 years
[[Page S1838]]
of challenges, alter the Constitution to diminish someone's right to be
stupid?
Our flag is stronger than any of those individual acts will ever be,
quite simply because our country is bigger and stronger than any of
those acts, and our country is bigger and stronger because of our
Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights.
This vote is not a test of patriotism because patriotism is, after
all, love of country and loyal support of one's country. Our country is
defined by the rights we protect, and my oath as a Senator is to defend
the Constitution which defines those rights. That is how I will vote,
and that is how I think my colleagues should vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 3 minutes. The
Senator from Utah has 5 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts for his statement as a decorated war veteran. He does not
have to prove his courage or his commitment to our country or our
symbols. He has already done that. He has done that in combat, and he
has done it to honor himself but also the country.
Everybody is talking about when we will come to this vote and whether
we should cut off debate. That will be a nonissue. I urge all Senators
to vote for cloture.
I also point out that if this is so important--we are going to set
aside all kinds of time today to do other things--we ought to spend
time on this. We are talking about amending the Constitution, and we
are talking about amending the Bill of Rights, contrary to what has
been said on this floor, to amend the Bill of Rights for the first time
in our 200-year history. I hope we will not do it.
There has been reference to one of our first flags, a flag that was
designed in my State of Vermont and flew in battles there. I have that
same flag in my office. As we all know, any flag, once used by the
United States, can be used as a legitimate symbol of our country. I
chose to fly the flag in Vermont.
Like all Vermonters, I revere the symbol. Every day when I am home in
Vermont, that flag flies bravely and safely because nobody would touch
it. Nobody would seek to destroy it. Nobody would burn the flag that
flies in my front yard. We revere it and we praise it, not because we
are required by law to do so, but because we want to as Americans, as
Vermonters.
Every town hall in Vermont flies the American flag. Every one of our
public meetings shows the Vermont flag. But I point out to all
Senators, that one of the first flags of the country came from the
State of Vermont. I will also tell you, Vermont is the only State in
the Union that has not asked for a constitutional amendment on burning
the flag. Why? Because we Vermonters do not need to be told by law or
Constitution that we should show respect for the symbols of our
country. We do it because we want to. We do not do it because the law
requires us.
We are not like Cuba or China or Libya or Iraq or Iran or those
countries that require a law to make people respect their flags and
their symbols. We do it from our heart and from our sense of
patriotism. That is the way most Americans are. We do not need a law to
tell us to be patriotic.
Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate finally began the debate on S.J.
Res. 14, the proposal to amendment the First Amendment of the
Constitution to cut back on political protest and expression for the
first time in our history. Earlier this week, on Monday and Tuesday
morning, the debate was focused on the Hollings amendment and the
McConnell amendment in accordance with the Senate agreement governing
this matter.
Only Senator Hatch and I spoke for any length of time at all on the
underlying proposed amendment on Tuesday morning. The debate then
resumed after the votes on Tuesday afternoon. By my estimate, the
Senate has spent less than 3 hours debating the proposed constitutional
amendment.
Rather than continue that debate and conclude it, the majority is
insisting that we now divert ourselves with an unnecessary cloture
vote. The interruption of debate for this vote is unfortunate. I have
said to the Republican manager from the outset that I did not believe
the debate would be extended unnecessarily, but that I wanted to ensure
that Senators had their rights protected so that any Senator who wished
to be heard on this proposal to amend the Constitution, could be heard.
On Monday, the Senate heard from Senators McConnell, Bennett, Dorgan,
Conrad, Hollings, Smith and Sessions. Yesterday, thoughtful statements
were made by Senators Feingold, Durbin, Wellstone, Kennedy, Kerrey,
Robb and Moynihan articulating a number of reasons for opposing the
amendment. In addition, the Senate heard from Senators Hatch and
Feinstein in favor of the amendment. Today, I expect to hear from
Senators Byrd, Daschle, Kerry, Feingold, Chafee and perhaps others.
At the outset we were confronted by a demand that we agree to limit
statements in opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment to a
total of 2 hours. Amending the Constitution is a serious matter,
entitled to more time than the Senate spends on ceremonial resolutions.
Two hours seemed unnecessarily restrictive.
Had we so limited the debate we may not have had the benefit of the
extraordinary moments on the Senate floor last night when Senator Bob
Kerrey, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his valor
in Vietnam, spoke to us from his heart about our country, our values
and our flag. We may not have heard a riveting address from Senator
Charles Robb, himself a Marine highly-decorated for his service in
Vietnam, in which he demonstrated his strength and consistency as one
who fights for the Constitution and the values that make this country
great.
We may have missed the opportunity to hear from Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, a veteran of World War II, and the most knowledgeable
of Senators, whom we will sorely miss when he retires at the end of
this Congress after his extraordinary service to this nation. I urge
those who were not here to experience that debate to read their
thoughts and wise counsel.
I have every expectation that we could conclude the debate today in
an orderly fashion. I know of no Senator who has threatened a
filibuster on this matter. I know of no Senator who intends to engage
in dilatory tactics. I know of no Senator who intends to offer any
additional amendments or series of amendments. I know of no Senator who
is using the rules of the Senate to delay the final vote on this
matter. Accordingly, I know of no reason for the Republican leadership
to have filed this petition for cloture and know of no reason for them
to persist in insisting on this cloture vote this morning.
The Republican majority's timing of this debate has been strange for
a long time. Last Congress, there was a half-hearted attempt to have
the Senate consider the proposed constitutional amendment toward the
end of a session when the majority knew that Senator Glenn was
necessarily absent in connection with his NASA mission. Last year there
was a rush to report the proposed constitutional amendment from the
Judiciary Committee in April and then no effort to consider it before
the full Senate. Indeed, while the matter was voted out of the
Committee on April 29, 1999, the Committee Report was not filed until
11 months later. The Republican leadership took almost a year to decide
to turn to the matter, then filed a cloture petition on the first day
of debate and now insists on a vote on cloture after just 3 hours of
debate on the merits of the proposed constitutional amendment.
In fact, this cloture vote and our debate on it only diverts us from
finishing the debate on the merits of the proposed constitutional
amendment. This cloture petition and vote say more about the lack of
seriousness of the Republican leadership with regard to this debate
than anything else.
I have no doubt that the Senate will invoke cloture this morning. I
also have no doubt that this hour would have been better spent debating
the merits of the proposal.
Does the Senate know what we will do after cloture is invoked this
morning? Lest anyone think that we will be staying on the proposed
constitutional amendment to conclude debate and proceed to vote on the
merits, let me
[[Page S1839]]
disabuse them of any such notion. No, following the cloture vote, the
Senate is scheduled to proceed to two hours of unrelated debate and the
introduction of other matter in morning business.
We will not be resuming debate on the proposed constitutional
amendment until at least 12:30 this afternoon. At that time many of us
in the Senate leadership are scheduled to be meeting with the President
of Egypt. So this closing debate on the amendment will take place later
this afternoon and possibly into this evening.
Just as the Bill of Rights serves to protect the minority in the
country and the First Amendment protects even unpopular speech, so it
is the role of the minority manager to protect the rights of those who
wish to be heard in opposition to a Senate proposal. The rules of the
Senate accord us at least that right. I know of at least five Senators
who still wish to be heard in opposition to the amendment. As the
minority manager of the bill, I am seeking to accommodate them and then
to proceed to the final vote. I fully expect that we will reach the
appropriate time for the vote long before the 30 hours of post-cloture
debate would be consumed. I look forward to cooperating with the
Democratic leader, the majority leader, and the Republican manager of
the proposed constitutional amendment to bring this matter to
conclusion at the earliest appropriate time after the completion of
debate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been interested in these arguments
because, if I recall it correctly, the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts has said that basically America is different from the
long list of repressive regimes or dictatorial regimes--from Cuba, to
North Korea, to Nazi Germany--because we do not have a law prohibiting
flag desecration.
But until 1989, we had State laws, in nearly all of the States,
prohibiting flag desecration. If I recall it correctly, I believe the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is saying we should not have a
State law protecting the flag. If I recall it correctly, he voted for
the flag statute to protect the flag back in 1989, and just yesterday
voted for the McConnell amendment which would have done the same thing.
Now look, there is a certain ``elitism'' around here in this country
that literally is saying: We are above having to protect the flag of
the United States. If somebody defecates on it or urinates on it, we do
not want to give them any publicity for that.
It is kind of the ``high society'' approach to things. If you want to
be a member of the ``high society'' group, then don't do the
``unintellectual'' thing to protect our flag. That is what is getting
me about this.
We had, for 200 years, in 48 States, anti-flag-desecration statutes
that protected the flag. These very people who are saying we cannot do
this in a constitutional amendment, to give the Congress the power, the
coequal right, to protect our flag, and ignore the Supreme Court, that
is wrong in these 5-4 decisions, these two decisions--they said we
cannot do this in this constitutional amendment--yet many of them voted
for an anti-flag-desecration statute back in 1989, and yesterday many
of them voted for the McConnell amendment.
Until the Supreme Court struck down these 48 States' statutes in
1990, we had a Federal statute protecting the flag. I cannot believe
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was arguing that in those
days, when we had flag protection statutes in the States and the
Federal Government, we were like Nazi Germany or Cuba or North Korea or
Iran or Iraq. That is something that really bothers me.
I look at those marines risking their lives in raising the flag on
Iwo Jima. They revered that flag, just as we do today. Eighty percent
of the people in this country revere this flag--in fact, I hope
everybody does--and want this constitutional amendment.
If we had any sense of proportion, we Members of Congress should want
to overrule those two Supreme Court decisions. The only way we can do
it is with a constitutional amendment. In that process, we prove we are
coequal to the judicial branch of Government and will protect our flag
in the process. We will be a better Nation for it.
If we do it, we will create a debate on morals and values around this
country in all 50 States that, sadly, is lacking at this particular
time. We will, for once in our lives, stand up and say to our children,
there are some values and some symbols--at least one symbol in our
country that is extremely important to us, and that happens to be this
flag of the United States of America.
I think there are very sincere people on the other side of this
issue. I do not mean to malign them. But I have to say, I get
particularly upset when I hear these arguments, as I have heard this
morning, when, in fact, they vote for statutes that would protect the
flag, the very thing they are arguing against. It seems a little
inconsistent to me.
All we are saying is, give the Congress the power to do this, and
then we will enact a statute for which they voted.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senator's time has
expired.
Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 98,
S. J. Res. 14, an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical
desecration of the flag of the United States.
Trent Lott, Orrin Hatch, Bill Roth, Peter Fitzgerald, Rod
Grams, Ted Stevens, Chuck Hagel, Thad Cochran, Paul
Coverdell, Pat Roberts, Phil Gramm, Frank H. Murkowski,
Don Nickles, Bob Smith of New Hampshire, Susan Collins,
and Tim Hutchinson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call under
the rule is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S.J.
Res. 14, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution
of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical
desecration of the flag of the United States, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call
the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 47 Leg.]
YEAS--100
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 100, the nays are
0. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a number of
letters and other statements pertaining to this amendment be printed in
the Record at a cost of $1,300.00.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
March 22, 2000.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: As you prepare for the introduction of
the flag protection amendment in the United States Senate, on
behalf of the Citizens Flag Alliance and our millions of
members and supporters, I want
[[Page S1840]]
to again extend our thanks and commend you for the commitment
you made, long ago, in support of the right of the people to
protect our flag. Thanks to the leadership of you and Senator
Max Cleland we are very close to victory.
Of all the horrors of combat, none is greater than the
loneliness. In death and near death experiences, the warrior
is ultimately alone with his fears and hopes. In their
loneliness, soldiers look to symbols for comfort--a letter, a
photo, a holy medal, a lock of hair. And they look to the
greatest conqueror of fear, the greatest symbol of hope, the
constant companion of our warriors and their supreme
inspiration--Old Glory. No other symbol, nothing, says
better, ``you are not alone.''
For many veterans much of what they have, their very
dignity, is based on their service and sacrifice under that
flag. It was the defining moment of their life. An attack on
Old Glory is an attack on their dignity. These great men and
women know how important speech is in a democracy, many have
died for it. What they do not understand is that defecating
on our flag is ``speech.'' And neither did the author of the
Bill of Rights, James Madison and his colleague, Thomas
Jefferson. Both denounced flag burning.
Abraham Lincoln warned, ``Don't interfere with anything in
the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only
safeguard of our liberties.'' It is not the colored cloth
that is at the core of the flag amendment debate, it is our
sacred Constitution. All veterans once raised their hand and
swore to protect and defend the Constitution. Each of us does
the same when we pledge allegiance to the flag. The Supreme
Court has interfered with our Constitution and we have an
obligation to correct their error. The flag amendment does
not change the Constitution, it restores it.
To those of your colleagues who are yet to join in support
of the measure, we hope they would come to recognize as we
have, that there are good and learned people on both sides of
this issue, as well as varying opinions. There is, however,
only one fact and that is that the people of America want
returned to them the right to protect their flag.
In the final analysis this issue is truly about free
speech, the right of the people to speak, to be heard and to
be heeded.
Sincerely,
Patrick H. Brady,
Major General (USA Ret),
Chairman of the Board.
____
The Citizens Flag Alliance, Inc.,
Indianapolis, IN, April 22, 1999.
Baltimore Sun,
Baltimore, MD.
To the Editor: This is in response to your editorial on
April 10 titled, ``Burning Issue; Constitutional Ban: Flag
Desecration Amendment Would Chip Away At Free-Speech
Rights.''
The scarcity of flag burning has nothing to do with the
evil of flag burning. People do not frequently shout,
``fire'' in a crowded theater or burn crosses, but we still
should, and do, have laws against these evils. Laws in our
society have never been based on frequency but on right and
wrong.
Flag desecration is conduct not speech. One could make the
argument that defacing the Washington Monument or spray
painting graffiti on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a form
of ``political demonstration or protest.'' That argument,
however, would not hold up in a court of law. And it's wrong
to hold that defacing the Flag of the United States is any
different.
If free speech is to truly flourish, we must protect the
bond that unites us, including the substantive parameters of
the right of free expression. We must strengthen the bonds
that hold us together, and so make it possible to engage in
robust disagreement with each other. Protecting the flag lays
the foundation for this objective.
The great strength of our democratic system is that we have
the ability to determine the laws that govern our society.
Our forefathers had the insight to create a document that
allowed for WE THE PEOPLE to determine the future of our
country. As George Washington admitted, ``The Constitution is
an imperfect document made more perfect by the amendment
process.'' Apparently the editors mistrust the good judgment
of the American people. And George Washington.
Sincerely,
Marty Justis,
Executive Director.
____
The Citizens Flag Alliance, Inc.,
Indianapolis, IN, April 23, 1999.
Washington Post,
Letters to the Editor,
Washington, DC.
To the Editor: The Clinton Administration apparently was
miffed at the thought of a Justice Department official being
upstaged by a Harvard Law Professor and a Medal of Honor
Recipient (``In The Loop,'' April 21).
On Tuesday, April 20 I was seated in the Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing room, flanked by five Medal of Honor
Recipients from World War II and Korea. All were awarded our
nation's highest award for valor. In most cases, the Medal of
Honor is presented to its recipient by the President of the
United States of America in the name of Congress. So it is
ironic that the Administration would consider it
``inappropriate'' to testify on the same panel as our
nation's Recipients.
But the irony does not stop there. At the same time our
President is sending men and women into Kosova to serve under
the flag, our Administration is testifying against protecting
the very same symbol that will drape the coffins of those
whose final earthly embrace will be in the folds of Old
Glory. If our flag is not deserving of protection, then it is
not worthy to be draped on the coffins of our dead soldiers.
Several months ago, the fate of our President resided in
the hands of Congress. But the American people ultimately had
the final voice in the debate. Polls show that the American
people consistently and overwhelmingly want to see their flag
protected. If polling figures saved the President, then they
can save our flag. Ultimately, the American people will
decide this issue. That is justice even the Justice
Department cannot ignore.
Sincerely,
Daniel S. Wheeler,
President.
____
Grand Lodge, Benevolent and
Protective Order of Elks,
Gainesville, FL, May 4, 1999.
Senator Orrin Hatch,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: It was a pleasure meeting you last week
just prior to the start of the hearing on the Flag Amendment.
You were most kind to make time in your busy schedule to
speak with me. As the National President of the Elks, I can
tell you that our million plus membership is fiercely
patriotic and hard at work seeking the passage of an
Amendment which would prohibit the desecration of our beloved
American Flag. In our Order's Ritual we refer to the flag as
follows:
``This is the flag of our Country, the emblem of freedom
and the symbol of unity. As Americans and patriots we first
place it beside our Altar. And as the American Flag typifies
the glory of our nation we have adopted it as emblematic of
the cardinal principle of our Order--Charity.''
Please know that the Elks are among your greatest
supporters. We admire your even temperament and your
outstanding leadership and take comfort in knowing men of
your caliber are at the reins of our government.
Thank you and God bless you.
Sincerely,
C. Valentine Bates,
Grand Exalted Ruler.
____
Knights of Columbus,
New Haven, CT, March 16, 1999.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Senate Judiciary Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: As Supreme Knight of the Knights of
Columbus, with approximately one million members--plus our
families--in the United States, and one of the 137 member
organizations of the Citizens Flag Alliance, Inc., I ask you
to support the Hatch Flag Protection Constitutional
Amendment. I urge you to follow the wisdom of the American
people who, in poll after poll, have indicated strong support
for protection of ``The Stars and Stripes.''
This issue is not about freedom of speech, nor is it about
protecting a piece of colored cloth. It is about the American
people reclaiming the right to protect their flag. This is a
right we enjoyed for 200 years prior to the 1989 Supreme
Court decision in Texas v. Johnson.
Nearly eveyone agrees that desecration of the flag is
wrong, but the lesson it teaches our children is worse.
Therefore, when you consider your vote, I ask that you think
about not just America's flag, but America's young people.
The support you give to this issue will determine the legacy
we leave for our children--a nation of respect and pride in
country, or a society void of responsibility and moral
compass.
With best wishes, I am,
Sincerely,
Virgil C. Dechant,
Supreme Knight.
____
Fraternal Order of Police,
National Legislative Program,
Washington, DC, April 13, 1999.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing this letter on behalf of
the more than 277,000 members of the Grand Lodge, Fraternal
Order of Police to advise you of the strong support of S.J.
Res. 14, which would amend the Constitution to give Congress
to power to prohibit the physical desecration of our nation's
flag.
Attempts by the Congress to protect the flag statutorily
have failed to withstand judicial review. The Supreme Court
has, in two narrow 5-4 decisions, overturned statutes
prohibiting physical desecration of the flag. Amending the
Constitution is the only way to return to the American people
the right to protect their flag.
Flag burning is not free speech; it is an act of
vandalism--a hate crime, pure and simple. What is the
difference in the political statement made by a vandal
torching the American flag and a terrorist who makes his
political statement by blowing up government buildings? Quite
simply, there is no difference. The American people recognize
that, and Congress ought to recognize it by passing this
amendment.
When we bury a hero, a brother or sister from the ranks of
our military or our police
[[Page S1841]]
departments, a flag is draped over the coffin. It is folded
solemnly and presented to the surviving members of the family
in remembrance of the one who gave his or her life. Whether a
soldier fighting a foreign enemy on a foreign shore, or a
police officer killed in the line of duty--the sacrifice of
each is symbolized by the flag. To desecrate this symbol is
to dishonor that sacrifice. To use freedom or liberty as a
shield to commit a crime is no more than base cynicism and a
very real miscomprehension of the American concept of
liberty.
I salute you, Mr. Chairman, for your sponsorship of Senate
Joint Resolution 14, and join you in urging all members of
the United States Senate to protect our flag from those who
would dishonor our nation and its heroes.
If we can be of any further assistance to you in moving
this bill forward, please do not hesitate to contact me or
Executive Director Jim Pasco at my Washington office, (202)
547-8189.
Sincerely,
Gilbert Gallegos,
National President.
____
The American Legion,
Washington Office,
Washington, DC, April 14, 1999.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: On behalf of the 4 million members of
the American Legion family, I want to personally thank you
for sponsoring S.J. Res. 14, the Flag Protection
Constitutional Amendment. We truly realize how important
passage of this amendment is to the future of our children.
It is imperative that we return to the American people the
right to protect the U.S. Flag. I can assure you that
Legionnaires and their families will do everything possible
throughout our great nation to assist you in getting S.J.
Res. 14 passed this year.
The majority of Americans support this amendment. Polling
during the past 10 years has consistently shown nearly 80
percent of voters believe protecting the U.S. Flag through a
constitutional amendment is the right thing to do. They do
not believe such protection is a threat to freedom of speech.
I am certain you were as touched as I in reading the
reports of our stealth pilot rescued from Yugoslavia. He
carried an American flag, folded under his flight suit. The
flag was given to him by an airman before he took off from
Aviano Air Base in Italy. Following his rescue the pilot told
reporters, ``For me, it (the flag) was representative of all
the people who I knew were praying. It was a piece of
everyone and very comforting. It helped me not go of hope.
Hope gives you strength * * * it gives you endurance.''
My heart also swelled with pride when I saw an Associated
Press photo of a flyer from the 31st Air Expeditionary Wing
at Aviano waving an American flag to boost morale as U.S. war
planes prepared to launch another series of strikes in
support of NATO's Operation ALLIED FORCE.
The U.S. Flag is a powerful symbol. A living symbol of our
great nation. Providing a special place in the U.S.
Constitution that protects our flag is what Americans want
and deserve.
I stand ready to assist you in any way that will help
assure passage of this amendment. I know that your
encouragement of your fellow Senators will make the crucial
difference.
Thank you again for your sponsorship of S.J. Res. 14.
Sincerely,
Harold L. ``Butch'' Miller,
National Commander.
____
Air Force Sergeants Association,
Temple Hills, MD, April 14, 1999.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I respectfully request that you permit
consideration of and introduction into the record the
attached statement concerning Flag Protection. The statements
reflects the position of the 150,000 members of this
association which represents active and retired enlisted
members of the active and reserve components of the United
States Air Force.
The statement would coincide with the hearing scheduled
before your committee for April 20, 1999, concerning the same
project. Thank you for the opportunity to share the concerns
of our members with your committee.
Sincerely,
James D. Staton,
Executive Director.
Attachment.
Statement by James D. Staton, Chief Master Sergeant, USAF (Ret.),
Executive Director, Air Force Sergeants Association
Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, numerous
polls in recent times have shown that over 80 percent of the
American people say that they should have the right to decide
the question of flag protection through the constitutional
amendment process. In fact, all but one state have passed
memorializing resolutions asking Congress to send the flag
protection amendment question to the states. Senate Joint
Resolution 14 would give the American people the opportunity
they desire to protect their flag through law. S.J. Res. 14
would send to the people a very simple article: ``The
Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical
desecration of the flag of the United States.'' The 150,000
members of the Air Force Sergeants Association urge you to
support this resolution. AFSA represents the millions of
active duty and retired enlisted Air Force, Air Force
Reserve, and Air National Guard members and their families.
These Americans, perhaps more than any others, have a vested
interest in that they put their lives on the line under the
banner of this sacred symbol of greatness and sovereignty.
All members of the 106th Congress should support this
resolution in order to put this important decision in the
hands of the people. If the congressional representatives
truly represent the will of the people, there should be no
delay in acting upon the wishes of the people by allowing
them to rule on this question. The personal feelings and
opinions of elected representatives on this issue should be
subordinated to opinions held by those to whom the elected
officials are responsible--those who own the process. Our
members have strongly communicated their concern over the
need to protect the flag and, at the same time, to have a
role in deciding the laws governing that protection.
For enlisted military members, whose work is characterized
by dedicated sacrifice, the flag is a reminder of why they
serve. For those stationed overseas, it is a symbol of
America, seen every day. For all military members, the flag
represents the principles for which they are prepared to
sacrifice. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens once
wrote:
``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, too, the American flag 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 people who
share our aspirations.''
Military members serve so that they can protect this
country, putting their lives on the line if necessary, and
they revere our nation's most visible symbol--Old Glory. It
is the one hallowed symbol all patriots hold sacred. Most
importantly, the flag plays a central role in ceremonies that
honor those who have fought, suffered and died. They know
full well that this very flag may drape their coffins as a
result of their unselfish service. Denying protection and,
thereby allowing desecration, of this important symbol of
sacrifice insults the memories of those who are honored in
these ceremonies.
The American people, especially those in the military,
deserve the opportunity to make the decision if they want to
put flag protection into the law. Through their sacrifice and
dedication, those who have served have earned your support in
giving them the ability to make this decision.
Mr. Chairman and committee members, we urge your full
support of S.J. Res. 14. Some questions of governance and law
are of such importance to a people that they deserve the
opportunity to speak directly to those issues. This is one
such question. We thank you for this opportunity to present
our views on this important matter. As always, AFSA is ready
to support you on matters of mutual concern.
____
The American Legion,
National Headquarters,
Indianapolis, April 23, 1999.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: On September 5, 1989, American Legion
delegates at the National Convention in Baltimore, Maryland,
unanimously adopted a resolution seeking adoption and
ratification of a flag-protection amendment. In every year
since, the issue has been debated at every national
convention and at every meeting of the National Executive
Committee, and a new resolution authorizing continuation of
the campaign has been adopted. Each resolution supporting a
flag-protection amendment passed unanimously with all Past
National Commanders having a right to be heard. Past National
Commander Keith Kreul, who, as a PNC and delegate to the
National Conventions, has both a voice and a vote in the
making of Legion policy, has never publicly uttered a word in
opposition.
As National Commander, it is my duty, and privilege, to
serve a one-year term as the executive head of The American
Legion with full power to enforce the provisions of the
National Constitution and by-laws as well as the resolutions
of the National Convention. And this national commander
fervently supports the flag-protection amendment, as do all
living Past National Commanders of The American Legion, save
one.
In honor of their service, I would like to enter into the
record the 28 Past National Commanders of The American Legion
who have given of themselves for God and Country and who
stand with me in their support of an amendment which would
return to the American people the right to protect their
flag. They are listed below in order of service.
E. Roy Stone, Jr.--South Carolina
Erle Cocke, Jr.--Georgia
J. Addington Wagner--Michigan
Preston J. Moore--Oklahoma
[[Page S1842]]
William R. Burke--California
Hon. Daniel F. Foley--Minnesota
Donald E. Johnson--Iowa
William E. Galbraith--Nebraska
John H. Geiger--Illinois
Joe L. Matthews--Texas
James M. Wagonseller--Ohio
William J. Rogers--Maine
John M. Carey--Michigan
Frank I. Hamilton--Indiana
Michael J. Kogutek--New York
Clarence M. Bacon--Maryland
Hon. James P. Dean--Mississippi
John P. Comer--Massachusetts
Hon. H.F. Gierke--North Dakota
Miles S. Epling--West Virginia
Robert S. Turner--Georgia
Dominic D. DiFrancesco--Pennsylvania
Roger A. Munson--Ohio
Bruce Thiesen--California
William M. Detweiler--Louisiana
Daniel A. Ludwig--Minnesota
Joseph J. Frank--Missouri
Anthony G. Jordan--Maine
Their service spans nearly five decades. Many served in
their position in an era when our flag was protected under
law. Only ten of us have served since the erroneous 1989
Texas v. Johnson Supreme Court decision which invalidated
flag protection laws in 48 states and the District of
Columbia.
I am proud to be among this elite group of distinguished
gentlemen who stand united in a common goal--passage of a
flag-protection amendment.
Sincerely,
Harold L. ``Butch'' Miller,
National Commander.
____
The Ohio American Legion,
Department Headquarters,
Columbus OH, March 10, 1999.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: The Ohio American Legion, consisting of
165,000 members, is supportive of a Constitutional Amendment
to protect the U.S. Flag from physical desecration.
We urge your favorable consideration and vote for a measure
that will allow the American people what polls have shown for
years they favor, the right to have their flag protected by
laws of the land.
Sincerely,
Carl Swisher,
Department Commander.
____
Los Angeles Dodgers,
Los Angeles, CA, March 22, 2000.
Senator Orrin Hatch,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: As I have said many, many times before,
we live in the land of opportunity and the United States flag
represents a strong bond between the States and the diversity
of the greatest nation on the fact of the earth. At no time,
should our flag be destroyed in any manner.
During my career, I was fortunate to be involved in many
exciting baseball games. Yet, one of the proudest moments
occurred in 1976 when Rick Monday saved the American flag
from being burned by a pair of protestors at Dodger Stadium.
This act was one of the most recognizable moments of the
Bicentennial Celebration and remains one of the great moments
in stadium history.
I tell this story to every patriotic group whenever the
subject of the American flag arises. Therefore, I lend my
full support to the SJR-14, The Hatch-Cleland Flag Protection
Constitutional Amendment, which will protect and defend our
flag as it was designed by the framers of the Constitution.
Sincerely,
Tommy Lasorda,
Senior Vice President.
____
Salon National La Boutique,
Washington, UT, March 13, 1999.
To: The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Gentlemen: I am writing as the National Chapeau of the
Eight and Forty a subsidiary organization of the American
Legion Auxiliary, consisting of 17,144 Partners (members). We
are asking that when the measure to pass a constitutional
amendment to protect our flag comes before you that you
unanimously approve the bill.
I have just recently had the opportunity to help judge
girls who are in their Junior year of High School to attend
the American Legion Auxiliary Girls State. One of the
questions we asked each applicant was how they felt regarding
a bill to protect our flag and each and every girl said she
felt that there should be a law protecting our flag from
desecration.
So for both the young people of our country and the older
people who have fought to protect our country, we of the
Eight and Forty ask you to support this bill.
Yours in Service to our Country,
Wanda S. North,
Le Chapeau National.
____
NCOA,
Alexandria, VA, April 15, 1999.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: The Noncommissioned Officers
Association of the USA (NCOA) has joined with the Citizens
Flag Alliance (CFA) to support the efforts of many in
Congress to pass a Flag protection amendment. NCOA's 148,000
members are solidly committed to the passage of Flag
protection legislation and have placed the issue among their
very highest legislative priorities. In this regard NCOA is
delighted with the recent introduction of S.J. Res. 14 in the
U.S. Senate.
On behalf of NCOA's noncommissioned and petty officer
members, I fully expect the members of Senate Judiciary
Committee to approve legislation and pave the way for the
matter of Flag protection to be brought to the Senate floor
for vote in an expeditious manner. NCOA urges your support of
S.J. Res. 14.
In closing allow me to reiterate the importance of this
matter to NCOA members and their families. The will never
give up on this issue and look to you to support their
desires to see Flag protection legislation passed during the
1st Session of the 106th Congress.
Sincerely,
Roger W. Putnam,
President/CEO.
____
The Retired Officers Association,
Alexandria, VA, March 23, 2000.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: On behalf of The Retired Officers
Association, I am writing to urge you to cosponsor and vote
for final passage of 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.''
The fundamental principle in supporting the Resolution is
that it will allow the people to exercise their will. This is
a very important distinction. We do not believe it's
appropriate that a minority in Congress, in this case 34
Senators, should have the power to keep this important
decision from being considered by the people. Consistent with
the democratic principles that have governed this country for
more than two centuries, the Flag Amendment restores the
decision on flag desecration to the people and if ratified by
38 states, flag desecration could be prohibited.
That's a second important distinction. The proposed
amendment will not change the Constitution to prohibit flag
desecration. It would authorize Congress to pass a law
prohibiting physical desecration of the flag and as is the
case with any law, it would be subject to Presidential veto.
This language is a change from the 104th Congress when the
resolution said Congress, or the states, may pass laws
prohibiting flag desecration. That could have led to 50
different laws resulting in consistent standards of respect
for the flag.
Based on the foregoing, I urge you to vote for passage of
S.J. Res. 14 to return control of the flag to the people
where it resided for more than 200 years before the United
States Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that flag desecration was
essentially freedom of speech.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Nelson,
President.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, March 28, 2000.
Dear Senator Hatch: We appreciate your efforts in bringing
S.J. Res. 14 through the Senate Judiciary Committee and to
the Senate floor. We recognize the importance of this
important legislation to protect the flag of the United
States.
Many people are concerned that such an amendment would
limit our prized right of free speech. However, the right of
free speech is not an absolute right. The Supreme Court
unanimously ruled in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S.
568 (1942):
``Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose
of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the
right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under
all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and
narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and
punishment of which have never been thought to raise any
Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene,
the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or `fighting'
words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or
tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been
well observed that such utterances are no essential part of
any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value
as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from
them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order
and morality.''
Burning the Nation's flag is anything but a necessary part
of a political speech or exposition of ideas. It seems that
little can be gained by burning or spitting on a flag which
could not be accomplished through words, signs, newspapers,
rallies, buttons, bullhorns, or petitions. The act of burning
the nation's flag by its very nature antagonizes and incites
violent reaction. It is conduct, not speech.
This amendment authorizes legislative bodies to prohibit
physical desecration with regard to one object, and one
object only, our nation's flag. We can protect this one
unique object from physical desecration without damaging our
freedom of speech in any way.
In the words of Chief Justice Rehnquist, ``The American
flag . . . throughout more than 200 years of our history, has
come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It
[[Page S1843]]
does not represent the views of any particular political
party, and it does not represent any particular political
philosophy. The flag is not simply another ``idea'' or
``point of view'' competing for recognition in the
marketplace of ideas.'' Let us act now to protect the symbol
of our nation's liberty and freedom.
Sincerely,
James V. Hansen.
Chris Cannon.
Merrill J. Cook.
____
George W. Bush,
Governor of Texas,
Austin, TX, March 24, 2000.
Greetings to: The Members of the American Legion.
Congratulations as you gather with family and friends in
the capital of a grateful nation that you served so bravely.
Coming together in Washington, D.C., is a powerful reminder
that those who want to lead America accept two important
obligations. One is to use our military power wisely,
remembering the costs of war. The other is to remember our
soldiers who have paid those costs.
The American Legion helps us to carry out those
obligations. You defend and recall America's history of
sacrifice. You stand as a friend to the families of our
fallen soldiers. You serve America's communities in countless
ways--an example of true service in a comfortable age.
One of the most enduring symbols of your sacrifice and
service is our nation's flag. Brave Americans have fought and
died to protect the ideals of democracy that it represents.
That is why I strongly support a constitutional amendment
protecting the flag from desecration--to honor our courageous
veterans and to send the unmistakable message that Old Glory
is a sacred symbol of freedom to all Americans.
I believe our government should honor our commitments to
our veterans as you have honored yours.
Laura joins me in sending our best wishes to each and every
one of you.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush.
____
April 5, 1999.
Dear Senator Hatch: I am writing to express my support and
gratitude for your sponsorship of the flag protection
constitutional amendment (S.J. Res. 14), which I understand
may come before the Senate for a vote in the near future.
Like you, I regard legal protections for our flag as an
absolute necessity and a matter of critical importance to our
nation. The American flag, far from a mere symbol or a piece
of cloth, is an embodiment of our hopes, freedoms and unity.
The flag is our national identity.
I am honored to have commanded our troops in the Persian
Gulf War and humbled by the bravery, sacrifice and ``love of
country'' so many great Americans exhibited in that conflict.
These men and women fought and died for the freedoms
contained in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and for
the flag that represents these freedoms, and their service
and valor are worthy of our eternal respect. Most of these
great heroes share my view that there is no threat to any
right or freedom in protecting the flag for which they
fought. Perhaps as much as any American, they embrace the
right to free speech. Indeed, they risked death to protect
it.
I do see a very real threat in the defilement of our flag.
We are a diverse people, living in a complicated, fragmented
society. And I believe we are imperiled by a growing cynicism
toward certain traditions that bind us, particularly service
to our nation. The flag remains the single, preeminent
connection among all Americans. It represents our basic
commitment to each other and to our country. Legally
sanctioned flag desecration can only serve to further
undermine this national unity and identity that must be
preserved.
I am proud to lend my voice to those of a vast majority of
Americans who support returning legal protections for the
flag. This is an effort inspired by our nation's history and
our common traditions and understanding, under which, until a
very recent and controversial Supreme Court decision, the
American flag was afforded legal protection from acts of
desecration. The flag protection constitutional amendment is
the only means of returning to the people the right to
protect their flag, and your leadership will undoubtedly help
to ensure the success of this important campaign.
Sincerely,
H. Norman Schwarzkopf,
General, U.S. Army, Retired.
____
The Citizens Flag Alliance, Inc.,
Indianapolis, IN, April 22, 1999.
USA Today,
Arlington, VA.
To the Editor: To say that to, ``ban flag burning gains
ground by hiding risks,'' (``Don't Amend Bill Of Rights,''
editorial, April 21, 1999) hides the truth. You also hide the
truth by saying the First Amendment has never been amended.
The truth is Americans had the right to protect their flag
from our birth until 1989 when the Supreme Court amended the
First Amendment by calling flag burning ``speech.'' What were
the risks? You denigrate the ``political opportunists who
want to rewrite the wisdom of James Madison.'' Those
political opportunists are the vast majority of the American
people, and James Madison agrees with them. He denounced flag
burning, as did another founding father, Thomas Jefferson.
This issue has nothing to do with ``feel-good politics.''
Flag burning is wrong but what it teaches our children about
respect, about our values, about who owns the Constitution
and the demeaning of the will of the majority, is worse.
The majority of Americans understand the importance of free
speech; many have died for it. What they do not understand is
that defecating on the flag is ``speech.'' The only majority
in America who feel good about the freedom to burn the
American flag are the media and 5 out of 9 judges on the
Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady,
U.S. Army, Ret.,
Chairman of the Board.
____
April 26, 1999.
St. Louis Post Dispatch,
Attention: Letters to the Editor,
Reached via fax: (314) 340-3139.
Dear Editor: The recent editorial, ``Desecrating the
Constitution'' (April 21), is a clear example of the complete
disregard by a slim minority of the media to follow the good
judgement of the American people.
The editors of the Post Dispatch should undertake a more
studied analysis of the flag amendment before jumping to
conclusions. The first line of the editorial reads, ``Our
nation has made it through 208 years without amending the
First Amendment.'' The U.S. Flag, which predates the
Constitution, was protected under our nation's law and
traditions for 200 years. A razor thin, five-Justice majority
of the Supreme Court wrested this right from the American
people in 1989 when they invalidated flag-protection laws in
48 states and the District of Columbia.
This tradition and precedent has been recognized by
Justices on five previous Supreme Courts. In fact, Justice
Hugo Black, perhaps the staunchest defender of individual
rights ever to sit on the Supreme Court, stated, ``It passes
my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars . .
. making the deliberate burning of the American flag an
offense.''
In every sense, an amendment to return to the American
people the right to protect their flag would change nothing
in the Constitution. Nor would it infringe our precious First
Amendment rights. On the contrary, it would restore the
Constitution and the First Amendment to a time-honored
interpretation and understanding that existed for all but the
last ten years of our history.
The editors mention an invisible ``slippery slope'' if a
flag-protection amendment passes. Over 10,000 amendments have
been proposed and only twenty-seven have been ratified--the
first ten are the Bill of Rights. If there is any ``slope''
in amending the Constitution, it is a steep incline.
Finally, for the record, burning a cross on anyone's lawn
is a hate crime punishable under law. Burning a flag is a
hate crime against all Americans and should also be
punishable under law.
If our flag is not deserving of protection, then it is not
worthy to be draped on the coffins of our dead soldiers.
Senator Ashcroft understands the intrinsic value of the flag.
Unfortunately, its meaning is lost on the editors of the
Post-Dispatch.
Sincerely,
Joseph J. Frank,
Past National Commander,
The American Legion.
____________________