[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.

                          ____________________