[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2856-S2857]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FLAG DESECRATION AMENDMENT

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I stand in opposition to this amendment. As 
a graduate of the United States Military Academy and a former officer 
in the Army, I view the American flag with a special reverence borne by 
experience. I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse 
this precious national symbol, and I believe that we should teach young 
people to respect the flag.

[[Page S2857]]

  I also feel, however, that the values and beliefs that the American 
flag represents are more important than the cloth from which the symbol 
is made. Prominent among these beliefs are the right to voice views 
that are unpopular and the right to protest. It is these fundamental 
values, reflected in our Constitution, that have distinguished our 
Nation for more than 200 years. It is these beliefs that give our flag 
its great symbolic power.
  Flag burning is despicable. However, the issue before us is whether 
our great charter document, the Constitution, should be amended so that 
the Federal Government can prosecute the handful of Americans who show 
contempt for the flag. To quote James Madison, is this a ``great and 
extraordinary occasion'' justifying the use of a constitutional 
amendment?
  I would argue no, this is not such an occasion. This is an answer in 
search of a problem. According to Professor Robert Justin Goldstein, a 
noted author on this topic, there have been only 200 reported incidents 
of flag burning during the entire history of our country--that is less 
than one a year. There is no epidemic of flag burnings plaguing our 
nation.
  Others have said that flag burning is representative of a general 
decay of American values and patriotism, and something needs to be done 
about it before it is too late. I would argue the way to encourage 
patriotism is through encouraging civic involvement, not constitutional 
amendments. It almost goes without saying that people who are proud of 
their country will be proud of their flag.
  I am still moved by the statement made by James Warner, a decorated 
Marine flyer who was a prisoner of the North Vietnamese from 1967 to 
1973, about flag burning:

       I remember one interrogation where I was shown a photograph 
     of some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag. 
     ``There'' the officer said. ``People in your country protest 
     against your cause. That proves that you are wrong.''
       ``No,'' I said, ``that proves that I am right. In my 
     country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that 
     people disagree with us.''

  And I think that is the essence of this debate for me. We live in a 
democracy, not a dictatorship. The flag symbolizes a political system 
that allows its people, through their actions and words, to express 
what they think and feel, even when the government or a vast majority 
of others disagree with them. I oppose this amendment because I believe 
that while attempting to preserve the symbol of the freedoms we enjoy 
in this country, it actually would harm the substance of these 
freedoms.
  Finally, this amendment to the Constitution is technically 
problematic. The language of the amendment is vague and fails to offer 
a clear statement of just what conduct the supporters of the amendment 
propose to prohibit, or to advise the American people of the actions 
for which they may be imprisoned. There is no definition of what a 
``flag'' is for purposes of this amendment, or any consensus regarding 
the meaning of ``desecration.'' This leaves the Supreme Court to 
clarify these meanings, the same court that supporters believe erred in 
protecting flag burning as freedom of speech in the first place.

                          ____________________