[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 13752]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 13752]]

  CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT PHYSICAL 
              DESECRATION OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. DENNIS MOORE

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 17, 2001

  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 36, which 
proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
flag of the United States.
  For over two hundred years, the Bill of Rights of our Constitution 
has been the cornerstone of our great nation and the source of our 
basic freedoms and rights. Our democracy has withstood many tests of 
our freedoms, and has been strengthened as a result. The occasional, 
random, despicable acts of public desecration of our flag present 
another such test.
  The American flag is a symbol for liberty and justice, for freedom of 
speech and expression and all of the other rights we cherish. But as 
important as the symbol may be, more important are the ideals and 
principles which the symbol represents. That our nation can tolerate 
dissension and even disrespect for our flag is proof of the strength of 
our nation. If we amend our Bill of Rights to protect the flag we would 
forsake the very freedoms that the flag symbolizes.
  On May 18, 1999, General Colin Powell, who has dedicated his life to 
serving our country, sent a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy sharing his 
reasons for opposing this constitutional amendment. Senator Leahy 
entered that letter in to the Congressional Record on March 29, 2000. 
The text of this poignant and thought-provoking letter is attached.
  I love our country. I love our flag--and the principles for which it 
stands. By voting against this proposed amendment, we vote for the 
rights and freedoms that make our country great and distinguish our 
country from virtually every other country in the world.

                              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. * * *
       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.

     

                          ____________________