[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12372-12375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                AGAINST RACE-BASED GOVERNMENT IN HAWAII

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent that 
the following analysis of the 1993 Hawaii apology resolution, prepared 
by constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, be entered into the Record 
following my present remarks.
  To be sure, I do not think that the nature of the events that led to 
the end of the Kamehameha monarchy is relevant to the question whether 
we should establish a race-based government in Hawaii today. I believe 
that America is a good and great Nation, and that all Americans should 
be proud to be a part of it. The United States does not deserve to have 
its government carved up along racial lines.
  Nevertheless, proponents of racially separate government in Hawaii 
have advanced their arguments for S. 147, the Native Hawaiian 
Government Reorganization Act, in terms of history. It is thus 
instructive to take a close look at that history.

           [The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Jun. 1, 2005]

Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand--An Analysis of the Apology 
                               Resolution

                            (By Bruce Fein)


      THE 1993 APOLOGY RESOLUTION IS RIDDLED WITH FALSEHOODS AND 
                          MISCHARACTERIZATIONS

       The Akaka Bill originated with the 1993 Apology Resolution 
     (S.J. Res. 19) which passed Congress in 1993. Virtually every 
     paragraph is false or misleading.
       The opening paragraph declares its purpose as to 
     acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 
     overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to offer an apology to 
     ``Native Hawaiians'' on behalf of the United States for the 
     event that ushered in a republican form of government and 
     popular sovereignty, in lieu of monarchy. The apology wrongly 
     insinuates that the overthrown 1893 government was for Native 
     Hawaiians alone; and, that they suffered unique injuries 
     because of the substitution of republicanism for monarchy. 
     There never had been a race-based government since the 
     formation of the kingdom of Hawaii in 1810, and only trivial 
     racial distinctions in the law (but for discrimination 
     against Japanese and Chinese immigrants). [Footnote: Minor 
     exceptions include jury trials, membership in the nobility, 
     and land distribution. In addition, the 1864 Constitution 
     mandated that if the monarch died or abdicated without naming 
     a successor, the legislature should elect a native Ali`i 
     (Chief) to the throne.] Native Hawaiians served side-by-side 
     with non-Native Hawaiians in the Cabinet and legislature. The 
     1893 overthrow did not disturb even a square inch of land 
     owned by Native Hawaiians. If the overthrow justified an 
     apology, it should have been equally to Native Hawaiians and 
     non-Native Hawaiians. Both were treated virtually the same 
     under the law by the ousted Queen Liliuokalani. Moreover, it 
     seems preposterous to apologize for deposing a monarch to 
     move towards a republican form of government based on the 
     consent of the governed.
       Paragraph two notes that Native Hawaiians lived in a highly 
     organized, self sufficient, subsistent social system based on 
     communal land tenure with a sophisticated language and 
     culture when the first Europeans arrived in 1778. It errantly 
     insinuates that Native Hawaiians are not permitted under the 
     United States Constitution to practice their ancient culture. 
     They may do so every bit as much as the Amish or other 
     groups. They may own land collectively as joint tenants. The 
     paragraph also misleads by omitting the facts that Hawaiian 
     Kings, not Europeans, abolished communal land tenure and 
     religious taboos (kapu) by decree. [See Appendix page 3 
     paragraphs 2, 3, 4]
       Paragraph three notes that a unified monarchical government 
     of the Hawaiian Islands was established in 1810 under 
     Kamehameha I, the first King of Hawaii. It neglects to 
     mention that the King established the government by conquest 
     and force of arms in contrast to the bloodless overthrow of 
     Queen Liliuokalani. In other words, if King Kamehameha's 
     government was legitimate, then so was the successfu1l 1893 
     overthrow. [See Appendix page 2 paragraph 1]
       Paragraph four notes that from 1826 until 1893, the United 
     States recognized the Kingdom of Hawaii as an independent 
     nation with which it concluded a series of treaties and 
     conventions. But the paragraph neglects to

[[Page 12373]]

     note that the United States extended recognition to the 
     government that replaced Queen Liliuokalani in 1893. It 
     treated both governments as equally legitimate under 
     international law, as did other relations.
       Paragraph five notes the more than 100 missionaries sent by 
     the Congregational Church to the Kingdom of Hawaii between 
     1820 and 1850. But the missionaries did not cause mischief. 
     They brought education, medicine, and civilization to Native 
     Hawaiians for which no apology is due. [See Appendix page 2 
     paragraphs 2, 3]
       Paragraph six falsely accuses United States Minister John 
     L. Stevens as conspiring with non-Native Hawaiians to 
     overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii. The 
     Government, as previously explained, was not ``indigenous,'' 
     but included non-Native Hawaiians. The latter were treated 
     identically with Native Hawaiians and shared fully in the 
     society and governance of the kingdom. Moreover, Minister 
     Stevens, as a meticulous Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
     report (the ``Morgan'' report) established, remained 
     steadfastly neutral between the contesting political forces 
     in Hawaii in 1893. [See Appendix page 4 paragraph 1]
       Paragraph seven falsely indicts Minister Stevens and naval 
     representatives of aiding and abetting the 1893 overthrow by 
     invading the Kingdom of Hawaii and positioning themselves 
     near the Hawaiian Government buildings and the Iolani Palace 
     to intimidate Queen Liliuokalani and her Government. The 
     ``Morgan'' report convincingly discredits that indictment. It 
     demonstrated that United States forces were deployed solely 
     to protect American citizens and property. [See Appendix page 
     4 paragraph 1]
       Paragraph eight falsely insinuates that the overthrow of 
     the Queen was supported only by American and European sugar 
     planters, descendants of missionaries, and financiers. The 
     Queen was abandoned by the majority of Hawaiian residents, 
     including Native Hawaiians, because of her squalid plan to 
     alter the constitution by illegal means to make the 
     government more monarchical and less democratic. At best, the 
     Queen was able to rally but a feeble resistance to defend her 
     anti-constitutional plans. A Provisional Government was 
     readily established and maintained without the threat or use 
     of overwhelming force, in contrast to the force Kamehameha 
     brandished to establish the Kingdom of Hawaii. [See Appendix 
     page 1 paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
       Paragraph nine falsely asserts that the extension of 
     diplomatic recognition to the Provisional Government by 
     United States Minister Stevens without the consent of the 
     Native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawaii 
     violated treaties and international law. The international 
     community in general extended diplomatic recognition to the 
     Provisional Government. That was consistent with 
     international law, which acknowledges the right to overthrow 
     a tyrannical government. The Provisional Government received 
     the consent of Native Hawaiians every bit as much if not more 
     than did King Kamehameha I in establishing the Kingdom of 
     Hawaii by force in 1810. In addition, international law does 
     not require the consent of an overthrown government before 
     extending diplomatic recognition to its successor. Thus, the 
     Dutch recognized the United States of America without the 
     consent of Great Britain whose colonial regime had been 
     overthrown. Similarly, the United States extended diplomatic 
     recognition to the new government regime in the Philippines 
     in 1986 headed by Cory Aquino without the consent of 
     Ferdinand Marcos. Finally, sovereignty in Hawaii at the time 
     of the 1893 overthrow resided in the Monarch, not the people. 
     Native Hawaiian and non-Native Hawaiians alike possessed no 
     legal right to withhold a transfer of sovereignty from Queen 
     Liliuokalani to the Provisional Government. The Queen's own 
     statement, reprinted in the Apology Resolution, confirms that 
     sovereignty rested with the monarch, not the people. She 
     neither asked nor received popular consent for yielding 
     sovereignty to the United States. In any event, Native 
     Hawaiians enjoyed more popular sovereignty than did non-
     Native Hawaiians. Accordingly, if the diplomatic recognition 
     was wrong, both groups were equally wronged.
       Paragraph ten falsely suggests that Queen Liliuokalani 
     yielded her power to avoid bloodshed. She did so because her 
     anti-constitutional plans had provoked popular anger or 
     antagonism. The Queen forfeited the legitimacy necessary to 
     sustain power. Even Cabinet members she had appointed 
     abandoned her and advised surrender. [See Appendix page 1 
     paragraph 5]
       The Queen's statement itself is cynical and false in many 
     respects. She condemns the Provisional Government for acts 
     done against the Constitution, whereas she had provoked her 
     overthrow by embracing anti-constitutional plans for a more 
     monarchical and less democratic government. The Queen falsely 
     asserts that Minister Stevens had declared that United States 
     troops would support the Provisional Government. The Minister 
     insisted on strict United States military neutrality between 
     contending parties. And the Queen audaciously insists that 
     the United States should reinstall her to reign as an anti-
     democratic Monarch in lieu of a step towards a republican 
     form of government, akin to Slobodan Milosevic's requesting 
     the United States to restore him to power in Serbia after his 
     replacement by a democratic dispensation. [See Appendix page 
     4 paragraph 2, 3]
       Paragraph ten falsely insists that the overthrow of Queen 
     Liliuokalani would have failed for lack of arms and popular 
     support but for the active support and intervention by the 
     United States. The United States provided no arms to the 
     insurgents. The United States did not encourage Hawaiians to 
     join the insurrection. The United States remained strictly 
     neutral throughout the time period and events that 
     precipitated the end of Monarchy and the beginning of a 
     republic in Hawaii. [See Appendix page 4 paragraph 2]
       Paragraph eleven falsely insinuates that Minister Stevens 
     proclaimed Hawaii to be a protectorate of the United States 
     on February 1, 1893 as a coercive action. Minister Stevens 
     had raised the American flag over government buildings at the 
     request of the Provisional Government to deter threats to 
     lives and property. The protectorate was requested, not 
     imposed. The Harrison administration revoked the protectorate 
     soon after, which refutes the Apology Resolution's assumption 
     that the United States government conspired to annex Hawaii.
       Paragraph twelve neglects to underscore that Democrat 
     Congressman James Blount on behalf of Democrat President 
     Grover Cleveland conducted an investigation of events that 
     transpired under a Republican administration which both hoped 
     to discredit for partisan political purposes. Blount's 
     findings of abuse of diplomatic and military authority and 
     United States responsibility for the overthrow of the Queen 
     were meticulously discredited by the Morgan report the 
     following year. [See Appendix page 4 paragraph 3]
       Paragraph thirteen fails to note that the actions against 
     the Minister and military commander were inspired by the 
     partisan politics of Democrats casting aspersion on the 
     predecessor Republican administration of Benjamin Harrison. 
     [See Appendix page 4 paragraph 1]
       Paragraph fourteen misleads by omitting President Grover 
     Cleveland's partisan motivation for attacking the policies of 
     his predecessor, President Benjamin Harrison, and the Morgan 
     report that disproved President Cleveland's tenacious 
     chronicling and characterizations of Queen Liliuokalani's 
     overthrow. To trust in the impartiality of Democrat Cleveland 
     to evaluate the policies and actions of Republican Harrison 
     would be like trusting Democrat President William Jefferson 
     Clinton to evaluate evenhandedly the presidency of Republican 
     George H. W. Bush. [See Appendix page 4 paragraph 3]
       Paragraph fifteen neglects that President Cleveland urged a 
     restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy for partisan political 
     reasons to discredit the Harrison administration and the 
     Republican Party. [See Appendix page 4 paragraph 3]
       Paragraph sixteen notes that the Provisional Government 
     protested President Cleveland's celebration of the Hawaiian 
     monarchy and remained in power. Both actions were morally and 
     legally impeccable, and do not justify an apology.
       Paragraph seventeen notes the hearings of the Senate 
     Foreign Relations Committee into the 1893 overthrow; the 
     Provisional Government's defense of Minister Stevens; and its 
     recommendation of annexation. Neither the overthrow, nor 
     Minister Stevens' actions, nor the Provisional Government's 
     annexation recommendation was reproachable or justifies an 
     apology. [See Appendix page 4 paragraphs 2, 3]
       Paragraph eighteen notes that a treaty of annexation failed 
     to command a two-thirds Senate majority, an event that does 
     not justify an apology from the United States. The paragraph 
     also falsely declares that the Provisional Government somehow 
     duped the Committee over the role of the United States in the 
     1893 overthrow, as though the Senators could not think and 
     evaluate for themselves. Finally, the paragraph wrongly 
     condemns the overthrow as ``illegal.'' It was no more illegal 
     in the eyes of domestic or international law than the 
     overthrow of the British government in America by the United 
     States in 1776. [See Appendix page 4 paragraphs 2,3]
       Paragraph nineteen notes that the Provisional Government 
     proclaimed itself the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894. The 
     proclamation was legally and otherwise correct. The 
     declaration did not justify an apology by the United States. 
     [See appendix page 4 paragraph 2,3]
       Paragraph twenty declares that on January 24, 1895, the 
     Queen while imprisoned was forced by the Republic of Hawaii 
     to abdicate her throne. The forced abdication was thoroughly 
     defensible. The Queen had not accepted the new dispensation 
     after her overthrow. Thus, she was the equivalent of a Fifth 
     Columnist to the legitimate government of Hawaii until 
     abdication was forthcoming.
       Paragraph twenty-one notes that in 1896, President William 
     McKinley replaced Grover Cleveland. That democratic event 
     provided no excuse for an apology.
       Paragraph twenty-two notes that on July 7, 1898, in the 
     wake of the Spanish-American War, President McKinley signed 
     the

[[Page 12374]]

     Newlands Joint Resolution that provided for the annexation of 
     Hawaii. The annexation was perfectly legal and enlightened. 
     It was no justification for an apology.
       Paragraph twenty-three notes that the Newlands Resolution 
     occasioned the cession of sovereignty over the Hawaiian 
     Islands to the United States. That is no cause for an 
     apology. The same occurred in 1845 when Texas was annexed to 
     the United States by joint resolution. The cession in both 
     cases was with the consent of the lawful governments of 
     Hawaii and Texas, respectively.
       Paragraph twenty-four notes that the cession included a 
     transfer of crown, government, and public lands without the 
     consent of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people of 
     Hawaii or their sovereign government. But there as no race-
     based Native Hawaiian government, either then or previously. 
     The government was for Native Hawaiians and non-Native 
     Hawaiians alike. Further, the Newlands Resolution specified 
     that the revenues of the ceded lands generally ``shall be 
     used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the 
     Hawaiian Islands for educational and other public purposes.'' 
     Compensation was not paid because nothing was taken from the 
     inhabitants of Hawaii. Moreover, the United States assumed 
     over 3.8 million dollars of Hawaii's public debt, largely 
     incurred under the monarchy, after annexation. That debt 
     burden amounts to twice the market value of the land the 
     United States lawfully inherited [See Appendix page 3 
     paragraph 4]
       Paragraph twenty-five notes that Congress ratified the 
     annexation and cession of Hawaii, which required no apology.
       Paragraph twenty-six notes that treaties between Hawaii and 
     foreign nations were replaced by treaties between the United 
     States and foreign nations, which is customary under 
     international law when one sovereign replaces another. For 
     example, Russia replaced the Soviet Union in its 
     international treaty obligations following the disintegration 
     of the USSR.
       Paragraph twenty-seven notes that the Newlands Resolution 
     effected the transaction between the Republic of Hawaii and 
     the United States Government, an observation that required no 
     apology.
       Paragraph twenty-eight misleads by declaring that Native 
     Hawaiians ``never directly relinquished their claims to their 
     inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands to 
     the United States, either through their monarchy or through a 
     plebiscite or referendum.'' But sovereignty in the Kingdom of 
     Hawaii resided in the monarch, not in the people. Further, 
     the Kingdom was a government for all the inhabitants of 
     Hawaii, not only for Native Hawaiians. Non-Native Hawaiians 
     enjoyed a much inherent sovereignty as Native Hawaiians, and 
     enjoyed an equal claim to national lands. Further, Native 
     Hawaiians overwhelmingly voted for statehood in 1959, which 
     constituted a virtual referendum on United States 
     sovereignty. Finally, neither domestic nor international law 
     recognizes a right to a plebiscite before a transfer of 
     sovereignty. In America, for example, sovereignty was 
     transferred from Great Britain to the United States without a 
     plebiscite or the consent of the British-controlled colonial 
     governments. The Akaka Bill's proponents themselves do not 
     advocate a plebiscite to grant sovereignty to the Native 
     Hawaiian people. [See Appendix page 3 paragraphs 2,3,4
       Paragraph twenty-nine notes that on April 30, 1900, 
     President McKinley signed the Organic Act that provided a 
     government for the territory of Hawaii. The Act created a 
     representative system of government, a great credit to the 
     United States and far superior to what the residents of 
     Hawaii had previously enjoyed under the Monarchy. [See 
     Appendix page 5 paragraph 1]
       Paragraph thirty notes that on August 21, 1959, Hawaii 
     became the 50th State of the United States. But it omits that 
     94 percent of voters in a plebiscite supported statehood, 
     including an overwhelming majority of Native Hawaiians. In 
     other words, in 1959 Native Hawaiians freely chose the 
     sovereignty of the United States. The elections could have 
     been boycotted if independence were desired. [See, appendix 
     page 5 paragraph 2]
       Paragraph thirty-one declares that the health and well-
     being of Native Hawaiians is intrinsically tied to their deep 
     feelings and attachment to land. But the same can be said of 
     every racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural group. Scarlet 
     O'Hara in Gone with the Wind was passionately tied to Tara. 
     Further, the observation does not deny that the United States 
     Constitution scrupulously protects the rights of Native 
     Hawaiians to honor their feelings and attachments to land 
     short of theft or trespass.
       Paragraph thirty-two counterfactually declares that long-
     range economic and social changes in Hawaii over the 
     nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have been 
     devastating to the population and to the health and well-
     being of the Hawaiian people. The Native Hawaiian population 
     declined throughout the years of the Kingdom, but, since 
     annexation in 1898, the native population has achieved steady 
     growth. Senator Daniel Inouye himself celebrated the health 
     and prosperity of Hawaiians on the thirty-fifth anniversary 
     of statehood in 1994: ``Hawaii remains one of the greatest 
     examples of multiethnic society living in relative peace.'' 
     Indeed, no fair-minded observer would maintain that Native 
     Hawaiians would have been more prosperous, free, and 
     culturally advanced if foreigners had never appeared in 
     Hawaii and its people remained isolated from the progress of 
     knowledge. The Polynesian nation of Tonga, which had a 
     society and economy striking similar to Hawaii's in the 
     1840s, chose to preserve its Polynesian customs over 
     progress. Today, Hawaii boasts a per capita income twenty 
     times that of Tonga. Moreover, Native Hawaiians would 
     probably have been swallowed up in the wave of Japanese 
     colonialism had they not become citizens of the United States 
     along with non-Native Hawaiians after annexation. [See 
     Appendix page 5 paragraph 2]
       Paragraph thirty-three misleads by failing to underscore 
     that the United States Constitution fully protects the 
     determination of Native Hawaiians to practice and to pass on 
     to future generations their cultural identity. The sole 
     element of cultural identity that the United States cannot 
     and will not tolerate is racial discrimination, whether 
     practiced by whites against blacks during Jim Crow or by 
     Native Hawaiians against non-Native Hawaiians today.
       Paragraph thirty-four outlandishly asserts that the Apology 
     Resolution is necessary to promote ``racial harmony and 
     cultural understanding.'' Indeed, the Resolution has yielded 
     the opposite by giving birth to the race-based Akaka Bill. As 
     Senator Inouye acknowledged in 1994, Hawaii stands as a 
     shining example of racial harmony and the success of 
     America's legendary ``melting pot.'' [See Appendix page 5 
     paragraph 2]
       Paragraph thirty-five notes an apology by the President of 
     the United Church of Christ for the denomination's alleged 
     complicity in the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. 
     But not a crumb of evidence in the Blount report or the 
     Morgan report or Queen Liliuokalani's autobiography 
     substantiates the Church's complicity. Further, the overthrow 
     was as legal as was King Kamehameha's creation of the Kingdom 
     by conquest in 1810 or the overthrow of the British colonial 
     government in America by the United States. Finally, the 
     paragraph is silent on the substance of the ``process of 
     reconciliation'' between the Church and Native Hawaiians. 
     [See Appendix page 2 paragraphs 1, 2, 3]
       Paragraph thirty-six repeats the false indictment of the 
     overthrow of the Kingdom as ``illegal.'' Congress absurdly 
     expresses its ``deep regret'' to the Native Hawaiian people 
     for bringing them unprecedented prosperity and freedom. As 
     noted above, even Senator Inouye in 1994 conceded the 
     spectacular Hawaiian success story after annexation and 
     statehood. And since the State of Hawaii and Native Hawaiians 
     have never been estranged--Native Hawaiians have invariably 
     enjoyed equal or preferential rights under law--the idea of a 
     need for reconciliation voiced in the paragraph is nonsense 
     on stilts. [See Appendix page 2 paragraph 1]
       Section 1, paragraph (1) of the Apology Resolution falsely 
     characterizes the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii as 
     illegal, and falsely insinuates that sovereignty under the 
     Kingdom rested with the Native Hawaiian people to the 
     exclusion of non-Native Hawaiians. As elaborated above, 
     sovereignty rested with the Monarch; and, Native Hawaiians 
     and non-Native Hawaiians were equal in the eyes of the law 
     and popular sovereignty.
       Section 1, paragraph (2) ridiculously commends 
     reconciliation where none is needed between the State of 
     Hawaii and the United Church of Christ and Native Hawaiians. 
     [See Appendix page 2 paragraphs 2, 3]
       Section 1, paragraph (3) outlandishly apologizes to Native 
     Hawaiians for bringing them the fruits of democracy and free 
     enterprise. It also falsely suggests that Native Hawaiians to 
     the exclusion of non-Natives enjoyed a right to self-
     determination when in fact all resident citizens of Hawaii 
     were equal under the law.
       Section 1, paragraphs (4) and (5) preposterously assert a 
     need for reconciliation between the United States and the 
     Native Hawaiian people when there has never been an 
     estrangement. Indeed, a stunning majority of Native Hawaiians 
     voters supported statehood in 1959 in a plebiscite. [See 
     Appendix page 4 paragraph 3]


                         Flag Burning Amendment

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, we celebrate Flag Day, honoring 
an enduring symbol of our democracy, of our shared values, of our 
allegiance to justice, and of those who have sacrificed to defend these 
principles.
  On this day, I renew my support for S.J. Res. 12, a resolution that 
would let the people decide whether they want a constitutional 
amendment to protect the American flag.
  Many moving images of the flag are etched into our Nation's 
collective conscience. We are all familiar with the image of marines 
raising the flag on Iwo Jima, with the New York firefighters raising 
the flag amid the debris of the World Trade Center and with the large 
flag that hung over the side of the Pentagon while part of it was 
rebuilt after 9/11.

[[Page 12375]]

  It is more than a piece of material to so many of us. For our 
veterans, the flag represents what they fought for--democracy and 
freedom. Today there are almost 300,000 troops serving overseas, 
putting their lives on the line every day fighting for the fundamental 
principles that our flag symbolizes.
  Last December, I traveled to Iraq and met with some of the brave men 
and women in the Armed Forces who are stationed there. We flew out of 
Baghdad on a C-130 that we shared with a flag-draped coffin being 
accompanied by a military escort.
  This was very moving. It showed clearly how significant the meaning 
of the flag is and why protecting it is so important.
  In the 1989 case Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down a 
State law prohibiting the desecration of American flags in a manner 
that would be offensive to others. The Court held that the prohibition 
amounted to an impermissible content-based regulation of the first 
amendment right to free speech. Until this case, 48 of the 50 States 
had statutes preventing burning or otherwise defacing our flag.
  After the Johnson case was decided, Congress passed the Flag 
Protection Act of 1989, which sought to ban flag desecration in a 
content-neutral way that would withstand judicial scrutiny. 
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court justices struck down that Federal 
statute as well.
  It is clear that without a constitutional amendment there is no 
Federal statute protecting the flag which will pass constitutional 
muster.
  S.J. Res. 12 would not ban flag burning. It would not ban flag 
desecration. This amendment would do one thing only: give Congress the 
opportunity to construct, deliberately and carefully, precise statutory 
language that clearly defines the contours of prohibitive conduct.
  Some critics say that we are making a choice between trampling on the 
flag and trampling on the first amendment. I strongly disagree.
  Protecting the flag will not prevent people from expressing their 
points of view. I believe a constitutional amendment returning to our 
flag the protected status it has had through most of this Nation's 
history, and that it deserves, is consistent with free speech.
  I do not take amending the Constitution lightly. It is serious 
business and we need to tread carefully. But the Constitution is a 
living text. In all, it has been amended 27 times.
  Securing protection for this powerful symbol of America would be an 
important, but very limited, change to the Constitution. It is a change 
that would leave both the flag and free speech safe.
  Now it is time to give Americans the opportunity to amend the 
Constitution for something that we all agree is sacred to so many 
people all across this country. It is time to let the people decide.

                          ____________________