Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to give the Senator 3 minutes, and I ask the distinguished Senator from South Carolina if he would give some time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally only against the amendment of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and that the hour for debate between 11:30 and 12:30 remain the same.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, as I understand it there is an hour for debate on the underlying constitutional amendment between 11:30 and 12:30 against which this time will not be charged.

Mr. HATCH. I have no objection to the request as long as the time is divided equally on his amendment to my constitutional amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Parliamentary inquiry. Is the time to be charged against this amendment equally referring to the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina?

Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object, is the time going to be divided equally?

Mr. HATCH. We can use our time any way we want to on our side. The amount of time is still remaining for Senator Hollings on his side. As I understand it, we are debating the Hollings amendment, but I talked generally about the flag amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. My understanding is, it is the Hollings amendment that is being debated.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be permitted, on our time, to go up to as long as 12:45.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, even though he is on the other side of this issue, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Illinois.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am intrigued by the comments of my colleague from Illinois. I would like to focus all the attention in the world on those who desecrate the American flag. I think it would be a great thing. It would help everybody in this country to know how distasteful it is and how denigrating to our country it is and how denigrating it is for all those who have died for this country following the flag, how denigrating it is to everybody who served in the military, how denigrating it is to every schoolchild, how denigrating it is to people who believe in values and things that are right. I have no trouble focusing on somebody who runs on the field burning a flag. I would like to focus on that creep as much as I could. I think if we did a little bit more of that, we might find a renewed resurgence of feelings about our country out there. To be honest with you, if I interpret what the Senator said, he basically said that people ought to be able to make their statement. I wonder if he would be happy to have anybody who wants to make a statement in our gallery make any statement they want to every day that we meet. I think he would acknowledge that would disrupt the workings of the most important legislative body in the world. There are limitations on everything, including the first amendment. By the way, how do you call offensive conduct of defecating, urinating on the flag or burning the flag with contempt, how do you call that free speech? The Supreme Court apparently has done so, but then, again, what we are talking about here, just look at this amendment. It is a very simple amendment. It is not telling us to do anything about the flag. What it says is: The Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. My gosh, it doesn't tell us what to do. It just says we are going to take back this power that we had before this other third of the three separate powers, the judiciary, took it away from us and took it away from 49 States, all of which have asked us to restore that right to the States and the Federal Government. These people are arguing against an amendment that gives the Congress back the power it had before, that it had for 200 years. Where is the logic in that? Many of these folks who are going to vote against this amendment voted for an anti-flag-desecration statute back in 1989. If they believe it is free speech today to defecate on the flag, then why wasn't it in 1989 when they voted for that useless statute that I stood up and said was unconstitutional and voted against and which later was declared to be what I said it would be, unconstitutional? Why didn't they vote against it if they are so enamored with this argument on free speech? But forget the free speech argument. What about the power of three separate branches of Government? Why should we let the judiciary tell 49 States and the Congress of the United States we don't have any power to protect the national symbol of our sovereignty, of our patriotism, of our Nation? Any self-respecting Senator would want to stand up for the rights of the Congress, especially since this amendment doesn't say what we have to do. It basically says we have the right to change things. That is what you do with a constitutional amendment. Some opponents of the flag-protection amendment have argued that we should be passing more restrictions on gun ownership rather than debating our constitutional amendment to protect the American flag. Give me a break. Everything is gun amendments around here. We have 20,000 laws, rules, and regulations about guns in this society that aren't even being enforced by this administration. While I believe there is no shortage of important issues for the Senate to take up, I believe the flag amendment is not only vital to protect our shared values as Americans, but also that this debate is particularly timely today as we all strive to recover what is good and decent about our country. We see evidence of moral decay and a lack of standards all around us. Our families are breaking down, our communities are being divided, and there are leaders who are not providing the appropriate moral leadership for the American public. Our popular culture, including movies, television, video games, and music, bombards our children with offensive messages of violence and selfishness. The very disturbing incidents of gun violence--particularly at our public schools--is a particular result of a culture that is afraid to teach that certain ideas are right or wrong. As the saying goes, you have to stand for something, or you will fall for anything. Today, the Senate has a unique opportunity to say that our country, and our culture, does stand for something; that on the issue of protecting and safeguarding an incident of national sovereignty, we stand for something. Today, we can reaffirm that all Americans share certain beliefs and values and a respect for this symbol of our national sovereignty. We can give a united bedrock of principle to a generation that is increasingly floating adrift and alone. Think about it. If we pass this amendment, we will create a debate on values in this country in all 50 States. That alone justifies this amendment-- although I could give many additional justifications even better than that. The disillusioned young people in our society today learn a very negative lesson by watching our Government sit powerlessly as exhibitionists and anarchists deface the embodiment of our sovereignty and our common values. What do you think they take away from watching people who dishonor the memory of those millions of men and women who have given their lives for the future of America? Allowing desecration of the flag lowers again the standards of elemental decency that all of us must and should live by. This proposed amendment affirms that without some aspirations to national unity, there might be no law, no Constitution, no freedoms such as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a license to engage in any kind or type of behavior that one can imagine. Don't sell this amendment, and what it stands for, short. If we pass this amendment by the necessary two-thirds vote, the Senate will say that our symbol of sovereignty, the embodiment of so many of our hopes and dreams, can no longer be dragged through the mud, torn asunder, or defecated on. We will say to the young people of America that there are ideals worth fighting for and protecting. There is a reason we are united as Americans, and that our experiment in democracy has proven to be the most enlightened government in history. Can anyone think of a better message to send to our young people than to begin to reclaim the values of liberty, equality, and personal responsibility that Americans have defended and debated? The flag amendment is not a distraction from matters of violence and education and social decay; nor is it an abdication of responsibility, as it has been called by some who oppose it. If there has been an abdication of responsibility, it has been to defend the irresponsible notion that the Bill of Rights exists to allow people to engage in any type of behavior or conduct that one can imagine. We need more attention to public values and standards, not less. I am deeply offended by those who say the Senate has more important things to do than discuss a flag-protection constitutional amendment. I urge those of my colleagues who think the Senate is too important for the American flag to listen to the American people on this issue. I just came from a press conference where seven Congressional Medal of Honor recipients were there praying that the people of this country will get the Members of the Senate to support this flag amendment. The vast majority of our citizens support amending the Constitution to protect our Nation's flag. Even then, this amendment just says it gives the right to the Congress to do that. To these citizens and elected officials, protecting the flag as the symbol of our national unity and community and utilizing the constitutional amendment process to do so is no trivial matter. Sitting in our gallery today are people who put their lives on the line to defend our flag and the principles for which it stands. These are the fortunate ones who were not required to make the ultimate sacrifice like my brother was in the Second World War, and like my brother-in-law was in Vietnam. Every one of these people--like tens of thousands of American families across our country--have 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 it for us--before deciding whether the flag is important enough to be addressed in the Senate. Given the great significance of the flag, it is not surprising that support for the flag amendment is without political boundaries. It is not, as some suggest, a battle between conservatives on one side and liberals on the other. Indeed, the flag amendment transcends all political, racial, religious, and socioeconomic divisions. This is consistently reflected in national polling, in resolutions to Congress from 49 State legislatures requesting Congress to send the flag amendment to the States for ratification, and in the support of a bipartisan supermajority of the House of Representatives both last year and during the 104th Congress. Is this overwhelming support for the flag amendment, as manifested through polling and through the actions of State and national legislatures, frivolity? Are we trivializing the Constitution, when a vast majority of Americans speaking for themselves or through elected representatives seek to utilize the article V amendment process, itself constructed by our Founding Fathers to right the wrongs of constitutional misinterpretation? Are we irresponsible if we simply restore the law as it existed for two centuries prior to two Supreme Court decisions, which were 5-4 decisions, hotly contested decisions? Does the principle of ``government by the people'' end where the self- professed ``experts'' convince themselves that the concerns of the overwhelming majority of ordinary citizens and their representatives are not important? Is the Constitution, which establishes processes for its own amendment, wrong? I say it is the Constitution which establishes processes for its own amendment, and it is right. It says that the Constitution will be amended when two-thirds of the 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 issues that would crumble the foundations of our great Republic. 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. The people can choose whether it is Congress or the Supreme Court that decides whether flag desecration is against the law. I urge colleagues to think hard about what they consider to be ``important'' before they conclude that the Senate should ignore the people and what they think is important and what should be considered 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. I urge my colleagues not to think that this body is above listening to the vast majority of citizens of this country who want to give Congress the ability to determine whether and how to protect the American flag. People should not say that there are more important issues than this one. This issue involves the very fabric of our society, what we are all about, and what our children, we hope, will be all about. This issue is very important. Anybody who thinks otherwise is trivializing this very important issue and the 80 percent of the American people who are strongly for it. The other 20 percent are not strongly against it; only a small percentage of those are. The rest of them just don't know or don't care. You should have been with those seven Congressional Medal of Honor recipients, Miss America, and a whole raft of other veterans outside as we talked about why this amendment is important. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, for purposes of conducting a joint committee hearing with the Committee on Foreign Relations, which is scheduled to begin at 3:00 p.m. The title of this oversight hearing is ``America at Risk: U.S. Dependency on Foreign Oil.''

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families, be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``Keeping Children Safe from Internet Predators'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, 2000, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled ``Swindling Small Businesses: Toner-Phoner Schemes and Other Office Supply Scams.''

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing to receive testimony regarding the Administration's budget for the EPA Clean Air programs and the Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands budget.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Communications Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., on broadband deployment in rural areas.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 10 a.m., in SD-226.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of the pending flag desecration resolution. Under the order, there are 2 hours of debate remaining on the Hollings amendment, to be followed by an additional hour for general debate. At 2:15, following the party caucus luncheons, the Senate will proceed to two consecutive votes on the pending amendments to the flag desecration resolution. Cloture was filed on the resolution during yesterday's session; therefore, under the provisions of rule XXII, a cloture vote will occur on Wednesday. However, it is hoped that an agreement can be reached with regard to a vote on final passage of the resolution and that the cloture vote will not be necessary. I thank all Members for their attention.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I generally support the distinguished Senator from Kentucky on all campaign finance reform issues because I think he is one of the most learned people, if not the most learned person in this area and on many other occasions. On this issue I cannot. I predicted back in 1989 it was unconstitutional when they passed the statute, which passed overwhelmingly by a lot of people who, today, when this amendment is finally voted upon, will vote against it. In other words, they passed the statute that would do what this amendment would allow the Congress, if it so chooses to do, to do. It seemed illogical to me they are unwilling to do what really has to be done because we have had two statutory attempts to resolve the problem of physical desecration of our beloved American flag. Both times I predicted it was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decisions, and both times they were held to be unconstitutional. So a statute is not going to do the job. In spite of good intentions, the only way we can resolve this problem and do it effectively without taking anybody's rights away is to do what we are doing--not passing a constitutional amendment that prohibits physical desecration of the flag. We are passing a constitutional amendment that gives the Congress a coequal status with the judiciary, two coequal branches of Government to have the right to determine what to do with regard to the flag. That is what we intend to do. I hope our colleagues will vote against this amendment because it would undermine, of course, the constitutional amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.