Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I am sorry. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield some time to me?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened with great care to the arguments that have been made today and in the past, on past days, in opposition to the nomination of Dr. David Satcher.

Mr. HATCH. Let me be clear: This economic circumstance is a sad fact of life in many developing nations but it is a fact of life nevertheless. A key question is how best to bring new treatments and new hope to these underprivileged peoples around the world. As Dr. Sullivan goes on to explain what happened in the construction of these trials you can see that the U.S. standard of care--the so- called long course AZT treatment could not serve as the proper baseline: Given the general recognition that this therapy could not be widely carried out in developing nations, the WHO in 1994 convened top scientists and health professionals from around the world to explore a shorter, less costly, and less complicated drug regimen that could be used in developing countries. This meeting concluded that the best way to determine efficacy and safety could be to conduct research studies that compare a shorter drug regimen with a placebo-- that is, no medicine at all. Let me just go on to tell you what Dr. Sullivan--the Bush Administration's HHS Secretary who is currently President of the Morehouse School of Medicine--thinks about the comparison of this study to the Tuskegee study: As one who feels strongly about what happened in Tuskegee, let me say that it is utterly inappropriate to compare these trials with Tuskegee where established treatment was withheld so that the course of the disease could be observed while these men died. The AZT trials being carried out in developing countries are for the purpose of developing treatment that is appropriate, effective and safe to prevent the spread of HIV from mother to child. Dr. Sullivan is joined in his opinion by many health experts such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, that support Dr. Satcher. Let me just conclude that I respect the views of those who have raised issues about this nominee. I certainly respect their right to raise these issues, but when I weigh all the evidence, I come to the conclusion that Dr. Satcher's nomination should be strongly supported. Frankly, I find his life inspiring. He comes from humble roots. He is an American success story. He is a good man. And I judge that he will be a fair man. I am confident that if we confirm him, David Satcher will do his best to advance and protect the health of the American public. I do not agree with all his views but I do believe that this good American merits our votes. Let me mention a few of Dr. Satcher's accomplishments both before and during his tenure at CDC: Dr. Satcher has led an international effort to reduce transmission of HIV from mother to child; He has worked to close the health gap between the ``haves'' and the ``have-nots.'' He was the Chair of Community and Family Medicine at Morehouse College. He served as the President of Meharry Medical College which has as a primary mission caring for the underserved. In fact, Dr. Satcher has led an innovative public/private effort to consolidate the Meharry teaching hospital with the county facility in order to reduce cost and improve care; During his tenure at CDC, the childhood immunization rate has risen from 55 percent to 78 percent. Over 90 percent of children are now immunized against measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, pertussis and hemophilus. With particular respect to measles, between 1989 and 1991, over 27,000 kids suffered each year. In 1995 there were less than 500 cases, and last year there were no deaths. In years prior to approval of a vaccine for hemophilus B influenza, about 1,000 children died a year. Dr. Satcher has worked to promote use of this new vaccine, and last year, only nine families suffered a death; During Dr. Satcher's tenure, the number of states with breast cancer screening programs has risen from 18 to 50; Another accomplishment of Dr. Satcher's is Food Net, a new surveillance system which detects foodborne illnesses. It worked in 1996 when there was a salmonella outbreak from apple juice and again with the tainted raspberries from Guatemala; Dr. Satcher has developed and nurtured a program to provide public health information on the leading cause of death for African-Americans between 15 and 24. These statistics, along with a teenage suicide rate that has tripled since 1950, are a problem our Nation's physicians and leading public health authorities have stated they cannot ignore any longer; Dr. Satcher has also developed a much-needed comprehensive approach to detecting and combating infections emerging in both the U.S. and around the world. The possibility that world travel could quickly result in an epidemic underscores the need for a rapid detection system. All of these are tremendous accomplishments in a relatively short period of time by a man who had just one small agency under his control. I do not agree with all of Dr. Satcher's views. But I didn't agree with all of Dr. Koop's views or all of Dr. Novello's views either, but probably more with them than I do with Dr. Satcher. But I believe this good American merits our votes. President Clinton did win the election. He should have the right to have a Surgeon General of his choice, so long as that person is within the mainstream and so long as that person will not advocate a radical agenda that divides America. This man has indicated that he will encourage an agenda that will bring America together, an agenda that will help our youth to abstain from promiscuous sexual activity. He has indicated he will be sensitive in so many other areas that will bring America together. I think Dr. Satcher is a man who, at this time, could do this better than anyone else I know. That is why I support his nomination. I hope that our colleagues will also support him in our vote tomorrow. I yield the floor. Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I also want to take this opportunity to announce what I consider to be an important development on the tobacco legislative front. This morning, a senior official in the administration, David Ogden, counselor to Attorney General Reno, delivered testimony on the tobacco settlement at the House Judiciary Committee hearing. Mr. Ogden testified that: If there is agreement on a comprehensive bill that advances the public health, then reasonable provisions modifying the civil liability of the tobacco industry would not be a deal breaker. Since announcement of the June 20 proposed tobacco settlement last year, I have maintained that a legislative measure which incorporates strong public health provisions in conjunction with certain defined civil liability reforms could do more to stop the next generation of our children from getting hooked on tobacco than any bill we have ever considered. The Administration's announcement today will do much to make passage of that landmark legislation possible. I call upon the President to send us his language on a priority basis. In fact, I have invited the Department of Justice to testify at the Judiciary Committee hearing next Tuesday on the tobacco settlement, and we will be greatly interested in the details of the President's position on liability. Mr. President, this is a stunning breakthrough, one which I believe greatly increases the probability that a broad, bipartisan consensus can be reached on the tobacco settlement. Privilege of the Floor Finally, Mr. President, let me just conclude by asking unanimous consent that Bruce Artim and Marlon Priest be granted privileges of the floor during the pendency of the Satcher nomination and during consideration of S. 1601, the anti-cloning bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I listened to my colleague's excellent statement and, of course, since he is the only physician in the Senate, I think we should all pay strict attention to him. Let me just say that I am very concerned about debating this bill today, a bill which falls within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, without our having any hearings or other discussion, because there are a lot of complicated issues involved here. I want to let the distinguished Senator from Tennessee know that I support his statements in many respects. I, too, am opposed to cloning of human beings. But at the same time, we have to move very carefully in this area so that we do not preclude a lot of very promising medical technologies and very valuable biomedical research. It may be that amendments are need to clarify that. I maintain an interest in this issue both as Chairman of the Committee under whose jurisdiction this criminal code amendment would fall, and as a Senator with a long-standing interest in biomedical research and ethics. The questions raised by this legislation are both novel and difficult and it behooves us to move carefully.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remarks I am about to give be considered as if in morning business.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened with great care to our debate about the nomination of Dr. David Satcher over the past few days. It has been a constructive discussion, one which has raised a number of important issues. I have the greatest respect for the Offices of the Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health. The individual who occupies this position will become the Nation's No. 1 public health official, our top doctor, if you will. For this reason, this nomination deserves the utmost scrutiny. I have the greatest respect for our colleague, the Senator from Missouri. I think he has made some arguments that raise very valid concerns, and it behooves this body to examine them. That being said, after a great deal of analysis, I have concluded that Dr. Satcher is eminently qualified for the position, and that there is a more than adequate explanation for his position on two key issues--partial-birth abortion and HIV testing in Third World countries. Accordingly, I intend to support his nomination. From a humble rural background, David Satcher has risen to become a leading public health expert--the director of the prestigious Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a doctor who is widely respected for his ability to communicate scientific information in a credible manner. He has done a great job at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I have spoken at length with Dr. Satcher and became convinced that he has an agenda that Americans of both parties should support. Tobacco control is at the top of that agenda. On the issues of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, Dr. Satcher intends to promote abstinence and assures me that he believes health and sex education are a parental responsibility, in which the Government should play only a supportive role. Moreover, Dr. Satcher believes science should determine health policy, attendant upon which we have based virtually all of the public health legislation that has passed this body. Let me note for the Record that Dr. Satcher has experience with three of the four historically black medical schools. He learned firsthand of the problems that Americans face in seeking care, and he does not advocate for a Federal solution. During Dr. Satcher's tenure at CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, he worked to increase childhood immunization rates, to develop better ways to protect Americans from new infections, and decrease teenage pregnancy rates. He has also demonstrated U.S. leadership in attacking the world AIDS problem. Critics of the nomination have raised concern that he supports the President's position on partial-birth abortion. It is no secret that I disagree vehemently with that position and will continue to work until a prohibition on partial-birth abortion is the law of the land. Yes, it is true that Dr. Satcher supports the President's position, which is not surprising given that Dr. Satcher is the President's nominee. I certainly understand the motivation of some in saying that he should be opposed for that reason. But in reviewing the hearing record on this nomination, I am impressed by Dr. Satcher's assurances to the committee on this issue. He said, ``Let me unequivocally state that I have no intention of using the positions of Assistant Secretary for Health and Surgeon General to promote issues relating to abortion. I share no one's political agenda, and I want to use the power of these positions to focus on issues that unite Americans, not divide them. If confirmed by the Senate, I will strongly promote a message of abstinence and responsibility to our youth, which I believe can help to reduce the number of abortions in our country.'' I believe that nothing in Dr. Satcher's background, including his work as CDC Director, suggests that he would try to make the Surgeon General's post into a pro-abortion bully pulpit. Indeed, he has personally given me his assurances to the contrary. I remember when Dr. C. Everett Koop was nominated by a Republican President and his nomination was held up for some 8 or 9 months on the issue of abortion, even though Dr. Koop asserted he would not use the Surgeon General's Office as a public forum for advocacy for abortion. As things worked out, we finally were able to get him confirmed, and I won't go into all the details on how that happened. He proved to be one of the great Surgeons General of the United States. I believe Dr. Satcher will likewise prove to be a very successful Surgeon General of the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote for him. In addition, I am aware that another series of questions has been raised regarding joint CDC/NIH-sponsored clinical trials conducted in Thailand and the Ivory Coast to determine the effectiveness of AZT to prevent pregnant mothers from transmitting the HIV virus to their children. In a nutshell, concern has been raised because the foreign trials were placebo-controlled against a ``short course'' regimen, whereas, in the United States a ``long course'' AZT regimen would have been the baseline for care. While it is clear that an argument can be made that the U.S. standard of care could have been used, this would not have resolved a more difficult problem of lack of access to expensive medications. While opinion is hardly unanimous on this issue, the better view is that these grounds were appropriate to the nations and the populations studied. These trials were done in complete partnership with the local patients, health officials, and the World Health Organization. As our debate on the Hatch-Gregg FDA export bill in 1995 made abundantly clear, we need not and should not second-guess the choice of patients and officials in other countries who, for a myriad of reasons, seek not to use the American standard of care. I believe it is critical for those in Congress to respect differences of the health and wealth characteristics of other countries. What is appropriate policy in the United States is not necessarily appropriate in the Third World. Mr. President, I want to emphasize the importance of the position Dr. Satcher seeks to assume. The Surgeon General is the head of the United States Public Health Service Commission Corps. And, formerly, the position of Assistant Secretary for Health was the top public health slot in the government. Unfortunately, the position of Assistant Secretary for Health was downgraded in the Clinton administration and has become less important since the ``ASH'' no longer has line authority over the public health agencies such as CDC, NIH and FDA. I hope that Dr. Satcher will undertake a review of that decision because I think it was a mistake, and I hope to discuss that with him in the future. In closing, I want to point out that Dr. Satcher has a distinguished record that will be an asset to those important public health positions. Doctor Satcher is a recognized public health leader and a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the recipient of numerous awards, such as the 1996 awardee of the AMA's prestigious Dr. Nathan B. Davis award. In short, Dr. Satcher is a well-credentialed, highly effective public health leader. If confirmed, he will be the highest-ranking physician within HHS and could be counted on to be an articulate national spokesperson on a wide range of public health issues that we all agree are important. I think we can all learn by the example set almost 20 years ago when this body, as I mentioned earlier, confirmed C. Everett Koop to be Surgeon General over the objections of many in the other party. The fears about Dr. Koop's partisanship were unfounded. Today, he is widely respected by Senators on both sides of the aisle, and it is my hope that this is a legacy Dr. Satcher will leave as well.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an address I gave to the Progress and Freedom Foundation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I was supposed to be here at 2 to give a short speech and introduce a bill. Would it be all right with the distinguished Senator from Maryland if I do that? I have to chair the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Hatch and Mr. Cleland pertaining to the submission of S.J. Res. 40 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. HATCH. If I could go immediately following the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. I oppose this amendment. Yes, there are things that can be said, but there are many things that have been accomplished during the tenure of Hoover. I have to say there is a raft of FBI agents who would be very offended by this. And I don't think we should do it. As a matter of fact, if we go back through time, if you look at all the good things that were done and all the many accomplishments of the FBI, you have to conclude there was an awful lot that we have to be proud of even though there are some things that are certainly to be criticized and rightfully so. When the Senate takes action to honor--or discredit--men and women who have favorably shaped this nation, we should do so only after careful reflection and deliberation. We must also be careful not to allow the faults or excesses of an individual overshadow the contributions they have made to our country. I think we need to consider the negative effect passage of this amendment could have on an institution that has made a profound contribution to the safety and security of this nation. The FBI is deservedly recognized as the preeminent law enforcement agency in the world. And whether we care to like him or not, unlike any other institution in our federal government, there is one person that is directly responsible for the FBI's rise in prominence, J. Edgar Hoover. Under Hoover, the FBI was transformed from a small sleepy Washington office, into the major force thwarting criminal activity in this country. Hoover took over the FBI in May 1924 and placed the Bureau at the forefront in combating the major gangster activity of that era. The FBI was directly responsible for the arrest of notable gangsters such as John Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson. During World War II the FBI spearheaded efforts to uncover Nazi saboteurs and spies infiltrating the United States in an effort to disrupt the Allied war effort. In the 1950's under Hoover's leadership the Bureau was instrumental in the identification and arrest of Soviet Spies of the likes of Sobel and Abel, as well as the arrest of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Remember also, that it was the Hoover FBI that cracked the infamous Brinks robbery in Boston, loudly touted as the ``Crime of the Century'' at that time. Among many other responsibilities, the FBI played a vital role in the 1960's in fighting deep seated racism in the deep south. It was Hoover's FBI that combated threats from the Ku Klux Klan. It was this same FBI that investigated the infamous ``Mississippi Burning'' case that brought to justice those responsible for the senseless murder of 3 civil rights workers. It was this same FBI that brought James Earl Ray to justice. It was also the Hoover FBI of the 1960's that conducted an extensive investigation into organized crime that led to the identification of an enormous criminal network stretching from Chicago to New York and Boston, and touched the lives of countless communities in between. Today we recognize this network as La Cosa Nostra. This is merely a snap shot of the considerable accomplishments made by the FBI under the leadership of J. Edgar Hoover. Let me remind my colleagues that the day after his death in 1972, Hoover's body was laid in State in the Rotunda of the Capitol--an honor bestowed upon only 21 other Americans in the history of this great nation. In his death, despite revelations that have been made, it is undeniable that Hoover's legacy in building the FBI to its current stature continues to have a profound effect upon the safety and security of this nation. From the investigation and arrest of those responsible for the World Trade Center bombing, to the recent conviction of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski; from the arrest of CIA agent Aldrich Ames for espionage, to the investigation that resulted in the convictions of Timothy Macveigh and Terry Nichols for the Oklahoma City bombing, the FBI continues to be recognized as a vital component of law enforcement. Let us honor the legacy of this honorable institution, by continuing to give appropriate recognition to Mr. Hoover, the principal architect in its rise to prominence. In reviewing my colleague from Nevada's reasoning for this amendment, it is clear that he believes he is doing the right thing. I do not question his sincerity. But I do not think the Senate should act on accounts contained in a single book. More importantly, we are here today to honor President Reagan. I urge each of my colleagues to address this issue alone without being compelled to bring other agencies or memorials into the equation. So I hope our colleagues will vote against this amendment. I respect my good friend from Nevada, but I oppose this amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator withhold for just a short moment?

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, may we have order?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to compliment the manager of the bill for his good arguments.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to compliment the manager of the bill and others who voted against this amendment. I know it was sincerely brought, and I know that there may be some arguments that some could raise. But in all honesty, the FBI has been one of our most venerable institutions for all of these years. We know that the former Director deserves most of the credit for building it and that there are literally thousands of FBI agents who would have been very upset if that amendment was adopted. I thank all of our colleagues for having voted to table the amendment, and I hope that we do not do this in the future. We do not put names on buildings idly, and we do not do them facetiously, and we do not do them foolishly. Once they are there, we ought to remember the traditions and history and the good things that really were done. All of us have faults, all of us make mistakes, and all of us need to work out our own repentance for things that we do from time to time. So I thank everybody who did vote to table the amendment for having done so, and I think they did the right thing. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with great honor and reverence that I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Cleland, to introduce a Constitutional Amendment to permit Congress to enact legislation prohibiting the desecration of the American flag. Mr. President, symbols are important. They remind us of who, and what, we are. Those of us who are married, for example, wear wedding rings to symbolize the commitment we have made to share our lives with another person. For those of us who are Christians, the cross serves to remind us of the importance of faith and sacrifice. Similarly, Jews unite behind the Star of David, which tells them they are of an ancient faith and lineage. These representations are not trivial. They help bind us together and give us a common identity. In similar fashion, the American flag serves as a symbol of our great nation. As a religious symbol serves to remind its adherents of their common identity, the flag represents in a way nothing else can, the common bond shared by an otherwise diverse people. Whatever our differences of party, race, religion, or socio-economic status, the flag reminds us that we are very much one people, united in a shared destiny, bonded in a common faith in our nation. Nearly a decade ago, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens reminded us of the significance of our unique emblem when he 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 it is with the American flag. It 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 peoples who share our aspirations. Justice Stevens' words ring true. After all, for over 200 years, this proud banner has symbolized hope, opportunity, justice and, most of all, freedom, not just to the people of this nation, but to people all over the world. Perhaps no three events symbolize the importance of this national symbol better than the great battle to our North that gave rise to our national anthem, the ``Star Spangled Banner''; the raising of the American flag on the Island of Iwo Jima by United States Marines during World War II; and the planting of the flag upon the moon. When Francis Scott Key, imprisoned on a ship in Baltimore Harbor, looked to the besieged Fort McHenry he penned the immortal question ``O say does that star spangled banner yet waive, o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?'' That dark night, he witnessed the bombardment of the fort, and knew that if it fell, the tide of the war could turn. In the early morning light, Key gazed out across the water to see if the fledgling nation had survived. And one glorious symbol gave him his answer. In the second verse of our great national anthem, Key described what he saw: ``On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep, where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes--What is that which the breeze o'er the towering steep--as it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses? Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam in full glory reflected now shines on the stream. `Tis the Star Spangled Banner, Oh long may it wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.'' When Francis Scott Key looked out that morning, oh how he must have felt to have seen that yes, that banner did wave and that the hope of the nation was preserved. At a similarly cricial point in this nation's history, Americans rallied around a photograph of United States Marines raising the flag on the island of Iwo Jima during World War II. That heroic image, immortalized in the Marine Corps Memorial next to Arlington National Cemetery, instantly came to symbolize the determination and courage of all the brave Americans fighting in that great struggle for the very survival of America as a free nation. Seeing the American flag raised on an island so close to the enemy's shore, so far from home, gave the country the will it needed to fight on. Fifty years later, the planting of the flag on that small pacific island remains one of our nation's most powerful images, reminding us that throughout our history, through the generations, from the Battle of Bunker Hill, to the Civil War, to Operation Desert Storm, on every continent and ocean, in every corner of the world, Americans have fought, and in many cases given their lives, fighting under this flag for the nation and the ideals it represents. And who can forget the fact that the greatest honor bestowed upon those who have died in battle or otherwise given great service to this nation, is to have the flag draped over their caskets. It is a reminder to the living that they owe their freedoms to those who have fallen and a promise to the dead that their country has not forgotten them. It is not only in war that this national symbol has served to unite us. Few who saw it live on television will forget the moment when Neal Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted the American flag on the moon. This moment, perhaps more than any other, demonstrated that we are a nation of restless explorers, of dreamers, always ready to reach for the stars. The flag planted upon that alien soil was a testimony to the hard work, the ingenuity, and the pioneer spirit of the American people. I am therefore proud to rise today to introduce a constitutional amendment that would restore to Congress the right to protect our unique national symbol, the American flag, from acts of physical desecration. Restoring legal protection to the American flag is not, nor should it be, a partisan issue. Fifty four Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have joined with Senator Cleland and myself as original cosponsors of this amendment. Now, some have argued that this Amendment actually violates American principles. They contend that preventing the physical desecration of the flag actually tramples on the sacred right of Americans to speak freely. I disagree. Restoring legal protection to the American flag would not infringe on free speech. If burning the flag were the only means of expressing dissatisfaction with the nation's policies, then I, too, might oppose this amendment. But we live in a free and open society. Those who wish to express their political opinions may do so in the media, in newspaper editorials, in peaceful demonstrations, and through their power to vote. Certainly, smashing in the doors of the State Department may be a way of expressing one's dissatisfaction with the nation's foreign policy objectives. And one may even consider such behavior speech. Laws, however, can be enacted preventing such actions--in large part because there are peaceful alternatives that can be equally powerful. After all, right here in the United States Senate, we prohibit speeches or demonstrations of any kind, even the silent display of signs or banners, in the public galleries. As a society, we can and do place limitations on both speech and conduct. Moreover, contrary to the claims of some, restoring legal protection to the American flag would not overturn or otherwise constrict the First Amendment. Rather, it would merely overturn an interpretation of that amendment by the Supreme Court, in which the Court, by the narrowest of margins, held that flag burning was a form of protected free speech. I believe the Court's majority had it wrong--that its decision flew in the face of over 200 years of American history: burning the flag is conduct--conduct for which there exists numerous peaceful alternatives--and may be prohibited. The amendment Senator Cleland and I propose would correct the Supreme Court's error and restore to Congress and the States the power they historically had to protect the American flag from acts of physical desecration. Nor would restoring legal protection to the American flag place us on a slippery slope to limit other freedoms. The flag is unique as our national symbol. There is no other symbol, no other object, which represents our nation as does the flag. Accordingly, there is no basis for concern that the protection we seek for the American flag could be extended to cover any other object or form of political expression. For many years, our flag was protected, by federal laws and laws in 48 states, from acts of physical desecration. No one can seriously argue that freedom of speech or freedom of expression was diminished or curtailed during that period. Restoring the protection of law to our flag would not prevent the expression, in numerous ways safeguarded under the Constitution, of a single idea or thought. I would note that the effort to restore legal protection to our national symbol is a movement of the American people. It has been initiated by grassroot Americans; numerous civic, veterans and patriotic organizations, led by the American Legion, joined together in the Citizens Flag Alliance, working to build support across this nation for a constitutional amendment to restore the historical protection of our flag. And forty-six states have passed resolutions urging Congress to send a flag protection amendment to the states for ratification. That is no small support. I believe we need to support them. I therefore think that the will of the people should not be frustrated by this body. This resolution should be adopted, and the flag amendment sent to the states for their approval. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the proposed amendment be included in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very honored to be a cosponsor with my dear friend from Georgia, Senator Cleland. I appreciate the efforts he has put forth in this battle, and having served in the military as he has done with such distinction and with such courage and heroism I think we ought to all listen to him and I for one will certainly do that. I am proud and privileged to be able to work with him. So I yield the floor to my colleague.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with great honor and reverence that I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Cleland, to introduce a Constitutional Amendment to permit Congress to enact legislation prohibiting the desecration of the American flag. Mr. President, symbols are important. They remind us of who, and what, we are. Those of us who are married, for example, wear wedding rings to symbolize the commitment we have made to share our lives with another person. For those of us who are Christians, the cross serves to remind us of the importance of faith and sacrifice. Similarly, Jews unite behind the Star of David, which tells them they are of an ancient faith and lineage. These representations are not trivial. They help bind us together and give us a common identity. In similar fashion, the American flag serves as a symbol of our great nation. As a religious symbol serves to remind its adherents of their common identity, the flag represents in a way nothing else can, the common bond shared by an otherwise diverse people. Whatever our differences of party, race, religion, or socio-economic status, the flag reminds us that we are very much one people, united in a shared destiny, bonded in a common faith in our nation. Nearly a decade ago, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens reminded us of the significance of our unique emblem when he 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 it is with the American flag. It 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 peoples who share our aspirations. Justice Stevens' words ring true. After all, for over 200 years, this proud banner has symbolized hope, opportunity, justice and, most of all, freedom, not just to the people of this nation, but to people all over the world. Perhaps no three events symbolize the importance of this national symbol better than the great battle to our North that gave rise to our national anthem, the ``Star Spangled Banner''; the raising of the American flag on the Island of Iwo Jima by United States Marines during World War II; and the planting of the flag upon the moon. When Francis Scott Key, imprisoned on a ship in Baltimore Harbor, looked to the besieged Fort McHenry he penned the immortal question ``O say does that star spangled banner yet waive, o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?'' That dark night, he witnessed the bombardment of the fort, and knew that if it fell, the tide of the war could turn. In the early morning light, Key gazed out across the water to see if the fledgling nation had survived. And one glorious symbol gave him his answer. In the second verse of our great national anthem, Key described what he saw: ``On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep, where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes--What is that which the breeze o'er the towering steep--as it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses? Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam in full glory reflected now shines on the stream. `Tis the Star Spangled Banner, Oh long may it wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.'' When Francis Scott Key looked out that morning, oh how he must have felt to have seen that yes, that banner did wave and that the hope of the nation was preserved. At a similarly cricial point in this nation's history, Americans rallied around a photograph of United States Marines raising the flag on the island of Iwo Jima during World War II. That heroic image, immortalized in the Marine Corps Memorial next to Arlington National Cemetery, instantly came to symbolize the determination and courage of all the brave Americans fighting in that great struggle for the very survival of America as a free nation. Seeing the American flag raised on an island so close to the enemy's shore, so far from home, gave the country the will it needed to fight on. Fifty years later, the planting of the flag on that small pacific island remains one of our nation's most powerful images, reminding us that throughout our history, through the generations, from the Battle of Bunker Hill, to the Civil War, to Operation Desert Storm, on every continent and ocean, in every corner of the world, Americans have fought, and in many cases given their lives, fighting under this flag for the nation and the ideals it represents. And who can forget the fact that the greatest honor bestowed upon those who have died in battle or otherwise given great service to this nation, is to have the flag draped over their caskets. It is a reminder to the living that they owe their freedoms to those who have fallen and a promise to the dead that their country has not forgotten them. It is not only in war that this national symbol has served to unite us. Few who saw it live on television will forget the moment when Neal Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted the American flag on the moon. This moment, perhaps more than any other, demonstrated that we are a nation of restless explorers, of dreamers, always ready to reach for the stars. The flag planted upon that alien soil was a testimony to the hard work, the ingenuity, and the pioneer spirit of the American people. I am therefore proud to rise today to introduce a constitutional amendment that would restore to Congress the right to protect our unique national symbol, the American flag, from acts of physical desecration. Restoring legal protection to the American flag is not, nor should it be, a partisan issue. Fifty four Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have joined with Senator Cleland and myself as original cosponsors of this amendment. Now, some have argued that this Amendment actually violates American principles. They contend that preventing the physical desecration of the flag actually tramples on the sacred right of Americans to speak freely. I disagree. Restoring legal protection to the American flag would not infringe on free speech. If burning the flag were the only means of expressing dissatisfaction with the nation's policies, then I, too, might oppose this amendment. But we live in a free and open society. Those who wish to express their political opinions may do so in the media, in newspaper editorials, in peaceful demonstrations, and through their power to vote. Certainly, smashing in the doors of the State Department may be a way of expressing one's dissatisfaction with the nation's foreign policy objectives. And one may even consider such behavior speech. Laws, however, can be enacted preventing such actions--in large part because there are peaceful alternatives that can be equally powerful. After all, right here in the United States Senate, we prohibit speeches or demonstrations of any kind, even the silent display of signs or banners, in the public galleries. As a society, we can and do place limitations on both speech and conduct. Moreover, contrary to the claims of some, restoring legal protection to the American flag would not overturn or otherwise constrict the First Amendment. Rather, it would merely overturn an interpretation of that amendment by the Supreme Court, in which the Court, by the narrowest of margins, held that flag burning was a form of protected free speech. I believe the Court's majority had it wrong--that its decision flew in the face of over 200 years of American history: burning the flag is conduct--conduct for which there exists numerous peaceful alternatives--and may be prohibited. The amendment Senator Cleland and I propose would correct the Supreme Court's error and restore to Congress and the States the power they historically had to protect the American flag from acts of physical desecration. Nor would restoring legal protection to the American flag place us on a slippery slope to limit other freedoms. The flag is unique as our national symbol. There is no other symbol, no other object, which represents our nation as does the flag. Accordingly, there is no basis for concern that the protection we seek for the American flag could be extended to cover any other object or form of political expression. For many years, our flag was protected, by federal laws and laws in 48 states, from acts of physical desecration. No one can seriously argue that freedom of speech or freedom of expression was diminished or curtailed during that period. Restoring the protection of law to our flag would not prevent the expression, in numerous ways safeguarded under the Constitution, of a single idea or thought. I would note that the effort to restore legal protection to our national symbol is a movement of the American people. It has been initiated by grassroot Americans; numerous civic, veterans and patriotic organizations, led by the American Legion, joined together in the Citizens Flag Alliance, working to build support across this nation for a constitutional amendment to restore the historical protection of our flag. And forty-six states have passed resolutions urging Congress to send a flag protection amendment to the states for ratification. That is no small support. I believe we need to support them. I therefore think that the will of the people should not be frustrated by this body. This resolution should be adopted, and the flag amendment sent to the states for their approval. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the proposed amendment be included in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very honored to be a cosponsor with my dear friend from Georgia, Senator Cleland. I appreciate the efforts he has put forth in this battle, and having served in the military as he has done with such distinction and with such courage and heroism I think we ought to all listen to him and I for one will certainly do that. I am proud and privileged to be able to work with him. So I yield the floor to my colleague.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 3, 1998, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1253, the Public Land Management Improvement Act of 1997.