in his statement some weeks back a number of principles that he would want to see embodied. Senator LEAHY. Is the administration going to take a position on the wording of any proposal? Is the administration going to take a position on any of the constitutional amendments before us on marriage? Mr. BRYANT. I expect the administration will be pleased to be working with the Congress on the text itself and would ultimately take a position as appropriate. Senator LEAHY. That is not really my question. Is there text that the administration now supports on the question of marriage? Mr. BRYANT. I am unaware that the administration is currently officially supporting any specific text. I do know that the administration is pleased to work with various members of Congress that have propounded text. Senator LEAHY. But they haven't taken a position on any of the various proposals out there? Mr. BRYANT. That is my understanding, Senator. Senator LEAHY. Now, does the administration support having the States vote to amend the Constitution to encompass the language that is before us on flag-burning? Mr. BRYANT. The administration supports the text of S.J. Res. 4, which language would, of course, if passed by the Congress by twothirds vote of both Houses, have to go to the States and pass threequarters of the States. Senator LEAHY. Maybe I should break it down. The administration supports having the Congress provide the two-thirds vote to support the language now before us. Is that correct? Mr. BRYANT. Yes, sir. Senator LEAHY. Does the administration then support having the requisite number of States support it? Is that the administration's position? Mr. BRYANT. It does. The administration presumably would be willing to work with the Congress, should it see fit to modify the text of S.J. Res. 4 in any respect such that it might then be in a position still to support modified language that might go to the States. I wouldn't want to foreclose that possibility. Senator LEAHY. But currently it is the administration's position that they support this language and support having the Congress pass it with the requisite number and then the requisite number of States pass it. Mr. BRYANT. That is my understanding. Senator LEAHY. They do or they don't. Mr. BRYANT. I understand them to support the text of the resolution. Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions that I will introduce for the record. As I mentioned to you earlier, like so many Senators, I am supposed to be at three different hearings at once. I commend you for having this hearing. Again, please pass on our best wishes to the Attorney General and tell him we look forward to seeing him back hale and hardy and up here. Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, if I might, before Senator Leahy leaves, with respect to the question of the flags in this room that are protected that we have had a chance briefly to discuss, I just wanted to follow up. I think the policy question is, as I understand it, should the American flag have to borrow protection from the protected status of other protected items. It is the position of the proponents of this resolution that the American flag should benefit from an independent protected status and not simply be protected when it is on someone's private property or when it has been stolen as the private property of another individual. Senator LEAHY. Is there anything else that has such protection in our Constitution, such stand-alone protection the way you described it? Mr. BRYANT. I think the category that strikes me as being similar, though not identical, is that of our key landmarks, our key monuments. The Lincoln Memorial Senator LEAHY. Those are protected under very specific laws, laws that have been upheld constitutionally. Is there anything else in our Constitution that is given such unique constitutional standalone protection? Mr. BRYANT. Other than the flag itself until 1989, I am not sure of another item. Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Bryant, good to see you. Chairman HATCH. The Senator from Idaho. Senator CRAIG. Only to thank Mr. Bryant for being here and stating as clearly as he has where the administration is on this issue. I think he has spoken the essence of what this Committee needs to react to, and that is our responsibility to allow the American people to speak out on this issue. I agree with the Senator from California that it really is time that this country once again engage in these kinds of historic debates. Certainly, this would provoke one and it would be extremely valuable for our country to have it. Thank you for being here. Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, sir. Chairman HATCH. Senator Durbin. Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Please add my wishes to those of the other members of the Committee about the Attorney General. I understand he has been through a pretty tough week and we wish him the best and hope for his speedy recovery. Mr. BRYANT. Thank you. Senator DURBIN. I want to make sure I understand the administration's position. Two weeks ago, the President said he favored a constitutional amendment relative to same-sex marriage. Today, the testimony that you are presenting suggests that the administration supports a constitutional amendment on flag desecration. What other constitutional amendments is the administration supporting? Mr. BRYANT. Like administrations before it, it also supports a constitutional amendment in connection with victims rights. As you know, Senator, the support for that amendment goes back a number of administrations, as does support for this resolution before us today. Support for this resolution, which would permit Congress to protect the flag against physical desecration, precedes this administration. Senator DURBIN. Are there any other constitutional amendments that the administration is supporting? Mr. BRYANT. None that I am aware of. Senator DURBIN. Based on your argument that the States should have a chance to express their will, does the administration believe that the equal rights amendment should once again be submitted to the States for consideration? Mr. BRYANT. I am not aware that the administration has addressed that issue, Senator. Senator DURBIN. Has the administration taken a position on any constitutional amendment relative to Roe v. Wade or abortion? Mr. BRYANT. I am not sure of the administration's discussion in connection with any such amendment, Senator. Senator DURBIN. Mr. Bryant, a lot of people raised a question several weeks ago when the President proposed the constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage as to the position of Vice President Cheney, who during the course of his debate with Senator Lieberman said that he thought this issue should be decided by the States and that Federal action, he did not believe, was necessary. Is that Vice President Cheney's position today or has he changed his position? Mr. BRYANT. I could not speak to the Vice President's position today, Senator. Senator DURBIN. Can you tell us whether Secretary of State Colin Powell, who opposed this amendment, has changed his position and now supports the administration's position? Mr. BRYANT. Likewise, I am not in a position to know. Chairman HATCH. Senator Feinstein. Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for your comment, Mr. Bryant. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a story dated October 26 from the Washington Times. I don't think anybody should believe that flag desecration doesn't take place in this country. It does, and this is one such incident which took place in October when the American flag was burned on Constitution Avenue near 15th Street. So I would like to be in the record, if I might. I will assume that is agreeable. Mr. Bryant, on page 3 of your written statement you cite the language of the Flag Protection Act of 1968. You may not want to answer this, but do you believe that if the constitutional amendment were successful that this language could be reinstituted and would meet legal scrutiny? Mr. BRYANT. It is a good question, Senator. I wouldn't want to give the definitive response today. Looking at the language of the 1968 Act, there are a number of terms that would require a close evaluation. There is certainly no doubt, in our judgment, that a statute protecting the flag against physical desecration could be passed that would certainly withstand constitutional scrutiny. Whether or not the 1968 Act would, I would want to reserve judgment. Senator FEINSTEIN. Then my next question would be would you be willing to draft a statute that you believe would meet legal scrutiny that we might be able to utilize in our discussions and debate on this subject? Mr. BRYANT. We would, and were we to do that, Senator, working with the Committee, working with the Congress, an outstanding starting point would be the 1989 Act that passed with 91 votes in the Senate. Senator FEINSTEIN. Could you refresh our memory? I didn't see it in your comments, but perhaps you do have it in your written comments. Do you? Mr. BRYANT. Yes. Senator FEINSTEIN. On what page? Mr. BRYANT. Actually, I don't know if it is in the written comments. I have it and could provide it to you, and it is elegant in its simplicity. Unfortunately, Eichman, the subsequent Supreme Court case, struck it down on grounds not specific so much to its drafting, but more in connection with the objective it was seeking to accomplish. But it is still on the books, Senator. It is Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 700. So it is there even though it has been struck down pursuant to Eichman. Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, if you would be willing to take a look at that, then, and if you would recommend any improvements, I certainly would like to have it, and I think the Committee ought to have it as well. Mr. BRYANT. We would be pleased to. Senator, it has been pointed out to me that the text is contained in a footnote in the written statement. It might be footnote 8, and on the copy I have been provided it is page 3 of the statement. Senator FEINSTEIN. Page 3 or 6? Mr. BRYANT. See if there is a footnote that reads, quote, “Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns" Senator FEINSTEIN. Page 6. "...physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both." Okay, so that is essentially the latest. So I think it would be very useful to have you take a good look at that, if you would, and get back to us if you recommend any changes or improvements. Mr. BRYANT. Very good. We would be pleased to. Senator FEINSTEIN. I know it is a long way off, but being prepared is not a bad idea either. Thank you very much. Mr. BRYANT. Thank you. Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Chairman HATCH. Thank you, General Bryant. We appreciate you being here and appreciate your eloquent remarks and the answers to the questions. We will appreciate any help you can give on this matter. Mr. BRYANT. It will be a pleasure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman HATCH. And send our best wishes to Janet and her husband, the Attorney General. We are pulling for him and praying for him, and we hope everything is okay. Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, sir. Chairman HATCH. Great to have you here. We will let you go at this time. Mr. BRYANT. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bryant appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman HATCH. Let's have the five witnesses come to the table. I have introduced you already. They will put the name tags up. We are going to start with Mr. Andretti first, since he has to catch a plane, and then we will go to General Brady. Mr. Andretti, if we could begin with you, we are so honored to have you here. We appreciate you taking time from what we know is a busy schedule, and I think it is a good thing that you are the first NASCAR driver to appear before the United States Senate. We know it is a little bit disconcerting to have to appear before the Senate, but we are grateful to have you here. It is not nearly as frightening as what you do on a day-by-day basis. STATEMENT OF JOHN ANDRETTI, NASCAR NEXTEL CUP SERIES DRIVER, MOORESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA Mr. ANDRETTI. Much more frightening, believe me. To get started, I would like to introduce a colleague of mine, Raleigh Hemling, who is the President of the United States Auto Club. Chairman HATCH. It is great to have you with us. Mr. ANDRETTI. Good morning. My name is John Andretti and I want to thank the members of the Judiciary Committee for holding this hearing, and thank you also for inviting me to talk on a matter that is of importance to me and the great majority of Americans, protecting their flag from acts of physical desecration. By the end of World War II, my father's family had lost everything. He and his brother grew up in a relocation camp in eastern Italy, living there from the time they were 8 years old until they were 16. They came to the United States at that point, a land of freedom and opportunity, and I am proud to say they made the most of it. Sometimes, he has a hard time describing it because of the emotion, but my father has told me, after seeing the flag of the United States first when liberated in his native Italy and later when liberated into a new life for him and his family, the flag of the United States represented goodness and freedom. That is a lesson he has taught to his children and a lesson I am teaching to mine. Being a father of three, it is important for me to teach my children respect and honor, not only for individuals but also on a whole, and the flag is a means to that end. Our faith is our foundation, but there must be more and it must be tangible and it is found in the flag. This is obviously not my environment. I am usually wearing a fire-retardant uniform emblazoned with the colors of my sponsors and talking about NASCAR racing. I am a race car driver and have |