This is the second hearing in just a week's time in which we are debating a constitutional amendment during this election year that would, in this case, amend the Bill of Rights for the first time in our Nation's history. Now, I know the flag amendment is an issue of particular importance to veterans, whether it is my young Marine son or any other veteran here. I know that opinions are on both sides of this issue. I have gotten voluminous letters and e-mails from veterans in favor of this amendment and voluminous letters and e-mails from veterans opposed to this amendment. The one thing that we should all agree on is that this Nation has to be thankful for the service of these veterans to our Nation. No matter how we feel about this constitutional amendment, that is an area where we all agree. I also heard from a number of veterans who asked me if this amendment coming up at this time, especially just before we have our budget votes, may be a distraction on behalf of the administration so we might not look at what it is doing directly for or to veterans. Some of these veterans have written to me and asked me if maybe the administration believes that veterans might be distracted from the fact that the administration is failing to meet their long-term health and related needs. The reason I ask this is that I also serve on the Appropriations Committee, and I look at the budget from the Veterans Administration, and it tells me a lot about the Administration's priorities. Here is the President's budget for veterans. It doesn't maintain current services. It falls $1.2 billion below what the VA says it needs. It is $2.9 billion below what veterans have put together on the independent budget. Out-of-pocket expenses for veterans have skyrocketed 478 percent under this administration. Even though Congress added $2.1 billion over the last 3 years over what the President requested, we still have a shortfall. In fact, it is interesting that when we have added the money to make up for the shortfalls in veterans benefits, this same administration has been very, very critical of the Congress for putting money in the veterans budget. I mention this because the letters I receive tell me about the longer waits at the VA hospitals, the extra costs, the out-of-pocket expenses, and so on. And I wonder if at the same time we are debating the budget for the veterans-many of whom are in town today this hearing is designed to distract us from the fact that our veterans' health care is being cut yet again. Now, I respect the views of veterans on both sides of this issue, of course. But I want to note some of the veterans who have opposed it. Senator John Glenn, who is a combat veteran, wrote, "The flag is the Nation's most powerful and emotional symbol. It is our most sacred symbol. It is our most revered symbol. But it is a symbol. It symbolizes the freedoms that we have in this country, but it is not the freedoms themselves." Senator Glenn, who served with distinction in World War II and in the Korean War and, of course, as an astronaut and a member of this Senate, feels this way. Senator Bob Kerrey, who is only one of two Senators I have served with who were recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, also opposes the amendment. They were invited to testify today, but they were given very short notice and were unable to change their schedules to do this. And the Committee was unable to rearrange its schedule to allow them, so I would ask that their statements be made part of the record. Chairman HATCH. Without objection. Senator LEAHY. Another veteran wrote to me, retired Four-Star General Colin Powell, now the Secretary of State in the Bush administration. He wrote in opposition to the proposed amendment. He said, "We are rightly outraged when anyone attacks or desecrates our flag. Few Americans do such things and when they do they are subject to the rightful condemnation of their fellow citizens. They may be destroying a piece of cloth, but they do no damage to our system of freedom which tolerates such desecration." Referring to the Constitution, General Powell continued, "I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying proudly long after they have slunk away." I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that Secretary Powell's letter be part of the record. Chairman HATCH. Without objection. Senator LEAHY. I know how offended any one of us gets when we see desecration of the flag. I remember during the Super Bowl halftime show the thing that offended me the most was when Kid Rock wore a flag as a pancho and then just tossed it away on the ground afterwards. In fact, my wife had to get me to stop shouting at the television when I watched that. There was a lot of publicity about something else at that halftime show. Frankly, I missed that and never saw that, but, boy, I saw that flag being flown out there and worn as a pancho. I am certainly as patriotic a person as anybody, as is the President, but I know that he signed a flag at a campaign rally last summer. Under this amendment, that would be also inappropriate. But these acts are protected by the Constitution. All of us agree that flag desecration is a despicable and reprehensible act, but the true question before us is not whether we agree with that. All of us agree it is contemptible. The issue before us is whether we should amend the Constitution of the United States, with all the risks that entails, and whether for the first time in our history we should narrow the freedoms ensured by the First Amendment. As Supreme Court Justice Brennan wrote, "We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own." That is exactly how the American people respond, a point demonstrated by the innate patriotism of Americans in response to events of the past years, as Chairman Hatch pointed out so eloquently a few minutes ago, with the sale of flags after 9/11. But the Chairman did say this constitutional amendment is the only way to protect our flag. I disagree. At my home in Vermont, I live on a dirt road, a very rural, very picturesque area. All the neighbors know when the Leahys are home because the flag is flying, as it has for the 30 years I have been a Senator. That flag is protected by Vermont law, a State constitutional law. If somebody came on my property and took that flag and desecrated it, and assuming there was much left of them after I fin ished with them, they could be prosecuted under Vermont law. If they did the same thing in Utah, they could be prosecuted under Utah law. The flags in this room are all protected. If anybody desecrated one of these flags, the police officers here would arrest them. They could be prosecuted for defacing Federal property. There are laws that protect any flag that is flown at your home. If somebody came and desecrated your flag, they could be prosecuted for both trespass and destruction of your property. What I am suggesting is that the thing we must protect the most is our sacred Constitution. When I go to countries where there are dictators they have to have all kinds of laws to protect themselves. You cannot criticize their president or their prime minister, or whomever. You can't criticize the symbols of their state or you will go to jail. They enact these laws to keep their people in line. I love bragging about the fact that Americans can criticize anybody. I talk about people who have rallies to criticize me or anybody else, and that we Americans protect our flag. We protect it without laws to require doing so. We do it because we love the symbols of our country, and it makes me feel good to tell some of these dictators we don't need to do what they do; we don't need those kinds of protections. Immediately after September 11th, the surge in patriotism made American flags such a hot commodity that several major flag manufacturers could not keep flags stocked on store shelves. We don't need to teach Americans how to respect the flag. The American people have shown they respect the flag. In the neighborhood I live in when I am here in Washington during session, there are a number of homes owned by foreign embassies. The day after September 11th, Mr. Chairman, I walked down those streets and all those homes were flying both their national flag and the U.S. flag. I went by and left a hand-written note in every single one of their mailboxes thanking them for that. Freedom of speech and the press is one of the magnificent bequests of earlier Americans to all the generations that follow. These rights are fragile and they need nurturing and protection by every new generation. The erosion of freedom can easily come when lawmakers succumb to the temptation to pander to shifting public passions, at the expense of the public's everlasting interest in preserving freedom. In any session of Congress, you do not have to look far to see this dynamic at work. It may not be politically popular to defend against erosive efforts like this, but generations of Americans to come will thank us if we leave for them the same First Amendment that we ourselves inherited and so dearly treasure, the same First Amendment that generations before us tried to change and did not. Mr. Chairman, I think you do us all a service in having this hearing. And while we may disagree on the basic thing, you know of my deep respect and affection for you. [The prepared statement Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Senator. We will turn to Senator Craig and the rest of the Committee for short statements, and we will go back and forth. Senator Craig. STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For those of you in the audience today who wonder why I am so far away from the dias, I am a junior on this Committee, so it is something to do with seniority. But I must say after Senator Leahy's comments, I am glad there is a little distance between us today because I do disagree with him on a variety of things. Of course, that is the beauty of the diversity that is demonstrated in this wonderful country of ours as we express our opinions on this issue. The thing that frustrates me most, after the House has consistently spoken out in a resolution for a flag amendment, is that the Senate by its action is denying the people the opportunity to speak. There is a fundamental difference here. It is not our Constitution, not that of the United States Senate. The Constitution is a phenomenally valuable foundational law of this country designed by the people. To deny all 50 States an opportunity to express that opinion, and a vast majority of the American people, I think is the wrong denial. I do believe it is time that we bring forth a constitutional amendment and send it to the States to allow the American people to express their opinion. I do agree with the Chairman that that becomes a phenomenally healthy debate for all Americans, because I am one who believes that we must consistently remind our citizens of their rights and of their Constitution. I don't think it is something that just because you are born here, that action in itself imbues totally with a knowledge and understanding of those fundamentals. Healthy national debates reinstate that. When we were celebrating the bicentennial of the Constitution, more young people learned once again about the value of that wonderful document than they had learned ever before. Why? Because it is not faddish anymore to teach it in our schools. Somehow, our schools get caught up in contemporary issues and fail in many instances to teach some of the foundational principles that this country was built upon. So for a variety of reasons, including the most obvious, I think it is time that we send forth this amendment, not because the Senate has decided it should or should not happen, although that is one of our responsibilities and the method by which this Constitution is amended, but because the States have so loudly spoken and because I believe it our responsibility to allow the American people to be granted that opportunity to speak. With that, Mr. Chairman, I have always felt that while the Supreme Court has a valuable role to play in this country, they are not given the right, if you will, to write the laws. That is our job and that is the job of the American people. That is why I strongly support this amendment. Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Senator. Senator CRAIG. Let me ask unanimous consent that my full statement be a part of the record. Chairman HATCH. Without objection. Senator CRAIG. And as somebody who is an active member of the Veterans Committee, we are going to plus-up veterans budgets again this year, as we did last year and the year before, and as we consistently did also during the Clinton years. It is important, I think, for everybody to understand that while there was an element of partisan expression here this morning, the reality is that we will do exactly what we have historically done as a Senate both during the Clinton years and now the Bush years, and that is to plus-up veterans budgets. I was at the Veterans Administration facility in my hometown now of Boise this past weekend, where there once were lines. By June, there will be no lines anymore. Why? Because we set that administrative process together to aggressively pursue and bring on people to resolve that problem, and we are doing it. I would encourage all Senators to encourage their veterans facilities to do the same, because they have been granted the money to get it done and now it is an administrative problem, in my opinion, much more than it is a dollars-and-cents problem. We have been able to prove that in Idaho. There will be no waiting lists as of June of this year in Idaho and I am proud of that fact. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement Senator Craig appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator Craig. STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to welcome our witnesses today. As the Ranking Member pointed out, this is our second hearing in two weeks on a constitutional amendment. The amendment we discussed last week would for the first time write discrimination into our Constitution. This week, we are discussing an amendment that would for the first time amend the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake, we are talking here today about amending the Constitution of the United States to permit the Government to criminalize conduct that, however misguided, is clearly expressive and is often undertaken as a form of political protest. Adopting this amendment would be a grave mistake. It seems almost silly to say this, but given some of the written testimony of some of the witnesses today, I must say it anyway. Not a single Senator who opposes the proposed constitutional amendment, as I do, supports burning or otherwise showing disrespect to the flag, not a single one. None of us thinks it is okay to burn the flag. None of us views the flag as just a piece of cloth. On those rare occasions when some malcontent defiles or burns our flag, I join every single person on this dais, whether they are way down there or right up here near the Chairman, and in this room and in this country, who condemns that action. At the same time, whatever the political cost, I will defend the right of Americans to express their views about their Government, however hate |