WITH ME, BUT I REALLY BELIEVE THAT OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME,
           THE DECADE, A HALF A CENTURY, A CENTURY, AMERICA WILL BE BETTER
           SERVED IF WE RESIST THE IMPULSE TO CHANGE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
           OF THE CONSTITUTION. IF WE RESIST THE IMPULSE TO AMEND THE
           CONSTITUTION IN WAYS THAT WILL CREATE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
           ONCE AGAIN THAT ROOM IN WHICH GEORGE WASHINGTON, MADISON,
           MASON, FRANKLIN AND OTHERS WROTE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
           STATES, WITH ADVICE, INCIDENTALLY FROM THOMAS JEFFERSON SERVING

           IN EUROPE AT THE TIME AND CONTRIBUTING MOST TO THE BILL OF
           RIGHT -- THAT ROOM CONTAINS NOT ONLY A GREAT SENSE OF HISTORY
           FOR THOSE OF WHO HAVE BEEN THERE, BUT AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
           FRAMEWORK FOR OUR DEMOCRACY, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, IS
           A VERY SPECIAL AND VERY PRECIOUS DOCUMENT AND SHOULD BE CHANGED
           ONLY IN RARE CIRCUMSTANCES AND ONLY THEN WHEN IT IS THE ONLY
           METHOD AVAILABLE FOR ACHIEVING A RESULT WE DEEM IMPORTANT AND
           IMPERATIVE FOR THIS COUNTRY. I BELIEVE THE STATUTE THAT HAS

           BEEN OFFERED AS AN AMENDMENT IS A STATUTORY APPROACH THAT WILL
           SOLVE THIS ISSUE IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY AND WILL AT THE SAME
           TIME PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTION AS IT WAS INTENDED, ESPECIALLY
           WITH ITS BILL OF RIGHTS AND MOST ESPECIALLY WITH THE CARE THAT
           THE CONGRESS AND AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE INURE KHURD FOR THIS
           DOCUMENT OVER NEARLY TWO CENTURIES. MR. PRESIDENT, LET ME COULD
           MEND THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE OFFERED
           THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, AND I HAVE
           HEARD THE DEBATE BY THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY AND THE SENATOR

           FROM UTAH AND CONCUR WITH THAT DISCUSSION, AND HOPE THAT WE
           WOULD ACHIEVE A POSITIVE VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT WHEN IT IS

           VOTED UPON. I YIELD THE FLOOR. MR. MCCONNELL: MR. PRESIDENT?
           I WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA FOR HIS REMARKS.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY.
           

           MR. MCCONNELL: I LESSENED TO HIS REMARKS CLOSELY. WE ARE GLAD
           TO HAVE HIM AS A COSPONSOR. I HOPE THIS TIME THE AMENDMENT AS
           OPPOSED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WILL PREVAIL. I THANK
           MY FRIEND FROM NORTH DAKOTA.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WHO YIELDS TIME?
           

           MR. SMITH: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.
           

           MR. SMITH: MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES THAT IS
           VERY EMOTIONAL. WE HAVE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES WHO TRULY HAVE THE
           SAME GOALS. WE BELIEVE ALIKE THAT THOSE WHO BURN THE FLAG OR
           DESECRATE THE FLAG IN ANY WAY ARE DESPICABLE PEOPLE WHO WE
           SHOULD HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR. AND SO I JUST WANT TO SAY UP FRONT
           BEFORE I MAKE MY REMARKS THAT I CERTAINLY HAVE THE DEEPEST
           RESPECT FOR ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO BELIEVE THAT WE DO NOT

           NEED AN AMENDMENT, A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT HERE, ESPECIALLY
           SENATOR MCCONNELL FOR WHOM I HAVE THE GREATEST RESPECT. BUT I
           THINK WE NEED TO LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT THIS ISSUE. THE
           CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN AMENDED -- ACTUALLY IT HAS BEEN AMENDED
           27 TIM, NOT 17. ONCE THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS, OF COURSE, THEN
           17 TIMES LATER, AND WHEN IT WAS AMENDED IT WAS AMENDED TO
           CLARIFY, TO MAKE CLEAR. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT
           PROCESS. THAT'S WHY THE FOUNDERS PUT IT IN THERE. I DON'T THINK

           THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC WILL TREMOR AND SHAKE AND FALL
           BECAUSE WE DECIDE TO DEAL WITH AN ISSUE SUCH AS FLAG
           DESECRATION WITH AN AMENDMENT. I THINK THAT SEEMS TO BE THE
           GIST OF WHAT WE ARE HEARING HERE PERHAPS IN AN OVERLY
           LEGALISTIC ARGUMENT THAT SOMEHOW THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
           WILL HAVE ACTED IRRESPONSIBLY TO PASS AN AMENDMENT TO THE
           CONSTITUTION WHICH WOULD LIMIT THE DESECRATION -- STOP THE
           DESECRATION OF THE FLAG. I'M AN ORIGINAL COSPONSOR OF THE

           CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AS INTRODUCED BY SENATOR HATCH, S.J.
           RES. 14, AND I AM PROUD TO BE A COSPONSOR OF THAT AMENDMENT.
           THE ACT OF THE DESECRATION OF THE UNITED STATES FLAG, IT IS AN
           AGGRESSIVE AND PROVOCATIVE ACT. IT IS ALSO AN ACT OF VIOLENCE
           AGAINST THE SYMBOL OF AMERICA. OUR STPHRAG. IT IS AN ACT OF
           VIOLENCE AGAINST OUR COUNTRY'S VALUES AND PRINCIPLES. THE
           CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES FREEDOM, THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT,
           AND IT GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. BUT IT ALSO SEEKS TO ASSURE

           IN THE WORDS OF THE PREAMBLE, DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY. MANY
           AMERICANS HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY, AS
           SYMBOLIZED BY THAT FLAG. MY OWN FAMILY AS THOUSANDS OF OTHER
           FAMILIES HAVE ENDURED THE SAME THING, MY DAD DIED IN WORLD
           WAII, AND MY FAMILY HAS THAT FLAG. IT IS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT
           ITEM IN OUR HOME AS IT WAS IN SENATOR MCCONNELL'S HOME WHEN HE
           MENTIONED HIS FATHER. AND -- BUT I BELIEVE THE FLAG DOES

           DESERVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION, BECAUSE IT IS MORE THAN
           JUST A FLAG. IT IS MORE THAN JUST A SYMBOL. AND I WOULD USE THE
           EXAMPLE OF A $5 BILL WHICH I HAPPEN TO HAVE HERE IN PLY HAND.
           IF THIS IS MERELY A SYMBOL AND HAS NO OTHER MEANING, THEN I
           SUPPOSE I COULD ASK MILLIONS OF AMERICANS OUT THERE WHO MAY BE
           LISTENING TO GO AHEAD AND SEND ME $5 BILLS, AND I WILL BE HAPPY
           TO SEND THEM BACK JUST PLAIN PIECES OF WHITE PAPER OR ANY OTHER
           PIECE OF PAPER BECAUSE IT IS JUST PAPER. THIS IS PAPER AND THIS

           IS PAPER. THEREFORE IT IS JUST A SYMBOL THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY
           MEAN SO I CAN TAKE ALL OF THESE PIECES OF PAPER AND SEND TELL
           BACK TO YOU IN RETURN FOR $5 BILLS. LET ME SAY IF ANYBODY DOES
           CHOOSE TO DO THIS, I WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE IT TO SOME
           CHARITY. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR $5 BILLS TO BE MAILED TO ME. BUT
           THE POINT IS, THERE IS SOMETHING BEYOND JUST THE MEANING OF
           THIS PIECE OF PAPER ON THIS $5 BILL, AND THERE IS SOMETHING
           BEYOND JUST THE MEANING OF JUST A PIECE OF CLOTH WITH THE FLAG
           OF THE UNITED STATES. SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE OUTLAWING THE
           DESECRATN WHICH THIS AMENDMENT WOULD AUTHORIZE CONGRESS TO DO

           WOULD LEAD SOMEHOW TO THE DESTRUCTION OF FREEDOM. I DISAGREE.
           OUR CONSTITUTION WAS CAREFULLY CRAFTED TO PROTECT OUR FREEDOMS.
           NOT TO DIMINISH THEM. BUT IT ALSO WAS CRAFTED TO PROMOTE
           RESPONSIBILITY. WE ARE STEPPING ON VERY DANGEROUS GROUND WHEN
           WE ALLOW RECKLESS BEHAVIOR SUCH AS FLAG DESECRATION OR ANY
           OTHER, WHETHER IT IS BURNING OR ANY TRAMPLING, WHATEVER, THE
           DESECRATION MAY BE. THIS CONSTITUTION HAS SERVED THE TEST OF
           TIME. IT HAS STFED IT VERY WELL. BUT IT HAS BEEN AMENDED ON 27

           OCCASIONS. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS, THE
           BILL OF RIGHTS, WERE PASSED SHORTLY AFTER THE CONSTITUTION
           ITSELF WAS PASSED. WHY?
           BECAUSE THEY WANT TODAY CLARIFY, THEY WANTED TO MAKE VERY
           CLEAR, THEY DIDN'T WANT ANYBODY TO MISUNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED
           TODAY HAVE CERTAIN BASIC FREEDOMS SUCH AS THE FREEDOM OF
           SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SECOND AMENDMENT, THE RIGHT TO
           KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND SO FORTH. IT IS INTERESTING THOUGH THAT
           OFTENTIMES IN THE DOCUMENTS HERE ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE,
           MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT AMENDMENTS THEY

           CHOOSE TO SUPPORT AND WHAT ONES THEY CHOOSE TO IGNORE. BUT IT
           IS ALL THE CONSTITUTION. SO I BELIEVE THAT DER OUR
           CONSTITUTION, I DON'T THINK THE SUPREME COURT HAS MORE POWER
           THAN THE PEOPLE. WE ARE NOT PASSING AN AMENDMENT HERE TODAY IF
           WE WERE TO VOTE TODAY OR TOMORROW OR THE NEXT DAY ON THIS
           CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT INCLUDING FLAG DESECRATION, IT GOES TO
           THE PEOPLE. IT GOES TO THE STATE LEGISLATURES. WE ARE NOT
           MAKING A FINAL JUDGMENT HERE. THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS
           IRONICALLY THAT WAS VERY CAREFULLY LAID OUT BY THE FOUNDERS SO

           THAT AMENDMENTS WOULD BE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO PASS. AND IF
           THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPORT IT, AFTER CONGRESS SENDS IT OUT TO
           THEM, THEN WE WILL HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION,
           NUMBER 28. IF THEY DON'T, THEN IT WON'T HAPPEN. BUT ALL WE ARE
           ASKING FOR HERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO LET THE PEOPLE MAKE THE
           DECISION. AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION IS IT SERIOUS, BUT WE FOUND
           THAT A SIMPLE STATUTE IS NOT ENOUGH. WE TRIED THAT WITH ALL DUE

           RESPECT TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM KENTUCKY, AND IT WAS STRUCK DOWN.
           THE COURT STRUCK DOWN THE STATUTE. LET ME GO THROUGH A LITTLE
           BIT OF HISTORY HERE ON THE ISSUE, THE LEGAL HISTORY OF FLAG
           BURNING, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS RELEVANT HERE. OVER THE YEARS,
           CONGRESS AND THE STATES HAVE RECOGNIZED THE DEVOTION, OUR
           DIVERSE PEOPLE HAVE FOR THE FLAG. THEY HAVE ENACTED STATUTES
           OVER THE YEARS THAT BOTH PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE FLAG AND
           PROTECT THE FLAG FROM DESECRATION. IN THE JOHNSON CASE, TEXAS

           VS. JOHNSON, 1989 BY A 5-4 VOTE REFERRED TO EARLIER IN THE
           DISTANT. THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED A CON STRIKES OF GREGORY
           LEE JOHNSON WHO DID HE SAY DISCRIMINATED THE AMERICAN FLALING.
           BUT JOHNSON BURNED AN AMERICAN FLAG WHO DID HE IS HE
           DISCRIMINATED THE FLAG. A FELLOW TOOK THE FLAG FROM THE FLAG
           HOLE AND GAVE THE FLAG TO JOHNSON. AT THE THE CITY HALL JOHNSON
           UNFURLED THAT FLAG, POURED CARE SEEN ON IT AND BURNED IT.

           THAT'S NOT SPEECH, I WOULD SAY IN ALL HUMBLENESS AND CANDOR AND
           WITH RESPECT TO MY COLLEAGUE. THAT'S NOT SPEECH. THAT'S AN
           ACTION. THAT'S A DIRECT ACTION TAKEN IN TERMS OF DID HE SAY
           DISCRIMINATING THE SYMBOL OF AMERICA. PROTESTERS CHANTED
           AMERICA, THE RED WHITE AND BLUE, WE SPIT ON YOU. UNQUOTE. NOW A
           FEW HAG MY COLLEAGUE FROM UTAH, SENATOR BENNETT, SAID HE DIDN'T

           KNOW WHETHER THERE WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE. WHETHER WE WOULD BE
           ABLE TO DETERMINE SOMEBODY WHO TAKES THAT FLAG WITH RESPECT AND
           DISPOSES OF IT IN THE WAY UNDER THE LAW THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED
           TO DISSUPPOSE OF IT, WHICH IS BURNING IT IN A RESPECTFUL WAY,
           WHETHER THERE WOULD BE ANY CONFUSION. I DON'T THINK THERE IS
           ANY CONFUSION, MR. PRESIDENT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, BETWEEN
           THAT ACT AND WHAT I JUST REFERRED TO HERE, AMERICA THE RED
           WHITE AND BLUE, WE SPIT ON YOU. AFTER THAT FLAG WAS TORN DOWN

           FROM A FLAGPOLE AND KERESONE WAS POURED ON IT. IF ANYBODY IS
           CONFUSED BY THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY WOULD BE. JOHNSON WAS
           CONVICTED OF A VENERATED OBJECT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION OF THE
           TEXAS PENAL CODE WHICH MADE INTENTIONAL THE DESCREATION OF
           AMERICA'S FLAG. THE COURT HELD IT DID NOT OUT WEIGHT WEIGH THE.
           IT WAS NOT ORAL OR WRITTEN SPEECH, IT WAS CONDUCT. IT WAS

           CONDUCT. NOT SPEECH. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. JUSTICE REHNQUIST
           FOR HIMSELF AND JUSTICES WHITE AND O'CONNOR STATED IN DISSENT,
           QUOTE "FOR MORE THAN 200 YEARS, THE AMERICAN FLAG OCCUPIED'S
           UNIQUE POSITION AS THE SYMBOL OF OUR NATION A UNIQUENESS THAT
           JUSTIFIES A GOVERNMENTAL PROHIBITION AGAINST FLAG BURNING IN
           THE WAY RESPONDENT JOHNSON DID HERE." THE CONSTITUTION AT
           AMENDMENT WOULD ENABLE CONGRESS TO PUNISH THE NEXT NAG BURNER

           OR THE NEXT FLAG DESECRATOR. IN 1989 THE CONGRESS ENACT ADD
           NEUTRAL STATUTE THE FLAG PROTECTION ACT OF 1989 WITH THE
           EXCEPTION FOR THE DISPOSAL OF WORN OR SOILED FLAGS AS A
           RESPONSE TO THE JOHNSON DECISION. BASED ON THE NEW RULE
           ANNOUNCED IN JOHNSON, HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN
           THE STATUTE BY A 5464 VOTE IN THE UNITED STATES VS. -- 5-4 VOTE
           IN UNITED STATES VS. EICHMAN IN 1990. S.J. RES. 14 WOULD
           RESTORE THE TRADITIONAL BALANCE TO THE COURT'S FIRST AMENDMENT
           INTERPRETATION. THAT'S ALL IT DOES. ONLY A CONSTITUTIONAL

           AMENDMENT CAN RESTORE THE TRADITIONAL BALANCE BETWEEN A
           SOCIETY'S INTEREST AND THE ACTOR'S INTEREST CONCERNING THE
           FLAG. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITS ITSELF ABRIDGE. OF FREEDOM
           OF SPEECH. THERE IS ALWAYS BEEN A BALANCING OF SOCIETY'S
           INTERESTS WITH THE INDIVIDUAL'S
           
           INTEREST IN EXPRESS: LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT A FEW EXAMPLES OF
           THAT THAT HAVE BEEN USED SO MANY TIMES ON THE FLOOR IN DEBATE
           BUT IT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. CAN YOU YELL FIRE IN A CROWDED
           THEATER?
           COULD ANYONE YELL SOMETHING OUT NOW?

           YOU WOULD BE REMOVED IF YOU WERE IN THE GALLERIES HERE AND YOU
           MADE HAS COMMENT, LOUD, THAT DISRUPTED PROCEEDINGS HERE, YOU
           WOULD BE REMOVED. YOU DO HAVE LIMITS ON YOUR SPEECH. IT IS
           SIMPLY INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE NO LIMITS TO FREE
           SPEECH. THERE ARE LIMITS TO FREE SEE E. SPEECH, AND IT HAS BEEN
           HELD AS BEING CONSTITUTIONAL, FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER WAS
           TELD TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN SHANK VS. U.S. IN 1919. ERE IS

           NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DISCLOSE STATE SECRETS. SOME HAVE
           GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT, BUT REALLY, YOU DON'T HAVE THE
           CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO JUST GO OUT TO THE MEDIA AND I NOUNS
           ALL THE NATIONAL SEA CREDITS THAT WE ALL HAVE ACCESS TO HERE AS
           UNITED STATES SENATORS, AND MANY INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK FOR THE
           UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAVE ACCESS TO U.S. SECRETS, AND THEN
           DON'T GO OUT AND HOLD PRESS CONFERENCES NOR DO THEY TELL OUR
           ENEMIES WHAT THOSE SECRETS ARE. SO, THERE IS NOT A
           CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DISCLOSE THOSE SECRETS. THERE IS NO

           CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DEFAME OR LIABLE A PERSON'S CHARACTER.
           THAT WAS UPHELD IN GURTZ VS. WELCH. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL
           RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITY WHILE WORKING
           FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THERE IS NO DONE INSTITUTIONAL
           RIGHT TO COMMERCIALLY PROMOTE PROMISCUOUS ACTIVITY BY MINORS.
           THE AMERICAN FLAG HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN THAT PROTECTION BY THE
           SUPREME COURT. CONGRESS HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN PROTECTING
           THE FLAG. AND CONGRESS I THINK NEEDS TO
{END: 2000/03/27 TIME: 14-30 , Mon.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}