Mr. President, in 1791, the year that the Bill of Rights became part of our Constitution, the State of Vermont joined the Union, and then the State of Kentucky followed. Then Congress saw fit to change the design of the American flag to include 15 stars and 15 stripes, one for each State. In fact, it was this flag, the one recognizing the addition of Vermont and Kentucky to the United States, that flew over Fort McHenry in 1814 and that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the ``Star-Spangled Banner.''

Fifty years after that famous battle that inspired our National Anthem in Baltimore's harbor, President Abraham Lincoln visited that city as our country confronted its greatest test. It was a time in which this Nation faced grave peril from a civil war whose outcome could not yet be determined. Many flags flew over various parts of the United States, and our existence as a nation was in doubt. President Lincoln used the occasion to reflect on a basic feature of American democracy. President Lincoln observed:

"The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty. The American people just now are much in need of one. We all declare for liberty, but using the same word we do not mean the same thing."

I would hope that all of us in this Chamber champion liberty. If any of us were asked, we would say: Of course we do. But when I hear some talk about the desire to restrict our fundamental freedoms by cutting back on our first amendment rights for the first time in our history, you see why people wonder. The danger of this amendment is that it would strike at the values the flag represents and the rights that have made this Nation a vibrant democratic republic in which we have enjoyed freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and freedom to think as individuals.

Along with Vermonters, I find the American flag inspirational in all its incarnations, whether it is the current flag with 50 stars that was carried in formation at Parris Island when my youngest son Mark became a proud member of the U.S. Marine Corps; whether it is the American flag with 48 stars under which Vermonters joined in fighting World War II, including members of my family; the flag commemorating Vermont's becoming a State; the Bennington flag that commemorated our Declaration of Independence; or the revolutionary flag with 13 stars in a circle said to be designed by George Washington and sewn by Betsy Ross.

Ultimately, the debate over this amendment turns on the scope we think proper to give to speech which deeply offends us. For two-thirds of the Senate to vote to amend the Bill of Rights to amend the U.S. Constitution because, as the Constitution requires, that we deem it ``necessary'' in 2006, strikes me as extraordinary. The Senate oath of office, which the people of Vermont have authorized me to take six times, requires that we ``support and defend the Constitution.'' And I believe that doing so means opposing this effort to cut back on Vermonters' constitutional rights and freedoms.

Regrettably, the Senate leadership is returning again and again to using constitutional amendments as election year rallying cries to excite the passion of voters. That is wrong. The Constitution is too important to be used for partisan political purposes--and so, in my view, is our American flag.

With the rights of Americans being threatened in so many ways today by this administration, this is most especially not the time for the Senate to vote to limit Americans' fundamental rights or to strike at the heart of the First Amendment.

The chairman has referred to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. It was Justice Holmes who wrote that the most imperative principle of our Constitution was it protects not just freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but ``freedom for the thought that we hate.'' He also wrote that ``we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.''

We all know that the First Amendment never requires people to defend it when it is upholding popular speech. It needs defense when the speech is unpopular.

What is so distinctive about America is that our Government does not endorse religious or political orthodoxy. The price of our freedom of expression is our willingness to protect the expression of those with whom we disagree. America does not impose a state-designed dogma on its free people the way totalitarian regimes do. We value our freedom and we protect the freedom of others.

Justice Robert Jackson made this point with unsurpassed eloquence in a Supreme Court decision made during World War II. He did this in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. His decision for the Supreme Court upheld our fundamental tradition of tolerance, holding that State school boards may not compel teachers and students to salute the flag.

Remember, Justice Jackson was writing during World War II--during wartime. He wrote:

"[F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

That was a powerful statement by Justice Jackson, at a time when certainly the attention of this country was focused on a real war effort, the effort of World War II. But he knew what unifies our country is the voluntary sharing of ideals and commitments. Americans are free, free to offend but also free to respond to crude insults with responsible action--the way many of us remember and applaud--when that crowd at Dodger Stadium responded by spontaneously singing ``God Bless America'' when a couple of miscreants attempted to burn the American flag in the outfield 30 years ago, shortly after the end of the Vietnam war.

When I am home in Vermont, our family home, I fly the flag--not because the law tells me to but because, as an American, I want to. I fly the flag out of pride. I remember my parents, still alive, when they used to look with pride to see that flag flying and they knew their son was home from Washington. It is the same sense of pride I felt when I saw my son march in uniform under that flag, our flag, our American flag. It is the same sense of pride I feel when I see that flag flying over this Capitol Building when I come to work each day, and I stop and look at it sometimes when the Senate leaves at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. I look at the dome and I see that flag illuminated and flying there.

One of my colleagues, former Senator Bob Kerrey, a man of great bravery, who received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery in battle, said in a recent opinion piece in the Washington Post, ``Real patriotism cannot be coerced.'' It has to be a voluntary, unselfish, brave act to sacrifice for others.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of his op-ed be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record as follows:

[From the washingtonpost.com, June 15, 2006]

   Our Flag and Our Freedom

(By Bob Kerrey)

With campaigns at full tilt and the Fourth of July just around the comer, the Senate's new priority is to debate and vote on yet another resolution to amend our remarkable Constitution. This time it's an amendment that would allow Congress to prohibit a form of protest that a large majority of Americans do not like: the burning or desecration of the American flag. Since 1989, when the Supreme Court decided unanimously and correctly that these rare, unpleasant demonstrations are expressions of speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment, there have been many such attempts. Fortunately, all have failed.

Unfortunately, enthusiasm for this amendment appears to have grown even as flag-burning incidents have vanished as a means of political protest. The last time I saw an image of the U.S. flag being desecrated in this way was nearly 20 years ago, when the court issued its decision. Thus this amendment--never appropriate in the oldest democracy on earth--has become even less necessary. But necessity is not always the mother of legislation.

In defense of speech I do not like, I recall a ceremony I have come to love: a military funeral. The finest of all is conducted at Arlington National Cemetery. At graveside, an honor guard holds the American flag while taps are played as a final farewell. The guards then fold the flag into a triangle and deliver it to the next of kin.

It is as if the flag becomes the fallen. In the hands of a widow or mother it is much more than a symbol of the nation. At that moment the American flag is a sacred object that holds the sweet memory of a life given to a higher cause. Or so it seems to me each time I am witness to these hallowed events.

To others the ceremony may mean something entirely different. I recall vividly one such situation: A mother of a friend who was killed in Vietnam recoiled when the flag was offered to her. She would not take it. In her heart the American flag had become a symbol of dishonor, treachery and betrayal. At the time, and perhaps to her dying day, she wanted nothing to do with it.

If our First Amendment is altered to permit laws to be passed prohibiting flag desecration, would we like to see our police powers used to arrest an angry mother who burns a flag? Or a brother in arms whose disillusionment leads him to defile this symbol of the nation? I hope the answer is no. I hope we are strong enough to tolerate such rare and wrenching moments. I hope our desire for calm and quiet does not make it a crime for any to demonstrate in such a fashion. In truth, if I know anything about the spirit of our compatriots, some Americans might even choose to burn their flag in protest of such a law.

No doubt the sponsors and advocates of this amendment mean well. They believe it is a reasonable and small sacrifice of our freedoms. They believe no serious consequence will come of this change.

No doubt, too, some of the increasing interest in limiting free speech is a response to the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. It was a remarkable moment, when the hearts of most of us filled with a kind of pure patriotism we had never felt before. It was a patriotism that bound liberty to equality and fraternity. It was a patriotism that brought us together, friend and stranger alike. We discovered heroes who inspired us. No longer did we say, ``It's good to see you,'' and not mean it.

Most impressive to me was that the ``we'' included men and women of many nations, every religion and every ethnic group. The ``we'' was global. The patriotism we felt extended beyond our boundaries and beyond the cramped spaces of ritual nationalistic fervor. We understood that the vulnerability of our freedom bound us together more than any symbol or slogan can. Millions of Americans, then and now, proudly flew their flags because they wanted to, not because any law told them to.

All the more reason, then, for patriotism to turn aside the understandable impulse to protect our flag by degrading the constitutional freedoms for which it stands. Real patriotism cannot be coerced. Our freedom to speak was attacked--not our flag. The former, not the latter, needs the protection of our Constitution and our laws.

Mr. LEAHY. The French philosopher Voltaire once remarked that liberty is a guest who plants both of his elbows on the table. I think what Voltaire meant by that is that liberty is sometimes even an unmannerly, vulgar guest, yet liberty requires we tolerate rudeness even when admittedly it is hard to do so. That is what allows us, in turn, the individual freedoms that we cherish for ourselves.

Despicable, outrageous gestures like flag burning are hard to tolerate, but we do so because political expression is so central as to what makes America great and what protects the rights of each of us to speak, or to worship as we choose, and to petition our Government for redress. The flag is a symbol of the greatness that the American ideals of freedom and liberty have helped foster in this blessed land. The Constitution ultimately goes beyond symbols. The Constitution is the real bedrock of our rights.

In a letter to me expressing his opposition to the constitutional amendment, my friend General Colin Powell said it very well. Let me quote Colin Powell in this regard. He said:

We are rightfully 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. .....

I understand how strongly so many of my fellow veterans and citizens feel about the flag. ..... I feel the same sense of outrage. But I step back from amending the Constitution to relieve that outrage. The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous.

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.

What powerful, powerful words from General Powell. I ask unanimous consent a copy of his letter be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

ALEXANDRIA, VA,

May 18, 1999.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Leahy:

Thank you for your recent letter asking my views on the proposed flag protection amendment.

I love our flag, our Constitution and our country with a love that has no bounds. I defended all three for 35 years as a soldier and was willing to give my life in their defense.

Americans revere their flag as a symbol of the Nation. Indeed, it is because of that reverence that the amendment is under consideration. Few countries in the world would think of amending their Constitution for the purpose of protecting such a symbol.

We are rightfully 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.

If they are destroying a flag that belongs to someone else, that's a prosecutable crime. If it is a flag they own, I really don't want to amend the Constitution to prosecute someone for foolishly desecrating their own property. We should condemn them and pity them instead.

I understand how strongly so many of my fellow veterans and citizens feel about the flag and I understand the powerful sentiment in state legislatures for such an amendment. I feel the same sense of outrage. But I step back from amending the Constitution to relieve that outrage. The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous.

I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.

Finally, I shudder to think of the legal morass we will create trying to implement the body of law that will emerge from such an amendment.

If I were a member of Congress, I would not vote for the proposed amendment and would fully understand and respect the views of those who would. For or against, we all love our flag with equal devotion.

Sincerely,
Colin Powell

P.S. The attached 1989 article by a Vietnam POW gave me further inspiration for my position.

[From the Retired Officer, Sept. 1989]

Thoughts of a Former POW: When They Burned the Flag Back Home

(By James H. Warner)

In March of 1973, when we were released from a prisoner of war camp in North Vietnam, we were flown to Clark AB in the Philippines. As I stepped out of the aircraft I looked up and saw the flag. I caught my breath, then, as tears filled my eyes, I saluted it. I never loved my country more than at that moment. Although I have received the Silver Star Medal and two Purple Hearts, they were nothing compared with the gratitude I felt then for having been allowed to serve the cause of freedom.

Because the mere sight of the flag meant so much to me when I saw it for the first time after five and a half years, it hurts me to see other Americans willfully desecrate it. But I have been in a Communist prison where I looked into the pit of hell. I cannot compromise on freedom. It hurts to see the flag burned, but I part company with those who want to punish the flag burners. Let me explain myself.

Early in the imprisonment the Communists told us that we did not have to stay there. If we would only admit we were wrong, if we would only apologize, we could be released early. If we did not, we would be punished. A handful accepted, most did not. In our minds, early release under those conditions would amount to a betrayal of our comrades, of our country and of our flag.

Because we would not say the words they wanted us to say, they made our lives wretched. Most of use were tortured, and some of my comrades died. I was tortured for most of the summer of 1969. I developed beriberi from malnutrition. I had long bouts of dysentery. I was infested with intestinal parasites. I spent 13 months in solitary confinement. Was our cause worth all of this? Yes, it was worth all this and more.

Rose Wilder Lane, in her magnificent book The Discovery of Freedom, said there are two fundamental truths that men must know in order to be free. They must know that all men are brothers, and they must know that all men are born free. Once men accept these two ideas, they will never accept bondage. The power of these ideas explains why it was illegal to teach slaves to read.

One can teach these ideas, even in a Communist prison camp. Marxists believe that ideas are merely the product of material conditions; change those material conditions, and one will change the ideas they produce. They tried to ``re-educate'' us. If we could show them that we would not abandon our beliefs in fundamental principles, then we could prove the falseness of their doctrine. We could subvert them by teaching them about freedom through our example. We could show them the power of ideas.

I did not appreciate this power before I was a prisoner of war. I remember one interrogation where I was shown a photograph of some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag. ``There,'' the officer said. ``People in your country protest against your cause. That proves that you are wrong.''

``No,'' I said. ``That proves that I am right. In my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us.'' The officer was on his feet in an instant, his face purple with rage. He smashed his fist onto the table and screamed at me to shut up. While he was ranting I was astonished to see pain, compounded by fear, in his eyes. I have never forgotten that look, nor have I forgotten the satisfaction I felt at using his tool, the picture of the burning flag, against him.

Aneurin Bevan, former official of the British Labor Party, was once asked by Nikita Khrushchev how the British definition of democracy differed from the Soviet view. Bevan responded, forcefully, that if Khrushchev really wanted to know the difference, he should read the funeral oration of Pericles.

In that speech, recorded in the Second Book of Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War,'' Pericles contrasted democratic Athens with totalitarian Sparta. Unlike the Spartans, he said, the Athenians did not fear freedom. Rather, they viewed freedom as the very source of their strength. As it was for Athens, so it is for America--our freedom is not to be feared, for our freedom is our strength.

We don't need to amend the Constitution in order to punish those who burn our flag. They burn the flag because they hate America and they are afraid of freedom. What better way to hurt them than with the subversive idea of freedom? Spread freedom. The flag in Dallas was burned to protest the nomination of Ronald Reagan, and he told us how to spread the idea of freedom when he said that we should turn America into a ``city shining on a hill, a light to all nations.'' Don't be afraid of freedom--it is the best weapon we have.

Mr. LEAHY. Another American who honorably served our country, Gary May, Chairman of Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights, wrote in a letter:

This country is unique and special because the minority, the unpopular, the dissident also have a voice. The freedom of expression, even when it hurts the most, is the truest test of our dedication to the principles that our flag represents.

I ask unanimous consent a copy of his letter be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

VETERANS DEFENDING

THE BILL OF RIGHTS,

Newburgh, IN, May 4, 2006.
Re Oppose S.J. Res. 12, the Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment.

Dear Senator: My name is Gary May. I am writing to you today as the chair of a group called Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights to urge you to oppose S.J. Res. 12, the flag desecration constitutional amendment. I know you hear from some who say veterans support this amendment, but you should also know that there are many veterans that have faithfully served our nation who strongly believe that amending the Constitution to ban flag desecration is the antithesis of freedoms they fought to preserve.

I lost both my legs in combat while serving in the U.S. Marine Corps in Vietnam. I challenge anyone to find someone who loves this country, its people and what it stands for more than I do. It offends me when I see the flag burned or treated disrespectfully. But, as offensive and painful as this is, I still believe that dissenting voices need to be heard, even if their methods cause offense.

This country is unique and special because the minority, the unpopular, the dissident also have a voice. The freedom of expression, even when it hurts the most, is the truest test of our dedication to the principles that our flag represents.

In addition to my military combat experience, I have been involved in veterans' affairs as a clinical social worker, program manager, board member of numerous veterans organizations, and advocated on their behalf since 1974. Through all of my work in veterans' affairs, I have yet to hear a veteran say that his or her service and sacrifice was in pursuit of protecting the flag.

When confronted with the horrific demands of combat, the simple fact is that most of us fought to stay alive. The pride and honor we feel is not in the flag per se. It's in the principles for which it stands for and the people who have defended them.

I am grateful for the many heroes of our country. All the sacrifices of those who served before us would be for naught, if the Constitution were amended to cut back on our First Amendment rights for the first time in the history of our great nation. I write to you today to attest to the fact that many veterans do not wish to exchange fought-for freedoms for protecting a tangible object that represents these freedoms.

To illustrate my point, here is what some of the Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights have said about this amendment:

'`During the fighting in Iraq, I saw friends of mine die in battle. Each of us suffered and sacrificed to provide freedom to the Iraqi people. With this in mind, I am profoundly disturbed by the apparent willingness of Congress to sacrifice our own freedoms here at home by amending the First Amendment for the first time ever. When the coalition forces entered Iraq, it was to topple a brutal and repressive dictatorship, one that did not hesitate to jail and torture its own citizens who protested against it. By amending the Constitution to ban a form of expression, Congress dishonors the legacy of service members who fought and died in defense of freedom.''--Jeremy Broussard, Bowie, MD, a combat veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former Captain in the U.S. Army whose artillery unit was among the first to enter Iraq.

``The proposed constitutional amendment is in my eyes, and the eyes of countless other veterans, a slap in the face to our service in combat. We volunteered to go to war to protect the freedoms in this country, not watch them be taken away by politicians who have never been to the front lines. I consider myself an independent-minded conservative, and believe that creating unnecessary amendments to the U.S. Constitution is a betrayal of conservative principles.''--Specialist Eric G Eliason, Englewood, CO, a combat veteran who served as an Infantryman in the Army for three years, including one year overseas as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

``It is a bad thing to burn the flag, but it is a worse thing to damage the Constitution.''--James Pryde, Tuskegee Airman, combat veteran of the 477 Bomber Group in WWII.

``After devoting most of my career to working in military intelligence, I was appointed Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence in 1997. I served in that position until my retirement in 2000. I am well acquainted with the many threats facing the United States, and I must say that flag burning does not begin to rise to a level of threat justifying the attention of this distinguished body... I served in the United States Army, like my father before me, to defend fundamental American liberties. To begin the trend of amending the First Amendment each time a particular form of speech is found to be offensive sets a dangerous precedent, and undermines the very freedoms for which I and my fellow servicemembers served.''--Lt. General Claudia J. Kennedy (USA, Ret.). Highest ranking woman to ever serve in the U.S. Army.

``Like many of those who have served in the armed forces, I am deeply concerned about this proposed attempt to undermine free speech. While I do take offense at disrespect to the flag, I nonetheless believe it my duty to defend the constitutional right of protestors to use the flag in nonviolent speech.''--Richard Olek, Fargo, ND, Army veteran and past Commander of AMVETS Jon A. Greenley Memorial Post 7 in Fargo.

``Today the U.S. Senate is again debating an amendment to the Constitution to ban desecration of the flag. It's an issue on which I believe I can claim some authority. I laid my life on the line and fought under the flag of the United States during World War II. I watched some of my closest friends fall during eight grueling campaigns, I was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart. I'm a disabled veteran and long standing Republican since 1940, and nothing angers me more than the desecration of the U.S. flag. It is an abomination to me and to other veterans. That said, though, I believe the push to amend the Constitution to criminalize flag burning is misguided. Our forefathers would spin in their graves to think: that our government would turn the established principle of free speech on its end and consider persecuting people who disagree with its actions.''--James Bird, Lumberton, NJ, is a decorated veteran of World War II, where he survived eight campaigns in combat and was a liberator of the Dachau concentration camp.

``. . . to undertake to carve out an area of free speech and say that this or that is unpatriotic because it is offensive is a movement that will unravel our liberties and do grave damage to our nation's freedom. The ability to say by speech or dramatic acts what we feel or think is to be cherished not demeaned as unpatriotic ... I hope you will hear my plea. Please do not tinker with the First Amendment.''--Reverend Edgar Lockwood, Falmouth, Massachusetts, served as a naval officer engaged in more than ten combat campaigns in WWII.

   ``My military service was not about protecting the flag; it was about protecting the freedoms behind it. The flag amendment curtails free speech and expression in a way that should frighten us all.''--Brady Bustany, West Hollywood, California, served in the Air Force during the Gulf War.

``The first amendment to our constitution is the simplest and clearest official guarantee of freedom ever made by a sovereign people to itself. The so-called `flag protection amendment' would be a bureaucratic hamstringing of a noble act. Let us reject in the name of liberty for which so many have sacrificed, the call to ban flag desecration. Let us, rather, allow the first amendment, untrammeled and unfettered by this proposed constitutional red tape, to continue be the same guarantor of our liberty for the next two centuries (at least) that is has been for the last two.''--State Delegate John Doyle, Hampshire County, West Virginia served as an infantry officer in Vietnam.

``As a twenty two year veteran, combat experience, shot up, shot down, hospitalized more than a year, Purple Heart recipient, with all the proper medals and badges I take very strong exception to anyone who says that burning the flag isn't a way of expressing yourself. In my mind this is clearly covered in Amendment I to the Constitution--and should not be `abridged'.''--Mr. Bob Cordes, Mason, Texas was an Air Force fighter pilot shot down in Vietnam. He served for 22 years from 1956 to 1978.

``Service to our country, not flag waving, is the best way to demonstrate patriotism.''--Mr. Jim Lubbock, St. Louis, Missouri, served with the Army in the Phillipines during WWII. His two sons fought in Vietnam, and members of his family have volunteered for every United States conflict from the American Revolution through Vietnam with the exception of Korea. His direct ancestor, Stephen Hopkins, signed the Declaration of Independence.

``The burning of our flag thoroughly disgusts me. But a law banning the burning of the flag plays right into the hands of the weirdoes who are doing the burning. ..... By banning the burning of the flag, we are empowering them by giving significance to their stupid act. Let them burn the flag and let us ignore them. Then their act carries no significance.''--Mr. William Ragsdale, Titusville, Florida, an engineer who worked in the space industry for over 30 years, retired from the US Naval Reserve in 1984 with the rank of Commander, having served in the Navy for over forty years including active duty in both WWII and the Korean War. He has two sons who served in Vietnam.

``I fought for freedom of expression not for a symbol. I fought for freedom of Speech. I did not fight for the flag, or motherhood, or apple pie. I fought so that my mortal enemy could declare at the top of his lungs that everything I held dear was utter drivel ..... I fought for unfettered expression of ideas. Mine and everybody else's.''--Mr. John Kelley, East Concord, Vermont, lost his leg to a Viet Cong hand grenade while on Operation Sierra with the Fox Company 2nd Battalion 7th Marines in 1967.

I hope you will join me and the Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights in opposing S.J. Res. 12, the flag desecration constitutional amendment. We must not allow this ``feel good'' measure to restrict freedoms for which so many veterans sacrificed so much. I look forward to working with you.

Sincerely,
Gary E. May

Mr. LEAHY. I have been to countries, as have many of us, countries with dictators--countries like China and Cuba, the former Soviet Union. They require a law to protect their flags and their symbols. I have taken great pleasure in those countries to point out that America does not need the kind of laws they do. America protects our symbols. The American people honor our national flag out of respect, not out of fear that they may break a law. I point out to them what real freedom is, and it includes the freedom to dissent and to differ, even in ways that I would find obnoxious and offensive.

As the son of a printer, I was brought up to know how important the First Amendment is to maintaining our democracy. It allows us to practice any religion we want, or no religion if we want. It allows us to think as we choose and to express ourselves freely, even though others may disagree.

We do not have a state-imposed orthodoxy in this great and good country. Instead, we have freedom and diversity--diversity in religion, diversity in thought, diversity in speech, diversity that is guaranteed and protected by our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and particularly the First Amendment. When you guarantee and protect diversity, then you guarantee and protect democracy. When you guarantee and protect diversity, by definition you are going to have a democracy. No real democracy exists without diversity. But when you exclude and stamp out diversity and freedom of thought and expression, you act to stamp out democracy.

We have seen this in history. In the former Soviet Union or other totalitarian governments of history, when they wanted to destroy democracy they started, sometimes in little ways at first, but ultimately to stamp out diversity in dissent.

American democracy has succeeded because we have fought to live with that unruly guest with his elbows on our table of which Voltaire spoke, and to tolerate speech and expressive conduct that probably virtually all of us here would find disrespectful and crude.

We protect dissent, not because we oppose liberty but because we love liberty.

Wendell Phillips, a great New England abolitionist, wrote:

The community which dares not to protect its humblest and most hated member in the free utterance of his opinion, no matter how false and hateful, is only a gang of slaves.

Probably no person disagreed more vehemently with Wendell Phillips on the burning issues of their day than Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. Yet Senator Calhoun came to much the same conclusion in a speech he gave on the Senate floor, our Senate floor, in 1848, more than 150 years ago. Senator Calhoun said:

We have passed through so many difficulties and dangers without the loss of liberty that we have begun to think that we hold it by divine right from heaven itself. But it is harder to preserve than it is to obtain liberty. After years of prosperity the tenure by which it is held is too often forgotten; and I fear, Senators, that such is the case with us.

This is what Senator Calhoun said 150 years ago.

I am immensely proud to be given the privilege to be one of the two Senators who have the opportunity to represent the State of Vermont. Vermont has a proud tradition defending liberty and encouraging open debate. We are the State of the town meeting. If you want to experience open debate, I urge you to attend a Vermont town meeting. Everybody gets heard. Everybody gets heard about every disagreement, every differing view. A Vermont town meeting is as democratic as you can get. There is debate. There is expression. There is disagreement and agreement. There is freedom and democracy being lived.

In fact, Vermont for many years engaged in such a great and open debate on this very issue of how best to approach protection of our flag. For years the Vermont General Assembly remained the only State legislature not to have passed a resolution in favor of a constitutional amendment. In January 2002 the Vermont Legislature passed a resolution, but it was written, interestingly, in a manner that shows Vermont's respect for the Constitution. It concludes that the Congress should take steps to ``ensure that proper respect and treatment ..... always be afforded to the flag,'' but in ways consistent with the principles that the flag represents, foremost among these being, ``the protection of individual freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including free speech.''

Our Legislature stopped short of taking the easy way out and simply parroting a politically popular demand to amend the Constitution. Rather, Vermont remained true to its proud tradition of encouraging open debate and called on Congress to ``explore all avenues available'' to protect the flag from desecration.

Vermont's actions are consistent with our strong tradition of independence and commitment to the Bill of Rights. Indeed, Vermont's own Constitution is based on our commitment to freedom and our belief it is best protected by open debate.

At one time, when we were afraid we might not have that chance for open debate, Vermont declared itself an independent republic. In fact, Vermont did not and would not become a State until 1791. That was the year the Bill of Rights was ratified. Following that tradition, this Vermonter is not going to vote to cut back on the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights for the first time since its adoption.

Vermont sent Matthew Lyon to Congress. He, incidentally, cast the decisive vote, Vermont's vote, for the election of Thomas Jefferson. That election was thrown into the House of Representatives. Had Matthew Lyon voted otherwise, Thomas Jefferson would not have become President. Matthew Lyon was the same House Member who was a target of a shameful prosecution under the Sedition Act in 1789. Why? For comments he made in a private letter. And the power of the U.S. Government, under that horrible act, came down on Matthew Lyon. He was locked up for daring to be so critical in a letter.

Vermonters showed what they thought of the Sedition Act and what they thought of trying to stifle free speech. While Matthew Lyon was in jail, Vermonters reelected him and sent him back to Congress. Along with our own lone Congressman, Congressman Sanders, I am working on that commitment to having a post office named for Matthew Lyon in Vermont.

Vermont has stood up for the rights of free speech before and since. Vermont served the Nation during the dark days of McCarthyism. In one of the most remarkable and praise-worthy actions of any Senator from any State, Vermont Senator Ralph Flanders stood up for democracy in opposition to the repressive tactics of Senator Joseph McCarthy. When so many others, both Republicans and Democrats, ran for cover, Senator Ralph Flanders of Vermont, a Republican, a conservative, a businessman, came to the Senate floor and said: Enough is enough. He asked for the censure of Senator McCarthy and allowed people once more in this country to speak freely.

Vermont has a great tradition we cherish. It is one I intend to uphold. I honor the Vermont tradition that includes Senator Flanders when I oppose cutting back the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

I know there is an impulse, a natural impulse, to restrict speech with which we disapprove. But America is strong because we do not fear freedom; we do not restrict freedom of speech. We should have confidence our institutions are stronger than a bunch of hooligans and that their ideas are better than those of cranks and crackpots.

We know the vast majority of the people in this great country are patriotic, especially thinking of September 11 the way the American people have demonstrated patriotism, as rarely in our history. I can never remember a time in our history when I have seen more people fly more flags, and proudly.

The crisis confronting America is not flag burning. Americans honor flags as a symbol of our country. Americans also know we face real challenges. The confidence of the American people and this Government and institutions is quite low. But even though confidence in the institutions of our Government may be low, Americans love their country. They respect the flag. It is the misuse of their Government for partisanship, the corruption of the Government and its processes, it is a lack of credibility and competence that they see in their Government that concerns Americans in the face of real threats and real problems.

Mark Twain said: Honor your country, question your Government. That is what is happening today.

I see respect for our flag in the actions and attitudes of the citizens of America. I see it in the dedication of Don Villemaire and his friends of Essex Junction, VT, who stood and proudly waved American flags every single night after the horrible tragedy of September 11, 2001, until the search for remains officially ended. That was a vigil every single night in Essex Junction, VT--longer than 8 months. That is showing respect.

I see in Montpelier, my birthplace, in their annual Independence Day parade, where flags are waved in support of our country and our soldiers. I see it in the memorial of American flags planted along the paths of funeral processions of Vermonters killed serving their country in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vermonters' respect for the flag is born from respect for this country and the values it protects. Our patriotism is felt, it is willful. It is not forced on us.

Instead of telling the American people, the people beyond the 100 who have the privilege of serving here, what they can and cannot do, maybe we should talk about what we 100 do and how we do it. We honor America when we in the Senate do our jobs, when and if we work on the matters that can improve the lives of ordinary Americans. Let the 100 Members of the Senate work to raise the minimum wage, lower gas prices, provide better health care and health insurance for more Americans. Let the 100 Senators act to fund the promise of stem cell research that could end the suffering of so many Americans.

The proposed amendment to the Constitution would do harm to the First Amendment protections that bind us all against oppression, especially the oppression of momentary majority thought. The amendment violates the precept laid down more than 200 years ago that ``he that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.''

It undercuts the principle that a free society is a society where it is safe to say and do the unpopular. Let us not give away our liberties in order to impose orthodoxy so others cannot offend.

Let me be clear, I am deeply offended when anyone defiles the American flag. I expect one thing that unites all 100 Senators is that every one of us is deeply offended when the flag is defiled. Two years ago, a flag incident occurred in Vermont outside St. Augustine's Church in Montpelier. Someone wrapped a statue of the Virgin Mary in the American flag and set it on fire. This is a church in which I have been baptized. When this act was first reported, I called it an act intended to outrage, an attack on the religious community, and a gross show of disrespect for the flag. We also know acts like these can and should be prosecuted under Vermont's law, as I suspect they should be under all of the laws of any of the 50 States. Laws prohibit such damage to property.

If someone seeks to do harm to the flag I proudly fly in my home when I am there, they, too, would be prosecuted under Vermont law. In fact, having been a prosecutor in Vermont, knowing what I know of Vermont juries, they would be convicted, but I can replace a flag of mine that was destroyed, and would. I can buy another flag. But if we act to diminish the Bill of Rights that protect our rights and freedoms of a quarter billion Americans and of generations to come, we cannot replace that. We cannot go to the store and buy a new Bill of Rights once it is diminished.

Ours is a powerful Constitution, all the more inspiring because of what it allows and because we protect each other's liberty. Let us be good stewards. Let us preserve and protect for our children and our children's children a Constitution with the freedoms we were bequeathed by the founding patriots and by the sacrifice of generation after generation of Americans.

I urge Senators to think about this vote. Do not diminish that pillar on which our democracy and our freedoms depend. Do not cut back on the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights for the first time in American history.

I yield the floor.