WASHINGTON -- The Senate narrowly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment yesterday that would give Congress the right to enact laws prohibiting desecration of the American flag.

The 63-36 vote in favor of the amendment fell three votes shy of the required two-thirds majority.

The measure's floor sponsor, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, a Utah Republican, blamed President Clinton for its defeat.

"Had the president supported this amendment, I have no doubt" it would have won Senate approval, he said.

Mr. Hatch also vowed to bring the measure back another day.

"This amendment is not going to go away," he said.

The amendment's opponents included many civil rights organizations as well as the administration.

The White House said yesterday that President Clinton would favor another attempt to write a federal law banning desecration of the flag, but he opposes a constitutional amendment because it would alter the Bill of Rights -- which includes the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech.

"The guys in the powdered wigs had it about right in 1792," press secretary Mike McCurry said.

The drive to adopt a flag desecration amendment came after two Supreme Court rulings, in 1989 and 1990, that struck down state and federal statutes banning flag desecration.

The court held that those laws violated an individual's right to free speech and expression under the First Amendment.

The Senate proposal would have permitted Congress to enact laws to protect the flag.

It stated: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

Democratic Sens. Paul S. Sarbanes and Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland voted against the constitutional amendment but supported a law giving Congress the power to punish flag burners.

Both the amendment and the law failed.

"More than any other time in the past, I have grappled with today's vote to amend the Constitution to stop flag burning," Ms. Mikulski said in a prepared statement.

Ms. Mikulski, regarded by the ACLU as one of three key swing votes on the issue, said she "seriously considered" voting for the amendment before deciding against it "over the last few days," according to her spokeswoman, Rachel Kunzler.

Ms. Mikulski has voted against constitutional amendments punishing flag burners in 1989 and 1990 but voted for a 1989 law that was passed and later overturned by the Supreme Court.

The House version, which was approved in June on a vote of 312-120, would have allowed state legislatures, as well as Congress, to enact flag protection laws.

But the Senate took out the state provision to avoid what Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., called a potential "patchwork of 50 idiosyncratic" laws.

The measure's defeat stunned the Citizens Flag Alliance Inc., whose congressional lobbyists confidently claimed just last week that they had 67 "solid" votes -- all supposedly based on personal commitments from senators.

After the vote, the alliance, a coalition of about 100 groups lobbying for the amendment, issued a short statement alluding to repercussions against opponents of the amendment at the ballot box next fall.

"See you in November," the group said.

Polls have consistently shown that up to 80 percent of Americans support a flag desecration amendment.

After the Supreme Court rulings striking down the flag laws, 49 state legislatures (except Vermont) passed resolutions urging Congress to adopt a flag desecration constitutional amendment.

Such an amendment failed in 1990 when it got a majority in both houses but fell short of the necessary two-thirds votes.

The movement gained new steam after the Republican victory last November gave the GOP control of both the House and the Senate.

The administration opposed the measure in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, even though the president has no veto authority over constitutional amendments.

Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger, speaking for the administration, told the committee that such a measure would "create legislative power of uncertain dimension to override the First Amendment and other constitutional guarantees."

Speaking against the proposal just before the final vote, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, said the amendment would be "the first time in history we'll be amending the Bill of Rights."

Other opponents argued that amending the Constitution would erode citizens' rights and elevate an insignificant form of protest to a level above its due.

Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office, said a flag amendment amounted to an expansion of government that goes against a GOP majority in Congress that abhors big government.

Mr. Hatch, however, argued that the flag is a unique national symbol that deserves special protection, arguing that it "is the one overriding symbol that unites a diverse people in a way nothing else can, or ever will.