mr. speaker , i begin by thanking the gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler ) xz4002890 , my colleague , who is the ranking member on the subcommittee on the constitution and has served us so well across the years in this regard . 
i also want to commend the gentleman from florida ( mr. hastings ) xz4001702 , the minority member of the committee on rules , for conducting such a dispositive examination of the rule and the substance of the measure that is before us today . 
today 's consideration of house joint resolution 10 will show whether we have the strength to remain true to our forefathers ' constitutional ideals and defend our citizens ' right to express themselves , even if we vehemently disagree with their method of expression . 
i have been thinking about this . 
i have never met anyone that supports burning the american flag . 
very few americans favor burning the flag as an expression of free speech . 
i personally deplore the desecration of the flag in any form , but i still remain strongly opposed to this resolution because this resolution goes against the ideals that the flag represents and elevates a symbol of freedom over freedom itself . 
if adopted , this resolution would represent for the first time in our nation 's history that the people 's representatives in this body voted to alter the bill of rights to limit the freedom of speech . 
while some may say that this resolution is not the end of our first amendment liberties , it is my fear that it may be the beginning . 
by limiting the scope of the first amendment 's free speech protections , we are setting a most dangerous precedent . 
if we open the door to criminalizing constitutionally protected expression related to the flag , which this is , it will be difficult to limit further efforts to censor such speech . 
once we decide to limit freedom of speech , limitations on freedom of the press and freedom of religion may not be far behind . 
it has been said that the true test of any nation 's commitment to freedom of expression lies in its ability to protect unpopular expression , such as flag desecration . 
justice oliver wendell holmes wrote as far back as 1929 , the constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression we agree with , but `` freedom for the thought we hate. '' this resolution is in response to two supreme court decisions , texas v. johnson in 1989 and the united states v. eichman in 1990 , two supreme court decisions in one bite . 
it is always tempting for congress to want to show the supreme court who is boss by amending the constitution to outlaw flag-related expression . 
but if we do , we will not only be carving an awkward exception into a document designed to last for the ages , but will be undermining the very constitutional structure that jefferson and madison designed to protect our rights . 
in effect , we will be glorifying fringe elements who disrespect the flag and what it stands for while denigrating the constitution itself , the vision of madison and jefferson . 
concern about the tyranny of the majority led the framers to create an independent judiciary free of political pressure to ensure that the legislative and executive branches would honor the bill of rights . 
a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration flies in the very face of this carefully balanced structure . 
the fact that the congress would consider the first-ever amendment to the bill of rights without so much as a hearing in this congress makes this all the more objectionable . 
mr. speaker , no hearings . 
why not ? 
well , we have done this before . 
if members want to find out what the debate would be like , read it from four other times that we have done this . 
james madison warned us against using the amendment process to correct every perceived constitutional defect , particularly concerning issues which inflame public passion . 
and , unfortunately , there is no better illustration of madison 's concern than the proposed flag desecration amendment . 
history has proven that efforts to legislate respect for the flag only serve to increase flag-related protest , and a constitutional amendment will no doubt increase such protests many times over . 
almost as significant as the damage this resolution would do to our own constitution is the harm it will inflict in our international standing in the area of human rights . 
mr. speaker , demonstrators who ripped apart communist flags before the fall of the iron curtain committed crimes against their country 's laws , yet freedom-loving americans applauded their brave actions . 
yet if we pass this action , we will be aligning ourselves with those autocratic regimes , such as in the former soviet union and iran , and diminish our own moral stature as a protector of freedom in all of its forms . 
those who oppose this amendment to the constitution prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag express the sentiment of many americans . 
in may 2005 , just last month , a majority of americans opposed such an amendment by 63 percent to 35 percent because of its first amendment restrictions . 
our veterans , citizens who have risked their lives to defend the ideals the flag represents , oppose this amendment as well . 
veterans for common sense and veterans defending the bill of rights , two organizations , do not want to see the first amendment unraveled and a desecration of what the flag represents . 
for those who believe a constitutional amendment will honor the flag , i urge them to actually read the supreme court 's 1989 decision in texas v. johnson . 
the majority wrote , and i concur , `` the way to preserve the flag 's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters , it is to persuade them that they are wrong . 
we can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one 's own , no better way to counter a flag burner 's message than by saluting the flag . 
we do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration , for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents. '' i urge my colleagues to maintain the constitutional ideal of freedom and reject this resolution . 
mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time . 
