mr. speaker , i rise today in opposition to h. j. res. 10 , the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of our flag . 
and , in this respect , i take no pleasure in doing so : like the vast majority of americans , i too condemn those malcontents who would desecrate our flag -- a universal symbol for democracy , freedom and liberty -- to grab attention for themselves and inflame the passions of patriotic americans . 
without doubt , those misfits who desecrate our flag deserve our contempt . 
further , i fully appreciate and respect the motivations of those who offer and support this amendment , particularly the patriotic men and women who so faithfully served this nation in our armed services and in other capacities . 
their strong feelings on this issue should neither be questioned nor underestimated . 
they deserve our respect . 
however , i respectfully disagree with them and will oppose this amendment for the reasons so eloquently articulated by senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky . 
in opposing a similar amendment a few years ago , senator mcconnell stated that it `` rips the fabric of our constitution at its very center : the first amendment. '' he added , `` our respect and reverence for the flag should not provoke us to damage our constitution , even in the name of patriotism. '' those of us who oppose this amendment do so not to countenance the actions of a few , but because we believe the question before us today is how we the united states of america -- are to deal with individuals who dishonor our nation in this manner . 
i submit , mr. speaker , that a constitutional amendment is neither the appropriate nor best method for dealing with these malcontents . 
as the late justice brennan wrote for the supreme court in texas v. johnson : `` 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. '' furthermore , it troubles me that this amendment , if approved , would ensconce the vile actions of a few provocateurs into the very document that guarantees freedom of speech , freedom of religion , freedom of the press , freedom of assembly , and freedom to petition the government . 
that document , of course , is our constitution . 
in more than 200 years , our constitution has been amended only 27 times , and nearly all of those amendments guarantee or expand rights , liberties and freedoms . 
only one amendment -- prohibition -- constricted freedoms and soon was repealed . 
i simply do not believe that our traditions , our values , our democratic principles -- all embodied in our constitution and the bill of rights -- should be overridden to prohibit this particular manner of speech , even though i completely disagree with it . 
free speech is often a double-edged sword . 
however , if we value the freedoms that define us as americans , we should refrain from amending the constitution to limit those same freedoms to avoid being offended . 
i remind my colleagues that if we approve this amendment , we put our great nation in the company of the oppressive regimes in china , iran , and cuba -- all of whom have similar laws protecting their flags . 
needless to say , when it comes to free speech , the united states of america is the world 's leader . 
it does not follow china , iran or cuba . 
our flag is far more than a piece of cloth , a few stripes , 50 stars . 
our flag is a universal symbol for freedom , liberty , human rights and decency that is recognized throughout the world . 
the inflammatory actions of a few misfits can not extinguish those ideals . 
we can only do that ourselves . 
and i submit that a constitutional amendment to restrict speech -- even speech such as this -- is the surest way to stoke the embers of those who will push for even more restrictions . 
