mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. speaker , the fact of the matter is , there have been thousands of amendments introduced , thousands of proposed amendments introduced to the constitution of the united states . 
only 17 have been adopted since 1791 after the bill of rights . 
amendments were proposed after most unpopular supreme court decisions . 
after the one-man , one-vote decision in 1960 , whatever it was , where they said you had to reapportion based on population , there were amendments introduced . 
amendments have been introduced after every unpopular decision of the supreme court . 
it is deliberately difficult to amend the constitution because the framers of the constitution were afraid of transient majorities . 
they were afraid of emotion , and they deliberately wanted it to be difficult to amend the constitution so it would not be amended very often , and only under dire necessity . 
what is the dire necessity here ? 
what is the dire necessity , that in the last 20 years , i heard someone say 119 people have burned the flag . 
well , a lot more than 119 people have burned the flag . 
most , however , have burned the flag to dispose of it , which is the approved method of disposing of it . 
i have heard the gentleman from florida ( mr. stearns ) xz4003880 say , and others say , this has nothing to do with free speech . 
people can say anything they want . 
but it is burning the flag . 
but the fact is , it is very much free speech . 
that is why the supreme court decided as it did , because burning the flag for a proper purpose , that is , to say an approved purpose , to destroy it , to destroy a tattered flag , is approved . 
but burning the flag to express an unpopular viewpoint , we do not agree with the administration in power about whatever , that would be made a crime . 
so what is the real essence of the crime ? 
burning the flag in connection with unpopular speech . 
if you burn it in connection with popular speech , we respect the flag and we dispose of this , or this connection with popular speech because you are an actor playing the british burning washington in 1814 , that is okay . 
so this gets at the heart of free speech . 
now , it may not be all that important right now , and it is not . 
we do not see any epidemic of people burning flags . 
we have no great emotional issue at the moment that have people marching in the streets ; but as the gentleman from arkansas ( mr. snyder ) xz4003830 pointed out , at times in our history we have , and at times in our history people have been persecuted and free speech has been violated . 
we should not repeat that . 
we should not make it easier at times of emotion in the future on issues we can not now foresee for unpopular minorities to be bullied . 
we should not make it easier for unpopular minorities in the future to have their free speech trampled or to give weapons to a future government with which to trample free speech . 
we all love the flag . 
no one is divided on that in this chamber . 
but those of us who understand , i think , the meaning of liberty and the meaning of what this country stands for , perhaps in a way , i would want to say better than others , but that would be a little arrogant , but to understand that as we do , understand that the real meaning of this country is to permit free speech , to magnify free speech , to magnify free speech of those we do not agree with , of those we find obnoxious . 
and what this amendment does is to sacrifice that . 
the cloth of the flag is not what we revere . 
what we revere is the idea of the flag and the republic for which it stands . 
that idea is threatened by this amendment , not protected by it ; and that is why it should not be approved . 
mr. speaker , i yield back the balance of my time . 
