mr. speaker , i rise in strong opposition to this resolution . 
the process may well be legal , but it is unwise . 
the problem is minimal . 
this is more like a solution in search of a problem . 
we just do not need to amend the constitution for so little a problem that we face in this regard . 
we are just looking for another job for the batf to enforce this type of legislation . 
it was stated earlier that this is the only recourse we have since the supreme court ruled the texas law unconstitutional . 
that is not true . 
there are other alternatives . 
one merely would be to use state law . 
there are a lot of state laws , such as laws against arson , disturbing the peace , theft , inciting riots , trespassing . 
we could deal with all of the flag desecration with these laws . 
but there is another solution that our side has used and pretends to want to use on numerous occasions , and that is to get rid of the jurisdiction from the federal courts . 
we did it on the marriage issue ; we can do it right here . 
so to say this is the only solution is incorrect . 
it is incorrect . 
and besides , a solution like that would go quickly , pass the house by a majority vote , pass the senate by a majority vote , send it to the president . 
the schiavo legislation was expedited and passed quickly . 
why not do it with the flag ? 
it is a solution , and we should pay attention to it . 
desecration is reserved for religious symbols . 
to me , why this is scary is because the flag is a symbol today of the state . 
why is it , our side never seems to answer this question when we bring it up , why is it that we have the red chinese , cuba , north korea , and saddam hussein who support the position that you severely punished those who burn a flag ? 
no , they just gloss over this . 
they gloss over it . 
is it not rather ironic today that we have troops dying in iraq , `` spreading freedom '' and , yet , we are here trying to pass laws similar to what saddam hussein had with regard to the flag ? 
i just do not see where that makes a lot of sense . 
mr. speaker , a question i would like to ask the proponents of this legislation is this : what if some military officials arrived at a home to report to the family that their son had just been killed in iraq , and the mother is totally overwhelmed by grief which quickly turns to anger . 
she grabs a flag and she burns it ? 
what is the proper punishment for this woman who is grieved , who acts out in this manner ? 
we say , well , these are special circumstances , we will excuse her for that ; or no , she has to be punished , she burned a flag because she was making a political statement . 
that is the question that has to be answered . 
what is the proper punishment for a woman like that ? 
i would say it is very difficult to mete out any punishment whatsoever . 
we do not need a new amendment to the constitution to take care of a problem that does not exist . 
another point : the real problem that exists rountinely on the house floor is the daily trashing of the court by totally ignoring act i sec . 
8. we should spend a lot more time following the rule of law , as defined by our oath of office , and a lot less on unnecessary constitutional amendments that expands the role of the federal government while undermining that extension of the states . 
mr. speaker , let me summarize my views on this proposed amendment . 
i rise in opposition to this amendment . 
i have myself served 5 years in the military , and i have great respect for the symbol of our freedom . 
i salute the flag , and i pledge to the flag . 
i also support overriding the supreme court case that overturned state laws prohibiting flag burning . 
under the constitutional principle of federalism , questions such as whether or not texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of texas , not the united states supreme court . 
thus , if this amendment simply restored the state 's authority to ban flag burning , i would enthusiastically support it . 
however , i can not support an amendment to give congress new power to prohibit flag burning . 
i served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our constitution . 
i believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had all these many years . 
mr. speaker , we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag . 
we all despise this behavior , but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the first amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive . 
according to the pro-flag amendment citizens flag alliance , there were only three incidents of flag desecration in 2004 and there have only been two acts of desecration thus far in 2005 , and the majority of those cases involved vandalism or some other activity that is already punishable by local law enforcement ! 
let me emphasize how the first amendment is written , `` congress shall make no law. '' that was the spirit of our nation at that time : `` congress shall make no laws. '' unfortunately , congress has long since disregarded the original intent of the founders and has written a lot of laws regulating private property and private conduct . 
but i would ask my colleagues to remember that every time we write a law to control private behavior , we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun , because if you desecrate the flag , you have to punish that person . 
so how do you do that ? 
you send an agent of the government , perhaps an employee of the bureau of alcohol , tobacco and flags , to arrest him . 
this is in many ways patriotism with a gun -- if your actions do not fit the official definition of a `` patriot , '' we will send somebody to arrest you . 
fortunately , congress has modals of flag desecration laws . 
for example , sadam hussein made desecration of the iraq flag a criminal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison . 
it is assumed that many in the military support this amendment , but in fact there are veterans who have been great heroes in war on both sides of this issue . 
i would like to quote a past national commander of the american legion , keith kreul . 
he said : our nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols , but on principles , beliefs and ideals expressed in the constitution and its bill of rights . 
american veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf . 
instead , they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents , our beliefs and freedom for all . 
therein lies the beauty of our flag . 
a patriot can not be created by legislation . 
secretary of state , former chairman of the joint chiefs , and two-time winner of the presidential medal of freedom colin powell has also expressed opposition to amending the constitution in this manner : `` i would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer out a few miscreants . 
the flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away. '' mr. speaker , this amendment will not even reach the majority of cases of flag burning . 
when we see flag burning on television , it is usually not american citizens , but foreigners who have strong objections to what we do overseas , ( burning the flag. ) this is what i see on television and it is the conduct that most angers me . 
one of the very first laws that red china passed upon assuming control of hong kong was to make flag burning illegal . 
since that time , they have prosecuted some individuals for flag burning . 
our state department keeps records of how often the red chinese prosecute people for burning the chinese flag , as it considers those prosecutions an example of how the red chinese violate human rights . 
those violations are used against red china in the argument that they should not have most-favored-nation status . 
there is just a bit of hypocrisy among those members who claim this amendment does not interfere with fundamental liberties , yet are critical of red china for punishing those who burn the chinese flag . 
mr. speaker , this is ultimately an attack on private property . 
freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property . 
we do not have freedom of expression of our religion in other people 's churches ; it is honored and respected because we respect the ownership of the property . 
the property conveys the right of free expression , as a newspaper would or a radio station . 
once congress limits property rights , for any cause , no matter how noble , it limits freedom . 
some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag belongs to the country . 
the flag belongs to everybody . 
but if you say that , you are a collectivist . 
that means you believe everybody owns everything . 
so why do american citizens have to spend money to obtain , and maintain , a flag if the flag is communally owned ? 
if your neighbor , or the federal government , owns a flag , even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag . 
if you are causing civil disturbances , you are liable for your conduct under state and local laws . 
but this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag is erroneous . 
finally , mr. speaker , i wish to point out that by using the word `` desecration , '' which is traditionally reserved for religious symbols , the authors of this amendment are placing the symbol of the state on the same plane as the symbol of the church . 
the practical effect of this is to either lower religious symbols to the level of the secular state , or raise the state symbol to the status of a holy icon . 
perhaps this amendment harkens back to the time when the state was seen as interchangeable with the church . 
in any case , those who believe we have `` no king but christ '' should be troubled by this amendment . 
we must be interested in the spirit of our constitution . 
we must be interested in the principles of liberty . 
i therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment . 
instead , my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning , free from unconstitutional interference by the supreme court . 
