mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time . 
i think it is important to put this debate in context because it occurs to me that every time we consider this resolution , we end up cutting veterans health care . 
so let us just see what we are doing this year on the health care budget for veterans . 
the republican budget cuts veterans health care programs by more than $ 13.5 billion over the next 5 years compared to what would be needed just to keep up with inflation . 
the president even proposed a $ 15 billion cut and copays for a significant number of our veterans . 
when the sponsor challenges us to ask wounded veterans in va hospitals what they want us to do , i suspect that they would not be asking us to cut veterans health care at the same time we debate this resolution . 
furthermore , mr. speaker , just before we went on memorial day break and gave speeches just a few weeks ago , colleagues voted down a measure that would have offered tricare health coverage to national guard members and reservists . 
reserve components make up 50 percent of our forces in iraq and studies show that 20 percent have no health insurance . 
for younger reservists it is as high as 40 percent have no health insurance coverage . 
how can we ask these young men and women to serve on the front line and not even provide for them the basic necessity of health care ? 
and so , mr. speaker , 25 million american veterans deserve respect and dignity and they deserve more than the debate on this constitutional amendment . 
we should be providing health care for our veterans , not this resolution . 
mr. speaker , everyone here respects the flag . 
the question before us is not whether we respect the flag , but whether or not we ought to use the criminal code to prevent those who disagree with us to express their views . 
the supreme court has frequently considered restrictions on speech that are permissible by our government . 
for example , under the first amendment with respect to speech , speech may be regulated by time , place and manner , but not regulated by content . 
there are , of course , exceptions . 
speech may be restricted if it creates an imminent threat of violence or threatens safety or expresses a patently offensive message that has no redeeming social value , but we can not restrict by content otherwise . 
the distinction : you can restrict by time , place and manner but not content . 
so you can restrict the particulars of a march or a demonstration by what time it is held or where it is held or how loud the demonstration can be , but you can not restrict what people are marching or demonstrating about . 
you can not ban a particular march or demonstration just because you disagree with the message unless you decide to ban all marches . 
you can not allow one political party to have a demonstration , but not the other . 
you can not have a pro-war demonstration and then try to restrict an anti-war demonstration . 
speech protected by the constitution we have to recognize will always be unpopular . 
popular speech does not need protection . 
it is only that speech that provokes the local sheriff into wanting to arrest you for what you said that needs protection . 
of course , speech protected by the first amendment will always be unpopular . 
some have referred to the underlying resolution as the anti-flag burning amendment , and they speak about the necessity of keeping people from burning flags . 
in reality , the only place you ever see a flag burned is in compliance with the federal code at flag ceremonies disposing of a worn-out flag . 
ask any boy scout or american legion member how to dispose of a worn-out flag and they will tell you that the procedure is to burn the flag at a respectful ceremony . 
in fact , the only time i have seen a flag burned is at one of these ceremonies . 
so the proposed constitutional amendment is all about expression and all about prohibiting expression in violation of the first amendment principles . 
in fact , the amendment does not even use the term `` burning. '' it uses the term `` flag desecration. '' and by using the word `` desecration , '' we are giving government officials the power to decide that one can burn the flag if they are saying something nice and respectful , but they are a criminal if they burn this flag while they are saying something offensive or insulting . 
this is an absurd distinction and is a direct contravention of the whole purpose of the first amendment , especially when the real impact of the legislation will be to have political protesters arrested because they disagree and express that disagreement of government policy . 
mr. speaker , in addition to the violation of the spirit of the bill of rights , this amendment has practical problems . 
for example , what is a flag ? 
can one desecrate a picture of a flag ? 
can one desecrate a flag with the wrong number of stripes ? 
mr. speaker , during the vietnam war , laws were passed prohibiting draft cards from being burned , and protesters with great flourish would say that they were burning their draft cards and offend everybody , but then nobody would know whether it was a draft card or just a piece of paper . 
and what happens if one desecrates their own flag in private ? 
are they subject to criminal prosecution if somebody finds out ? 
mr. speaker , i feel compelled to comment on suggestions that stealing and destroying somebody 's personal property is protected if that property happens to be a flag . 
that is wrong . 
it is still theft and personal property . 
the other examples , there are other criminal codes that people can be prosecuted on . 
what this legislation is aimed at is criminalizing political speech , and we should not criminalize political speech just because we disagree with it , just because we have the votes . 
& lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; pre & gt ; [ page : h4910 ] & lt ; /pre & gt ; & lt ; /center & gt ; so , mr. speaker , i hope that we would defeat this resolution , and i urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution . 
