mr. speaker , let me just begin by saying our flag does not need protection from an occasional protester , we call them miscreants i think , who can not see how ridiculous it is to try to protest by destroying the symbol of his right to protest . 
if he can not see how ridiculous that is , obviously we do not need much protection from him . 
contrary to what has been suggested on the floor , the underlying amendment does not regulate conduct . 
without the watt amendment , it clearly regulates message . 
now , as the gentleman from north carolina , sponsor of the amendment , points out , the underlying amendment does not repeal the first amendment . 
even if we adopt this constitutional amendment , the first amendment will still be there , and so the amendment is , in fact , redundant , but it makes it clear and reminds people that it is still there . 
what he seeks to clarify is whether or not it is indeed the message that is being criminalized rather than the conduct , whether or not those who support government policy , for example , and burn a flag without offending anybody , apparently they will be okay . 
but if you are a war protester who burns a flag , you can be arrested , and if you are a veteran , so disgusted with veterans health care , and burn the flag in protest , are we making him a criminal ? 
or if you are a member of a fringe political organization who burns his own flag on his own property , in private , can they be arrested if somebody finds out ? 
the question is whether or not we are criminalizing the message or the conduct . 
so the watt amendment makes it clear that we are still protecting freedom of speech . 
the message , that will be clear , that we if we do not support the watt amendment we just ought to acknowledge it is indeed the message , not conduct , which is the target of the underlying amendment . 
