mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. speaker , i have listened attentively to the arguments made by the gentleman from north carolina ( mr. watt ) xz4004240 in support of his amendment , and he said that his amendment is redundant . 
it is redundant , but it also is a gutting amendment to the base text of the constitutional amendment that we are debating today . 
this substitute amendment should be rejected because it would constitutionally ratify the supreme court 's decision in texas v. johnson and united states v. eichman , rather than empower congress to pass legislation to protect the flag from physical desecration . 
in johnson and eichman , the supreme court held that flag desecration is expressive conduct protected by the first amendment . 
these decisions effectively invalidated the laws of 48 states and the federal government . 
in addition , based on these precedents , any law that prohibits the physical desecration of the flag will be struck down as an unconstitutional suppression of free expression , thus defeating the goal of our efforts to provide protection for the flag . 
a constitutional amendment must be passed if the flag is to receive legal protection . 
under the watt substitute , the flag would not receive such protection because the court would simply strike down as inconsistent to the first amendment any implementing legislation enacted into law . 
adoption of the substitute would not only render h. j. res. 10 ineffective , but it would also constitutionally codify the supreme court decisions that a vast majority of the american public were erroneously decided , and which did not exist for the first 200 years of the constitution 's existence . 
in other words , if the watt amendment is passed and then a constitutional amendment is passed and ratified by the states , the supreme court can , in the future , recognize that it made a mistake , and that is why this amendment should be rejected . 
mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time . 
