mr. speaker , we are gathered here today to debate a constitutional amendment that would restrict the right of an american to make a foolish , foolish mistake with his or her own property . 
as secretary of state colin powell said in a letter dated may 18 , 1999 to senator leahy : `` if they are destroying a flag that belongs to someone else , that is a prosecutable crime . 
but if it is a flag they own , i really do n't want to amend the constitution to prosecute someone for foolishly desecrating their own property . 
we should condemn them and pity them instead. '' mr. speaker , my primary objection to this amendment is not the effect it will have on those who physically desecrate their flags , because the numbers of people who physically desecrate the american flag are so small . 
my objection is that it will give government a tool with which to prosecute americans with minority views , particularly at times of great national division , even if their behavior would have been perceived as patriotic if done by the majority . 
unfortunately , our history has abundant examples of patriotism being used to hurt those who express views in disagreement with that of the majority . 
let me share some news stories taken from the new york times in years of great strife in america . 
the first one i would like to read is from april 7 , 1917 . 
headline : `` diners resent slight to the anthem . 
attack a man and two women who refuse to stand when it is played . 
there was much excitement in the main dining room at rector 's last night following the playing of the `star spangled banner. ' frederick s. boyd , a former reporter on the new york call , a socialist newspaper , was dining with miss jessie ashley and miss may r. towle , both lawyers and suffragists . 
the three alone of those in the room remained seated . 
there were quiet , then loud and vehement , protests , but they kept their chairs . 
the angry diners surrounded boyd and the two women and blows were struck back and forth , the women fighting valiantly to defend boyd . 
he cried out he was an englishman and did not have to get up , but the crowd would not listen to explanation . 
`` boyd was beaten severely when albert dasburg a head waiter , succeeded in reaching his side . 
other waiters closed in and the fray was stopped . 
the guests insisted upon the ejection of boyd and his companions , and they were asked to leave . 
they refused to do so and they were escorted to the street and turned over to a policeman who took boyd to the west 47th street station , charged with disorderly conduct . 
before magistrate corrigan in night court , boyd repeated that he did not have to rise at the playing of the national anthem , but the court told him that while there was no legal obligation , it was neither prudent nor courteous not to do so in these tense times . 
boyd was found guilty of disorderly conduct and was released on suspended sentence. '' another one from the new york times , july 2 , 1917 , headline : `` boston `peace ' parade mobbed . 
soldiers and sailors break up socialist demonstration and rescue flag . 
socialist headquarters ransacked and contents burned , many arrests for fighting . 
riotous scenes attended a socialist parade today which was announced as a peace demonstration . 
the ranks of the marchers were broken up by self-organized squads of uniformed soldiers and sailors , red flags and banners bearing socialist mottos were trampled on , and literature and furnishings in the socialist headquarters in park square were thrown into the street and burned . 
`` at scollay square there was a similar scene . 
the american flag at the head of the line was seized by the attacking party , and the band , which had been playing the `the marseillaise ' with some interruptions , was forced to play `the star-spangled banner ' while cheers were given for the flag. '' headline : `` forced to kiss the flag . 
one hundred anarchists are then driven from san diego . 
nearly 100 industrial workers of the world , all of whom admitted they are anarchists , knelt on the ground at dawn today near san onofre , a small settlement a short distance this side of the orange county boundary line . 
`` the ceremony , which was unwillingly performed , was witnessed by 45 deputy constables and a large body of armed citizens of san diego. '' what do these stories have to do with this very important and heartfelt debate today , mr. speaker ? 
the decision we make today , it seems to me , is a balancing , weighing , of what best preserves freedom for americans . 
there may well be a decrease in public deliberate incidents of flag desecration , acts that we all deplore , if this amendment becomes part of our constitution , although they are already quite rare . 
on the other side of the ledger , if this amendment becomes part of our constitution , in my opinion , it will become a constitutionally sanctioned tool for the majority to tyrannize the minority . 
as evidenced by anecdotes from a time of great divisiveness in our nation 's history , a time much different from today , government , which ultimately as human beings with all of our strengths and weaknesses , may use this amendment to question the patriotism of vocal minorities and will use it to find excuses to legally attack demonstrations which utilize the flag in an otherwise appropriate manner , except for the fact that the flag is carried by those speaking for an unpopular minority . 
let me give you an example . 
i was at a rural county fair in arkansas several years ago where a group had a booth with great patriotic display , in addition to their handouts and signs . 
they had laid across the table , like a tablecloth , an american flag . 
i knew these people thought this to be a patriotic part of their display . 
i was standing a few booths down the way and watched as one of the volunteers sat on the table , oblivious to the fact he was sitting on our american flag . 
i believe that his action was a completely innocent mistake , and that he did not realize such behavior is inconsistent with good flag etiquette . 
i believe that had this group been a fringe group , these with views contrary to the great majority , and should we have laws prohibiting physical desecration of the flag , and had this been a time of great national division , such an action as i described would not be excused as an innocent mistake . 
instead , a minority group might be prosecuted out of anger , out of disgust , but make no mistake , the motivation for such a prosecution would be that they hold a minority view . 
mr. speaker , i do not think our constitution will be improved nor our freedoms protected by placing within it enhanced opportunity for minority views to be legally attacked , ostensibly because of their misuse of the flag they own , but in reality because of the views that many consider out of the mainstream . 
mr. speaker , i urge a `` no '' vote on this proposed amendment . 
