Mr. QUILLEN. Yes, sir; provisions would be made, if a flag is frayed, it could be burned in a peaceful way, without being defiled or contempt being cast upon it. There is an orderly way to take care of it Mr. JACOBS, The traditional ceremonial way Mr. QUILLEN. That is right. We know that the desecration of the flag is a willful proposition. When a man goes out to cast contempt, to destroy it, defile it, to say that it does not represent the things in which we all believe. To me, that is contempt and that contempt should be subject to punishment. Mr. JACOBS. Let me ask you further, then, in your opinion is it possible to violate the provisions of your bill without burning the American flag? Mr. QUILLEN. Definitely; definitely. Mr. JACOBS. An incident is alleged in Manchester's book "The Death of The President," where in Dallas, a retired major general of the U.S. Army, flew the American flag upside down in front of his house. In your judgment, would that violate the provisions of your bill? Mr. QUILLEN. Already, the law that the President proposed in 1942, prescribes the correct use of the flag. I would say, if the officer did that in contempt of the United States of America, definitely he should come under the provisions of this bill. Mr. JACOBS. Supposing he just did it Mr. QUILLEN. If he did it accidently Mr. JACOBS. It is alleged to have been a deliberate act. My question is, in proving a violation of your bill, would it be a question of disgracing the United States of America, or would it be sufficient just to disgrace the flag of the United States of America— with the intent to disgrace the flag? Mr. QUILLEN. When you disgrace the flag, you automatically disgrace the country, because it is the symbol of our country. Mr. JACOBS. I think that answers our question. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Whitener. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Quillen, I note your bill would amend section 3, title 4 of the United States Code, and in that existing law, to get back to my question of a moment ago, we find the following language: The words "flag, standard, colors, or ensign”, as used herein shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance of any size, evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America, or a picture or representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America. Now I take it as a matter of draftsmanship you intend that the definition in the present section 3 of title 4 would be the meaning of "flag, standard, colors or ensign of the United States" as mentioned in your bill. Mr. QUILLEN. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITENER. So a paper reproduction, a photograph- Mr. WHITENER. You don't really require that in your bill. You just say "whoever publicly" does it, Mr. QUILLEN. Of course, Mr. Whitener, I think this: There might be another section that this law could be placed under. As I said in the beginning, I am not an attorney. I feel that your committee, taking the subject matter of my bill, will bring out a clean bill to recommend to your full committee, keeping in mind what I have said in my speech, because I believe that we should have a Federal law for those who would publicly desecrate our flag. To what section, to what comma, to what semicolon, or what definition, let me leave that in your good hands, because I am sure you will handle it. Mr. WHITENER. I am sure, from what you have said, that you would add the element of willfulness. Mr. QUILLEN. Yes, sir. I think anyone who does something, as Mr. Jacobs pointed out, that would be willful, because he knew what he was doing. But those who make a mistake, I think certainly they should not be prosecuted. Mr. WHITENER. And the law should make that abundantly clear. Mr. QUILLEN. I think so. Mr. WHITENER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. McClory. Mr. MCCLORY. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his detailed, carefully prepared and well-documented statement. I notice that measures introduced by many of our colleagues mention the burning of the flag. You don't mention "burn." You don't have any objection to adding that Mr. QUILLEN. Actually, burning would be desecrating, but I have no objection. Mr. McCLORY. The section of the law that the gentleman from Tennessee seeks to amend by his bill, H.R. 6385, is a section which relates to the District of Columbia, and I assume that the definition section to which the gentleman from North Carolina made reference regarding "flags" and "standards" and so on would apply solely to the District of Columbia, unless the bill were further amended to apply to the rest of the 50 States. So I assume the intention of your legislation is that this should apply to the 50 States and Puerto Rico and Guam. Mr. QUILLEN. The 50 States, any possession of the United States, the United States and its possessions. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, very much. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Poff. Mr. POFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On examining the language of the gentleman's bill, H.R. 6385, and trying to make up my own mind about precisely what your purpose is, H.R. 6385 provides first, that the first sentence of subsection (a) of section 3 of title 4, shall be designated as subsection (a). It provides further that a new subsection (b) be inserted at that point. Mr. QUILLEN. Yes, sir. Mr. POFF. Under customary rules of legislative draftsmanship, this would have the effect of creating two separate bills. The first would apply to offenses committed in the District of Columbia, and the second, as I understand the gentleman's last response, would apply nationwide. Is that your purpose? Mr. QUILLEN. A nationwide purpose. Mr. PoFF. Do you also intend that a separate penalty attach for the offense if it is committed in the District of Columbia? Mr. QUILLEN. No, I do not. I will say to the gentleman from Virginia, I would hope that the District of Columbia would have the same penalty as that for the entire 50 States. Mr. PoFF, Then you would favor an amendment Mr. QUILLEN. I would say to the gentleman from Virginia, as I said to Mr. Whitener, that I am not an attorney, and my intention, sir, is to have a Federal law covering the 50 States, the possessions of the United States, that this flag of ours shall not be desecrated willfully in any way. Mr. POFF. With reference to the question of preemption, do you intend that if this bill is passed, and if it has national application, that it preempt the laws in the several States under the supremacy clause of the Constitution? Mr. QUILLEN. I will say to the gentleman from Virginia that I think the desecration of our flag should be a Federal offense and should be prosecuted by the Federal Government, preferably the FBI, because I think in that way we could have standard fines and imprisonment sentences. If the States wanted to concur with the Federal law and carry it out, I am sure there would be no objection in that regard. But the State, when a person robs a bank, dealing with Federal funds, the FBI steps in immediately, and it becomes a Federal offense. The FBI then works with State and local law enforcement officersthat is as it should be. When one defaces or destroys postage, it becomes a Federal offense. When they destroy money in an unauthorized way it becomes a Federal offense, or if a person wants to make his own money it is a Federal offense. So I say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that I feel it should be a Federal law, it should be carried out with teeth, and passed as quickly as possible. I would say that the temperature of the people of this country now is such that this law is demanded. Mr. PoFF. I thank the gentleman. Mr. ROGERS. Counsel has one question. Mr. ZELENKO. Congressman, your bill would penalize not only physical attacks on the flag, but also statements dírected against the flag? Mr. QUILLEN. If done deliberately, yes. Mr. ZELENKO. Some suggest that unless there is a clear and present danger, freedom of speech would apply. Would you be satisfied if physical Mr. QUILLEN. Yes. In my remarks, I said I wanted nothing that would interfere with the freedom of speech. But you cannot say that we stand idly by and see someone in this very room curse our flag and defile it. I think, to me, that is a disgrace and should be stopped. However, if it is an infringement on freedom of speech, I certainly do not want to leave that reaction here this morning. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Quillen. We certainly appreciate your counsel and guidance. Mr. QUILLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being here. I have from the Library of Congress the provisions relating to the U.S. flag. Mr. ROGERS. We have them here for consideration. Mr. QUILLEN. Thank you. Secondly, Congressman Dick Fulton, of Tennessee, wanted me to leave a statement for the record. Mr. ROGERS. We will receive it. (The document referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY HON. RICHARD FULTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Mr. Chairman, my duties on the Ways and Means Committee, currently meeting in executive session on the Social Security amendments of 1967, prevent me from appearing in person before your Committee this morning. In my absence I have requested my Colleague from Tennessee, the Honorable James H. Quillen, to submit my statement. I would like to thank Rep. Quillen for his assistance and commend him for his effective efforts in behalf of this important legislation. STATEMENT BY HON. RICHARD FULTON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Members of this Distinguished Committee for allowing me to speak this morning in behalf of my bill to provide Federal penalties for acts of desecration committed against the American Flag. It does seem ludicrous that a need should exist in this great Democracy for consideration of such legislation. This is a Nation of great freedom. Certainly freedom of expression abounds in the United States today as in no other Nation the world has known. But unfortunately, there are radicals in America who would use this freedom to subvert our form of government for some alien "ism" or some doctrine of fascism or anarchy. The latter often drape themselves in the flag, camouflaging their twisted motives in the mantle of patriotism. The former regard the right of dissent as license to pursue their ends beyond the bounds of responsiblé conduct. Flag-burning and desecration have emerged today as an instrument of irresponsible expression of dissent and it is as repulsive to the vast majority of our American citizenry as were the vile and venomous tracts of hate directed against our late President Kennedy, tracts which still flow from the pens of hate pamphleters. There is little doubt in my mind that our Nation will withstand any assault leveled at it by the irresponsible elements of the radical left or radical right. This is not a new bill. I was privileged to sponsor it in the 89th Congress. Why then, consider legislation concerning desecration of the flag at this time? If for no other reason than to begin a line of demarcation beyond which expression of dissent is no longer responsible but is unacceptable to responsible citizens and contrary to law. I am fully aware that there are State statutes which deal with this matter. But our Flag is not a State institution. It knows neither State nor regional boundries nor is it conscious of race, color or creed. It is a symbol of this Nation, of its greatness and yes, of its shortcomings. The vast majority of Americans are, I believe, proud of their flag and the great good which it symbolizes in fact and ideal, as they are proud of their country. Those who have no pride in their Nation are going to have little respect for the Flag. We do not require our citizens to take loyalty oaths. We assume them to be loyal citizens unless they demonstrate otherwise. Unfortunately, the bridge between irresponsible dissent and outright sedition or treason is, in this instance, too broad. Enactment of this bill will close that gap. The flag belongs to all Americans. It is respected by every responsible citizen. It deserves the protection of the Federal government, Mr. Chairman, favorable consideration of this bill will in no way abridge or deny the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression though it may well, in the long run, preserve it. Thank you. Mr. QUILLEN. Thirdly, could I commend our colleague from Indiana, Mr. Roudebush, for his stirring actions and leadership for such a bill. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Our next witness is Congresswoman Edna F. Kelly, from the State of New York, who is author of H.R. 764, who has a statement. Sit right down, Mrs. Kelly. STATEMENT OF HON. EDNA F. KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mrs. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. Proceed in your own manner. you Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that we are all sad that find the necessity of these hearings, but I want to add that I appreciate appearing because of that very need. I regret that I find it a sad reflection on our civilization of today, and I realize that it is also packed with emotionalism. Mr. Chairman, I feel every confidence that since these bills have been placed in your committee, and I am glad of that, because I know that the outcome of the hearings under your jurisdiction will be most carefully considered. I am one who possibly is of the old school, and filled with a little emotionalism, too, but I feel, as one of our astronauts said in appearing before a joint session of the Congress, and I am not sure of his exact words, that he still gets a thrill "when I see our flag pass by," and I feel we all should feel the same and be proud of it because of that which it represents. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee, the newest method of expressing disagreement with policies of our Government is for dissenters to publicly desecrate the American flag. While we all respect the constitutionally protected right of freedom of speech and expression, I do not believe that these rights grant, to any individual the right to descrate or destroy our national standard. The American flag is more than a piece of cloth identified with the United States. It is a symbol of Federal supremacy in these United States and of United States' jurisdiction wherever it is flown... In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the public desecration or destruction of the American flag cannot be viewed as an expression of dissent even though the right to dissent is inherent in our system of representative government. Since the founding of our Nation, meaningful dissent has led the way toward valuable social, economic and political change. However, T |