not?" he asked the class. "We have proved that the flag does become the thing we all cherish as a symbol." It would seem to me that there are better ways of teaching respect for the flag than trampling on it. Most recently, there was a public burning of the flag before the anti-Vietnam-war demonstrators in New York City. Concerning these demonstrations, John E. Davis, national commander of the American Legion, has said:

While we do not question the right of dissent, we have serious reservations regarding the motivating forces, the financing, and the masterminding of the rash of anti-Vietnam demonstrations to which this country has been subjected.

In describing what our flag is and what it stands for, President Woodrow Wilson said:

The things that the flag stands for were created by the experiences of a great people. Everything it stands for was written by their lives. The flag is the embodiment, not of sentiment, but of history. It represents the experiences made by men and women, the experiences of those who die and live under that flag.

We of the American Legion and the American Legion Auxiliary believe that our flag should be held in reverence and respect by all Americans as a living symbol of this Nation. We believe that this reverence and respect is an expression of loyalty, patriotism, and positive support for our Nation's cause. The American Legion is engaged in a nationwide program to help reverse the trend toward lawlessness and to impress upon all our people the dangers inherent in a breakdown of law and order at all levels of society.

Among the purposes for which the American Legion was formed, as expressed in the preamble to our Constitution, are to maintain law and order and to foster and perpetuate a 100-percent Americanism.

One of the ways in which we seek to give meaning to these purposes and obligations of citizenship is through our efforts to renew and revitalize the faith of Americans in that which our flag symbolizes. To that end we strongly urge you to see to it that Federal legislation is enacted to punish those who mutilate, defile, deface, and desecrate the flag of the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, at the present time we have a public law that outlines the customs, the honor, and the ceremonials that are attendant on the flag. No one has questioned that particular piece of legislation, and, we are not attempting to have people salute the flag, or attempting to force people to stand at attention. We are not attempting to instill a false sense of patriotism in anybody. We think Congress has acted in the area of what is proper courtesy due the flag. From that point on, we think it is up to the parents, the teachers, and the patriotic. organizations to urge that those customs are carried out. In the event that some people do not want to follow them, nobody in the American Legion is trying to force them to do so. But, if they disregard them, defy them, they go contrary to the present law on respect for the flag, and I think it is well within the province of Congress to enact a law which would say, "If you spit on my flag-if you defile it-by God, you are going to pay for it. You are going to take the consequences." I think that is the feeling of a great many Americans today. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks at this moment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Lvons, I think that the American Legion is fostering and advocating legislation that would make any physical act like spitting, trampling, burning, or otherwise destroving the flag, a Federal crime. You are not, as you say, advocating the disobedience of any

part of the Constitution as it may relate to speech, or any symbolic act thereof. Moreover, the question of reverence and respect for the flag to a large degree depends upon the teaching of the parents.

Mr. LYONS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We are not trying to impose punishment for making speeches, or attempting in any way to abridge the right of free speech. But, for an act of desecration, defiling, or physically mutilating the flag in any way whatsoever, we would like to see adequate punishment meted out. Then if there are those who still want to do it, I think they should take the consequences. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Jacobs.

Mr. JACOBS. I want, Mr. Chairman, to compliment Mr. Lyons for his statement, and his patience in appearing before the committee, and particularly for putting the position of the American Legion in what I regard as in very sharp focus.

Mr. Lyons, you mentioned a moment ago the prescribed ways in which the flag should be displayed and revered and so forth in the United States.

There has been a question that I have raised throughout these hearings, and frankly I am a little unclear on them. If the American flag and the flag of an individual State of the Union are displayed together, is there any proper description as to how that display should be done?

Mr. LYONS. Yes.

Mr. JACOBS. Would you let us know what that is?

Mr. LYONS. The ground rules to observe in the placing of the American flag is that the American flag always goes to the right, to the position of honor. Now, that position of honor might be the chairman, the toastmaster, the president, or director, or head of a particular organization. The position of honor is to his right.

There are many controversies about the present flag code, and I might say that during the life of the late President Kennedy, we had discussed a unification of the flag code, or a clarification of the flag code, and he referred us to the then Attorney General. An Assistant Attorney General was assigned to write up an interpretation of the present flag code so that everyone would understand it, say a simplication of the code, because we have conflicts within the military and civilian code, and many others. Unfortunately, due to circumstances which the President and the Attorney General and even the American Legion thought were more important at the time, we never got to it, but we did have approval to go ahead with the calling of a flag

congress.

The President, as you know, is the protector of the flag of the United States, and whatever the President does is right in connection with the flag.

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Lyons, let us say in the continental United States, is there ever an occasion on which the American flag, when being displayed with other flags in the immediate vicinity, should ever be displayed in a subordinate position to any other flag?

Mr. LYONS. There is mentioned in the flag code that at the United Nations, for instance, the United Nations flag would take precedence, and at foreign embassies, because that is sovereign territory of other countries, or at an official act of other countries, I believe that that flag can then take precedence.

Mr. JACOBS. What about, say, in my State capital of Indianapolis, Ind., if two flags were displayed at the State capitol, would it be proper in any circumstance for the United States to be displayed in a subordinate position?

Mr. LYONS. Never.

Mr. JACOBS. Would that be true of all States?

Mr. LYONS. It would be true of all States.

Mr. JACOBS. I have no further questions.

Mr. LYONS. This is under interpretations of the present code. Mr. McCLORY. I want to compliment you, Mr. Lyons, and your colleagues who have joined with you here today, and express my respect for the American Legion and the American Legion Auxiliary on your Americanism programs. I think they contribute to the stature of our Nation, and they provide great benefit to many individuals who profit from the Americanism instruction which the American Legion provides through these programs. I would also like to express my approval, my full approval, of the position of the American Legion with regard to this specific legislation.

I am not detailing my stand with regard to all legislation which the American Legion has ever supported, but specifically to the bills that are now pending before the Congress.

It seems to me that your position is one consistent with adherence. to the first amendment to the Constitution, consistent with the recognized right to dissent, and at the same time one which is essential if we are going to remain a free and independent and strong Nation. Your position encourages respect and reverence for the flag of the United States as a symbol of everything that we love and revere in this Nation. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. LYONS. Thank you, sir.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Wiggins.

Mr. WIGGINS. Just a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask the gentleman's opinion, based upon his own experience, if the act of burning and trampling upon, spitting, or other defacement of our flag occurs in public, what do you feel the result would be? What would be the reaction of the public that witnessed it?

Mr. LYONS. Well, I think that anybody who witnessed, and many millions of people did witness the recent burnings in the demonstration in New York, I think the people were horrified to think that people would actually do this in a public park.

As evidence of this, I think if you were to be able through a clipping service, or something to evaluate the number of letters to the editor, which is an expression of the people's feeling, in papers throughout the whole country, you would find that there were very few people who approved of such action.

Now, there are certainly a lot of people who don't agree with our position in Vietnam. There are a lot of people who don't agree with the draft. There are a lot of people who don't agree with other phases of the Government, but you don't commit an overt act against the whole country and everything that the country stands for to register disapproval of one particular item.

I think that the American people were shocked.

Mr. WIGGINS. Quite apart from their emotional feeling, what do you expect would be the reaction of those in attendance based upon your personal experience?

Mr. LYONS. Those who attended?

Mr. WIGGINS. Those who witnessed the desecration.

Mr. LYONS. This is opinion on my part. I think that most of those who witnessed, physically witnessed the desecration, the flying of the Vietcong flag, the burning of the draft cards, were all sympathizers, those who were physically in attendance, and I think to many of them it was a lark.

Mr. WIGGINS. Do you think that there is an unreasonable risk of physical harm to persons or to property of those that are in attendance and witness the burning or other desecration of the American flag or property in the immediate vicinity of that act?

Mr. LYONS. Possibly. It would depend on location and circumstance. I think if this were to take place at a patriotic exercise in a community, in which the people were out to celebrate the Fourth of July or something like that, you would have a riot on your hands.

Mr. WIGGINS. If such a riot developed, sir, do you feel that there would be a risk of harm to those who opposed the act of desecration as well as to the man performing it?

Mr. LYONS. I am afraid that those who love and respect the flag might lose their tempers momentarily and do something violent. Mr. WIGGINS. And thereby threaten even themselves?

Mr. LYONS. That is right, I think that law and order should prevail, and if we arm the authorities with the proper law, with the penalties that go with it, then we would find that it will be a deterrent.

I think that most laws we enact are enacted as a means of deterring, I don't think we have to wait until a thing gets to be an epedemic until we call a doctor.

This is an indication now that there is something wrong. There is something basically wrong when people can do things like this, so we must take means to stop them, but we are not trying to stop dissent. Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you so much, Mr. Lyons and Mr. Webb and Mr. Mears. We are sorry that it took so long to get to you, but we appreciate your patience in staying with us all day long.

Mr. LYONS. We are happy that we had the opportunity to have someone to listen to us express the opinion of our colleagues. Thank you very much for hearing us.

Mr. ROGERS. I am sure from what you heard here today you will be able to better explain to your membership the objectives of this legislation.

Thank you so much.

Mr. LYONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCLORY. Excuse me.

Mr. ROGERS. Go right ahead.

Mr. McCLORY. I wanted to reiterate the request of my colleague, Mr. Poff, with regard to hearing testimony from the Attorney General concerning this legislation, especially because of the questions that are raised, the constitutional issues that are involved, the possible conflict or preemption of State legislation, which he would be best able to comment upon.

Mr. ROGERS. That will be taken care of in due time.

Mr. McCLORY. We don't have a schedule on his appearance at the moment?

Mr. ROGERS. Not yet, but it is in the process.

There will be received for the record the statements submitted by our colleagues, Representatives de la Garza and Watson.

(The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF HON. ELIGIO (KIKA) DE LA GARZA, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak a few words in support of my bill, H.R. 8927, to amend section 3 of title 4 of the United States Code to prohibit the mutilation of the flag anywhere in the United States, and for other purposes.

Like most citizens of this country, I am appalled at the demonstrations in New York City and other areas of our country. It is terrifying to see the way our American flag and our American way of life are being desecrated, and with apparently little, if any, action to stop it.

For the sake of the freedom of the majority and for the cause for which our young men are dying in Vietnam, this sort of thing, in my opinion, must be curtailed.

I am very concerned that no penalty exists for mutilating the U.S. flag, with the lone exception of within the District of Columbia. Title IV, section 3 of the code sets forth the penalties for mutilating physically or casting contempt by word on the flag within the District of Columbia.

I introduced H.R. 8927 to amend the above provisions of the code to extend them to every State in the Union. In addition, my bill would up the maximum fine for violating this statute from the present $100 fine or 30 days imprisonment or both to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both.

As a representative of the people and of justice, I urge you, my colleagues, to assist me in helping restore some form of personal integrity, national responsibility, and basic Americanism by favorable consideration of this bill. It is mighty discouraging to try to win a ball game when your own cheering section is rooting for the other team.

It has been a privilege to appear before you in behalf of this bill, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you and the subcommittee members for their time.

STATEMENT BY HON. ALBERT WATSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. Chairman, my statement to the committee today will be brief. Certainly all of us are aware of the importance and gravity of these hearings, and I want to commend the gentleman from Colorado and the other members of this subcommittee for their diligence and keen awareness of this incredible business of purposely mutilating the Flag of the United States. These hearings are a manifestation of your interest in this critical problem, and I am privileged to appear before you today.

My position in this matter is clear. After hearing of the burning of the American flag by a group of leftists during the so-called Vietnam Day demonstration on April 16, I immediately prepared my bill, H.R. 8804, to amend Title IV. Section 3 of the Code to extend its provisions to every State in the Union. I might add that my bill was not so much in reaction to the incident on Vietnam Day, but rather was the implementation of previous plans to introduce such legislation. Last year, I strongly supported a bill introduced by my good friend from Indiana, Mr. Roudebush, to attain this end. However, I must admit that my pleas last year went unheeded and, ironically enough, it took the episode in Central Park to put this issue in its proper perspective.

While the punishment provided in my bill is not as severe as that called for in many of the other measures, I do believe these flag burners should be subject to at least one year in jail. That should help deter this deplorable conduct.

Although some may question our efforts here as a denial of free speech, I