Mr. JACOBS. That you, very much.

Mr. WIGGINS. In your prepared statement you made this statement: State laws have not been successful in coping with the deplorable desecration of the flag, which unfortunately has increased considerably in recent months. I would like your opinion as to why such State laws have not been successful.

Mr. LONG. I would suspect, for one thing, that it is possible that in many of the States the police are not aware of the extent to which State law covers this situation.

I think they could be excused for this, since there is such wide variation among the various States.

I would guess that is the main reason, plus the fact that I believe there are only four States in which the State laws are stronger than the Federal law that we are proposing here, and in a very large majority of the States the laws are weaker, and the penalties are weaker. Mr. WHITENER. Thank you very much, Mr. Long.

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITENER. We are delighted to have a statement from the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico, E. S. Johnny Walker, in support of the bill which he has introduced.

STATEMENT OF HON. E. S. JOHNNY WALKER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this committee, I appreciate this opportunity to express my views on the proposed legislation which makes it a criminal offense to abuse our national symbol.

Our flag is no more than a symbol, but it is a symbol of almost two centruries of the world's greatest experiment.

We fully expect that symbol to arouse feelings of awe and fear among our enemies. We hope it arouses feelings of respect among our friends. We also hope it is loved and respected by our own citizens.

I agree that we cannot legislate love, but we can, in my opinion, prevent that which most of our citizens love from being the object of sickening displays such as we witnessed recently in two of our largest cities.

I am sure there are arguments against this bill, but I do not consider those arguments I have heard thus far as being of merit.

I know this is an extremely emotional subject, and I know the state. of my own emotions when I saw pictures of our flag being burned and otherwise ill treated.

I am sure that those who served their country in war, and relatives of those who served and died, and even some of those who do not fully agree with our national policies at this time were shocked and saddened, if not angry and amazed, that Americans would use our national sybmol to call attention to their protest.

The argument that this legislation will interfere with freedom of expression is totally without foundation. If people wish to criticize the U.S. Government, they are free to do so.

The protesters can still make untrue and unfair statements in public, they can still encourage our enemies and discourage our friends, they still have open to them the normal avenues of dissent, they are

still free to engage in any reasonable activity to bring attention to their cause. But I cannot agree that they should have the right to burn our flag.

One of the Washington newspapers recently carried an editorial calling this legislation unnecessary. I can only say that no legislation is ever necessary, unless it solves a problem. I think a problem exists. And this proposal offers a solution.

Flag burning could be the final straw for many patriotic Americans who would be prone to take into their own hands the matter of punishment of those who would engage in such shocking behavior.

And about all that such activity can do is shock. No lesson is taught. unless it be that those who would go so far as to burn our flag are totally devoid of national pride or feeling.

No law says they must have such pride, and this bill does not take away anyone's right to speak out or think ill of this Nation or its policies.

For those who say, "Let the punishment fit the crime," I can only say it is my belief that a 5-year prison term and a $10,000 fine is, in my opinion, a very light chastisement when the gravity of the activity is considered.

Thank you for letting me voice my views on this matter, and I urge you to consider this proposal favorably.

Mr. WHITENER. We are now delighted to have the statement of the Honorable Leonard Farbstein of New York.

STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD FARBSTEIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. FARBSTEIN. I wish to thank the distinguished chairman and members of the committee for this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of my bill, H.R. 7833, making it a Federal offense to desecrate the American flag.

Since the time of our Founding Fathers the flag has occupied a special place in the hearts of most American citizens. It is a symbol woven deep into the historic fiber of our society.

To conclude that the flag is just a piece of cloth is to miss completely the meaning of this national symbol, for the flag represents a common bond, a common sharing, a common belief among all citizens in the principle of individual freedom and liberty, conducted within the framework of social responsibility.

This responsibility allows men of all shades of political belief and heritage to work and live together free of basic political restrictions. During the past year I have become increasingly troubled over irresponsible destruction of this very symbol of American life by various protesting elements.

My own district has had its share of such incidents, from an offbeat off-Broadway production where a flag was burned onstage to a recent flag mutilation incident which occurred as part of a protest rally on the Vietnam war.

The United States is a big country, made up of an immigrant population who came here from just about every nation of the world. To allow these people to enjoy the freedom and liberty of a democratic society requires that certain national institutions be held in common

reverence, that they form a social umbrella committing each citizen, regardless of race, color, or creed to a common way of life.

The burning or wanton destruction of the American flag cuts at the very heart of this reverence. By destroying a flag to show opposition to a Government policy, one is undermining the very foundation on which the right to dissent rests.

While I support the basic right of assembly for all people, and while I strongly support the right of every citizen or group of citizens to express their view, I cannot support actions which are carried out in an irresponsible manner, which tears at the very fiber of our allegiance.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I have introduced H.R. 7833 to make it a Federal offense to publicly mutilate or use for advertising purposes the flag of the United States. The penalty for such an act would be a $100 fine or 30 days in jail, or both.

The precedent for such legislation is found within the very measure I wish to amend. Section 3 of title 4, United States Code, presently prohibits such violation of the flag within the District of Columbia. My amendment then would simply make this provision applicable within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

I have said nothing so far on the subject of using the flag for advertising purposes. This is partly due to my great concern over public mutilation of the flag, and partly due to what I feel is the obvious

nature of this revision.

The American flag was not created to be used as a vehicle for profit. It was meant, instead, as a public symbol for the common sharing of all men, and not for the financial benefit of a few. This logic, to me, is clear and irrefutable.

Allow me to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by simply saying that now is a time of great unrest and soul searching among the citizens of this Nation. We are involved in a foreign war which places both a heavy psychological and financial burden on American citizens at the same time that we are committed to achieving a more equitable life for the poor, underprivileged, and deprived citizens of our Nation.

It is a critical period for the United States, but one out of which can come a more vigorous nation founded upon the inalienable right to dissent, within a framework of responsible action toward political institutions held in common reverence by all citizens.

Mr. WHITENER. We are now delighted to have the distinguished Mr. Stanton, Member of Congress from the State of Ohio, supply his statement with reference to the pending legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM STANTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I welcome the opportunity to express myself on legislation which is vitally important to the American people-legislation to prohibit desecration of our American flag.

Our flag, the symbol of our national heritage, represents our Gov

ernment.

The brilliant Henry Ward Beecher said:

A thoughtful mind when it sees a nation's flag, sees not the flag, but the nation itself. And whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag, the government, the principles, the truths, the history that belong to the nation that sets it forth. The American flag has been a symbol of Liberty, and men rejoiced in it.

When I see our flag waving proudly, I see our Nation. When I see photographs of individuals spitting upon, burning, and trampling our flag, I see them spitting upon, burning, and trampling our Government. Opponents to this legislation say that Congress, by passage of such a law, would be in violation of the first amendment to the Constitution-the right to free expression of speech.

I say to them that freedom of speech does not include freedom to show disrespect to our national symbol-itself a symbol of freedom. The right to dissent is one of our most cherished American heritages, but that dissent does not include the right to disrespect.

Passage of such legislation would not hamper the freedom of any minority group to demonstrate in any way. It would only insure that those demonstrators do not desecrate our American flag.

Congress cannot legislate respect, but it can, and must, legislate the forms that disrespect may not take.

It has been argued that all 50 States already have their own statutes prohibiting desecration, and that this proposal is therefore unnecessary.

I would point out that the Congress established the original design, rules for display, and the proper form of respect for our flag. In the face of the current wave of flag desecration, it has become necessary for our national lawmaking body to further define the proper form of respect to be shown to our national symbol.

The flag under which we live is representative of our countless freedoms-thousands of brave men have died to protect those freedoms. The men who made the supreme sacrifice would doubtless feel that all had been in vain, had they been witness to the numerous demonstrations of burning, trampling, and disrespect shown their flag which preceded them into battle.

In this 190th anniversary year of the recognition of the Stars and Stripes as our Nation's flag, when young men are once again giving their lives for the cause for which it stands, Congress must act to curtail this desecration.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I respect fully urge you to report meaningful legislation to the full House of Representatives with a recommendation for early passage.

I sincerely hope that the Senate will also enact such legislation, and that the bill can be presented to the President to be signed into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1967.

Mr. WHITENER. We are now delighted to have the statement of the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, Hon. William J. Randall, for the record.

Mr. Randall.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. RANDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, our bill, which is H.R. 9685, is, so far as I know, a departure from some of the others, in that it amends the District of Columbia bill.

I understand that in the 89th Congress the measure of Mr. Roudebush did substantially the same thing. Now, in the 90th Congress our bill strikes out the words "District of Columbia," in title 4, section 3,

and also strikes out the penalties that were provided by that District of Columbia Act, and then proceeds to negate what might be described as a preemption provision.

To be more specific, the intent of our bill would not prevent any State, or the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin Islands from exercising their jurisdiction in the field of flag dese

cration.

Before proceeding, I want to say I am glad to have this opportunity to appear. I think it is a very fine thing that these hearings are being held.

I wish to state for the record that I was either the third or fourth to sign the discharge petition for the Roudebush bill in the 89th Congress. It is good to note that the chairman of this full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, Judge Rogers, and also the gentleman from North Carolina, are in accord on holding these hearings.

Perhaps some things have happened in the meantime which have contributed to these hearings. You know all about the first incident, that happened during the so-called peace demonstrations in New York, in Central Park, and since have been repeated elsewhere.

It is my hope the hearings of this committee will lead to legislation that will come to grips with this problem.

It seems to me some of the bills-and it is not, certainly, my intention to criticize any colleague's bill-exaggerate the punishment, when they suggest 5 years imprisonment and $5,000 fine.

It seems to me we need a bill, here, which will be both practical and operative. That is why we took the course, or the route, here, of amending the District of Columbia bill, and then suggesting the penalties which are very much the same in the majority of the bills introduced; that is, 1 year punishment and $1,000, which leaves the matter in the category of a misdemeanor.

I know you have all heard from many witnesses who introduced bills. I will not trespass on your time to repeat again the reasons for this measure.

I overheard, before we left the room a moment ago, some reference to dissent, and some reference to the right of dissent, from one of the witnesses this morning.

It seems to me that this desecration of the flag, or defacement, as a synonym word used in the act we seek to amend-is not a matter or question of the right to dissent, because here we are confronted with something, Mr. Chairman, that is beyond ordinary dissent.

Our flag is the symbol of the entire Nation, all the people, everyone, and it has been since the founding of our Nation. Those who desecrate the flag are in effect not dissenting, but insulting the entire Nation, including themselves. Such is the distinction from ordinary dissent that I want to try to emphasize.

Another point is that this trend seems to be a popular trend, Mr. Chairman. I hope this measure of ours, H.R. 9685, may reach and, hopefully, arrest that trend.

You have read about it. I know you have, in the popular and home magazines, this business of the flag being used as draperies and bedspreads and cushions and table cloths, and so forth. This is a form of desecration as it is close to trampling upon the flag when they use a flag design in a rug or floor covering. And without being facetious,