Mr. WIGGINS. Would you think there should be a fine for a college professor to perform the physical act of burning the flag if his intent in doing so was not to cast contempt upon the flag, but merely to conduct a laboratory experiment?

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Wiggins, I don't think the intent has anything to do with it. If he burns the symbol of our country, the American flag, I think it is an act that we should very definitely make a crime.

Mr. WIGGINS. Do I understand, then, that it is the thrust of your bill to punish the simple act of desecration, without reference to the state of mind of the actor?

Mr. MYERS. I don't have a bill, but that is my feeling, yes.

Mr. WIGGINS. That is your recommendation. OK.

Thank you very much.

Mr. CONYERS. Could I inquire: Does that include accidental burnings, as well? Anybody that burns the flag, without regard to whether their intent would be subject to the provisions of your bill?

Mr. MYERS. I don't know how you would have an accidental burning, except in the case of a house fire, or something like that, Mr. Conyers.

Would you be a little more precise?

Mr. CONYERS. Sure.

I can suggest innumerable examples of how someone, for example, burning rubbish in their home would have a flag that would be wrapped up in it, and it would be burned, and it would be subsequently discovered.

Mr. MYERS. This is the way we dispose of our flags, but not ceremoniously. We don't dispose of our flags by getting in front of a class and applying a match to it.

Of course this is the way we do dispose of our flags, by burning, but it is privately.

Mr. CONYERS. I was not referring by example to the case that you brought to our attention. I was referring to the question of the intent of the actor, whether or not this should be a factor. I think that you would agree with me that there could be circumstances in which perhaps a burning would take place which was not intended to either dispose of the flag in the prescribed manner, or to be an act of defiance or contempt upon the flag of the country. There may be some cases in between these two positions.

us.

Mr. MYERS. Yes. This is true. I can see your point on this, yes.
Mr. CONYERS. Thank you.

Mr. WHITENER. Thank you very much, Mr. Myers, for being with

Mr. WHITENER. Now we are delighted to have a former member of the Judiciary Committee, the Honorable William C. Cramer of Florida.

Mr. Cramer, we are delighted to have you with us today and look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. CRAMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that my statement appear in the record as if read?

Mr. WHITENER. We will do that at this point.

(Statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. CRAMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have this opportunity to testify in support of my bill, H.R. 9227, which would make it a Federal offense, punishable by a fine of not more than $2000 or by imprisonment of not more than two years, or both, to mutilate, deface, defile, or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt either by word or act upon any flag, standard, color, or ensign of the United States.

Because I do not wish to repeat all of the meritorious reasons for enactment of such a bill which I know have been presented to this Committee during the course of its hearings, I will limit my testimony to possibly warning the Committee of a technical error in many of the bills which have been introduced. As the records of this Committee will show, the first bill of this nature I introduced was H.R. 8925. This bill, as does my present bill, amended Section 3 of Title 4 of the United States Code and provided a penalty of $2000 or two years or both. Section 3 of Title 4 of the U.S. Code sets a penalty for mutilation of the flag within the District of Columbia and establishes punishment of a fine not exceeding $100 or imprisonment for not more than thirty days or both. As a result of the way my first bill and others identical to it are drafted, should they be enacted into law, Congress would in my judgment be creating the anomalous situation of making it a far lesser offense to mutilate the flag in the District of Columbia than in any of the states.

Upon examination of this bill, I introduced H.R. 9227 which also amends Section 3 of Title 4 of the United States Code but which strikes out that part of Section 3 referring to the District of Columbia. The result of this is to make the penalties provided in the bill uniformly applicable to all of the states and to the District of Columbia.

I might add that it is a sad day in America when actions taken by some people who call themselves Americans make legislation such as this necessary. It is true that Old Glory is just a symbol. But it is the symbol for which thousands of Americans have given their lives in wars past and present. It is the symbol which has served as a beacon of hope to the oppressed. It is the symbol of our great country and it's time we put into jail those who would desecrate it. For, I submit that, when our flag is attacked, it is in reality our Country that is being attacked. The two are inseparable.

I therefore importune this Committee to enact strong legislation to deal with those who are attacking our country through the symbol of all she stands for our flag. If our flag and what it stands for is worth dying for, it is worth protecting.

Mr. CRAMER. And very briefly: Obviously, I am in support of the legislation and have introduced a bill to accomplish the objective of it. There are a couple of things that have come up in discussion that I would like to mention.

There was the question asked by the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Conyers, with regard to "intent", and it seems to me that the bill itself is pretty clear in that you can do away with a flag in the recognized manner of disposing of it, because it is old or what-have-you. This is because the legislation is limited to "publicly" mutilating or defacing; at least in my bill.

And, of course, the jury weighs the question when the facts are presented as to whether the person intended to violate the purpose of the act, the purpose of the act being to reach those who intend to defile or show contempt for the U.S. flag.

Second, I think the committee does have a problem with regard to the penalty.

I think obviously the committee will weigh the necessity of providing an adequate penalty to be a deterrent, but not such a great penalty that it results in juries not convicting, feeling that the penalty is too

severe for the act that might have occurred, and of course that is a matter of judgment which this committee always must weigh.

In addition, it was suggested by one witness that they could burn a dollar as an alternative, and I understand that that is against the law, too, defacing U.S. currency, but it is true there are other ways of indicating that there is distaste for what is being done in this country. Also, I would hope that the passage of this as a Federal law would result in the States bringing up to a similar penalty their State statutes. I think that would be the effect in many instances.

The principal thrust of my testimony, which I understand has already been discussed, is to make certain that the bill enacted is similar to H.R. 9227, rather than the initial bill, which many introduced, including myself, which would have the effect of having a different penalty in the District of Columbia rather than within the States.

Therefore I redrafted and introduced 9227 for the express purpose of making certain that you did not have one penalty in the District of Columbia and another penalty in the States, which I think has already been discussed.

I would be glad to answer any questions.

Mr. JACOBS. I thank my colleague for his appearance before the committee.

Mr. WIGGINS. I know of your valuable experience on the Judiciary Committee, and because of that I would like your observations about the problem that we have discussed very generally, and that is the first amendment problem inherent in this legislation.

Do you have any contribution to make in that connection?

It may be in your prepared statement, but I would like to hear it.
Mr. CRAMER. No. It is not.

I do think you have a problem in regard to the terminology "by word" in addition to an "act". I think the committee should consider whether or not that would be in violation of the first amendment to the Constitution.

I think there is a pretty serious question about it.

Mr. WIGGINS. Does the word "defile" appear in your bill?

Mr. CRAMER. It does, yes.

Mr. WIGGINS. Do you have any comment or observation about the possible conflict with the first amendment in the use of that word? Mr. CRAMER. I don't believe so, because I think it is implicit that it takes some act of defiance in the other descriptive terms used. That would be my interpretation.

Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you very much.

Mr. WHITENER. Thank you, Mr. Cramer. We appreciate your

presence.

At this time we are delighted to have the statement of Hon. William C. Wampler, Member of Congress, State of Virginia.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. WAMPLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I join with many of my colleagues in expressing support for those bills which have been offered to protect the American flag against desecration.

I am shocked over many of the acts which are reported daily in the newspapers and on radio and television, and I am joined in this concern by thousands of people in my home area of southwest Virginia.

I do not believe it is necessary to review the glorious history and tradition of the American flag for the benefit of this committee. We are all aware of the role the Star-Spangled Banner has played in the development of our Nation, and of the fact that many brave men have fought and died to protect the flag and things it represents.

Instead, I would like to address myself today to some of the more contemporary aspects of this proposed legislation, and to the need for this action in light of recent events and developments.

I would be among the first to agree that action should not be necessary in this field. I am shamed by the realization that certain individuals no longer possess the respect for the flag that became a hallmark of the American Nation during the days of our forebears.

Men of good will should not have to be burdened by unnecessary laws and regulations, and few laws would be necessary if all men were governed by a universal sense of responsibility and dedication to those principles which have led mankind down the paths of true progress. But such is not the case. We have a need for law, and we have a need for this particular law which would prohibit irresponsible individuals from desecrating the flag and trampling upon those principles which have made this country the greatest in the history of the world. In the final analysis, all laws are written for the thoughtless and irresponsible. So it is with this proposed legislation.

To assert that this legislation is unnecessary because the States are already in the field is to beg the question.

I commend the various State legislatures for having the foresight to protect this symbol of our democracy.

But I am equally convinced that a national flag should be protected by a national law, if for no other reason than to remind these irresponsible individuals that our symbol of freedom is protected not only by the State and local governments of the land, but by the Federal Government as well.

It is well known that the term "Federal offenses" carries a connotation which tends to dissuade the thoughtless and irresponsible from lawless acts.

It seems strange to me that a nation which would take the time and trouble to specify in great detail the correct procedure for honoring and displaying its national banner has not yet set penalities for flagrant disrespect of this great symbol.

Twenty-five years have passed since the laws governing display of the flag were codified, and still there are no laws to punish those who would make a fetish of dishonoring the American flag.

This situation ought to be corrected without undue delay.

Mr. Chairman, I urge that this committee and the full committee approve and send to the floor H.R. 9554 or a similar bill as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Mr. WHITENER. Now we have statements from the Honorable John M. Ashbrook of Ohio and the Honorable Robert Dole of Kansas.

We will make the statements of these gentlemen a part of the record at this point.

(The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB DOLE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS, MAY 17, 1967

LEGISLATION NEEDED TO PROHIBIT DESECRATION OF THE FLAG

Mr. Chairman, my purpose in introducing H.R. 9111 is to prevent further incidents involving desecration of the United States flag. An increasing number of such incidents have occurred recently where a small but vocal number of citizens, who enjoy the freedoms and privileges this nation offers, have shown utter disrespect and disregard for our flag.

Our flag is more than just an emblem. It is the symbol of the sovereignty of the United States and serves as a reminder to the entire world of the ideals for which our nation stands. The United States flag has long been the symbol of liberty, not only for our own citizens but also for many people in captive nations throughout the world.

Our national heritage recognizes the right of our citizens to hold whatever political views they choose and to expound these views by speaking, organizing, or writing whatever they wish. This right is one of the strengths of our nation, and it must be guarded. However, the Bill of Rights was never intended to provide a license for those who deliberately desecrate the American flag and thus show contempt for our national ideals. The right to disagree with governmental and individual policies and programs must be presumed, but to allow acts which desecrate the symbol of our nation is unthinkable.

Those who insist upon protesting our nation's policies in such a flagrant manner must realize they are damaging not only our national image but also undermining the very basis of our system of government which gives them the right to openly disagree and protest.

Since the early days of our nation, the flag has stood as a symbol worth fighting and dying for. Many brave Americans have given their lives in order to secure the continuance of the ideals and rights our flag represents. The flag, as our national emblem, belongs to all Americans. A small group of misguided malcontents should not be allowed to go unpunished for publicly disgracing our flag, while hiding under the right of dissent and while abusing and defiling the Constitutional rights of all Americans.

Today when brave young Americans risk their lives in the battlefields of Southeast Asia, it is urgent that national unity and determination be stronger than ever.

In introducing this legislation, it was not my intent to curtail the right of our citizens to protest. It was, and is, my intent, however, to punish those who would desecrate a sacred symbol belonging to the nation as a whole. While every state in the nation has some type of law prohibiting desecration of the flag, the flag deserves uniform, national protection.

The House Republican Policy Committee has endorsed legislative action to prevent continuation of acts of disloyalty to our flag. I introduced a similar bill last year and feel it is even more important now that your Committee formally report my bill or a similar one. It will then be up to the entire Congress to decide what is the dividing line between lawful and unlawful expressions of dissent. My mail indicates widespread public opinion that something should be done immediately. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Committee to act favorably on my bill, H.R. 9111, or a similar measure to insure the flag to which we pledge our allegiance will continue to enjoy the reverence and respect it so fully deserves.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. ASHBROOK, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF OHIO, MAY 17, 1967

Mr. Chairman, The Chicago Tribune of May 7 of this year ran an article concerning five young American soldiers wounded in Vietnam and their reactions to draft-card and flag burning. Stated one Marine, age 20 "You know, we would have movies in Viet Nam. Before the show began there would be a strip of film showing the flag waving to the Star Spangled Banner. I would well up with such a pride to see Old Glory waving back and forth. Who would want to burn something that meant so much to so many."

79-543-67—18