We dare not ignore our past history nor the contributions to freedom made by those who created this Nation and designed the flag which represents it.

We must agree with Henry Ward Beecher

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 belongs to the nation that sets it forth. The American Flag has been a symbol of Liberty and men rejoiced in it.

Can we now allow the symbol of liberty to be destroyed without destroying liberty itself? I think not. Desecration of the flag in time of war cannot help but give comfort to the enemy. When pictures are flashed around the world of Americans burning and desecrating the flag of their country, the hand of those who would destroy America and the American way of life, is most certainly strengthened.

I firmly believe that desecration of the flag comes very close to treason and I'm equally convinced that America, strong as we are, cannot withstand the onslaught of treason at a time when one-third of the world is controlled by a conspiracy which has as its stated purpose the defeat of the United States, and the destruction of free governments everywhere.

As a part of this statement I would like to include a column, "Main Street, U.S.A.," distributed by the National Newspaper Association, which calls for enactment of legislation to prevent the desecration of the flag.

I would also like to include the statement of the Republican policy committee of the House of Representatives which supports the enactment of this legislation.

In introducing my bill, I am concerned with those who deliberately, and with malice, desecrate the flag. Because of the laxity we have shown toward respect for the flag, there have been growing abuses by persons who are committing desecration but unknowingly and in ignorance of the effect of their actions.

I am hopeful that once this legislation is passed by Congress, there will be a rebirth of respect for the flag which will make unnecessary legislation to prevent some of these unintentional abuses.

A number of the States already have legislation to punish those who desecrate the flag, and I would like to commend them for meeting this problem. However, Federal legislation is necessary because the flag is the national emblem and should be protected by national legislation just as our money is protected. State laws against counterfeiting would not solve the problem of convicting those who process or pass bogus money. This must be done by Federal law.

The same reasoning is behind the introduction of legislation to punish desecration of the flag. This bill will in no way interfere with any State laws now on the books, but will indeed strengthen them and make it possible to punish those who desecrate the flag anywhere in the Nation.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I hope that you will act favorably upon this legislation and will send a bill to the floor of the House without delay, that will protect our flag, the symbol of all the greatness thatis ours as a nation of free men.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Kuykendall, you made reference to an article or editorial that you wanted to leave with us together with the statement of the Republican Policy Committee?

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. We will receive those for the record.

(The documents referred to follow :)

HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE URGES LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT THE DESECRATION OF THE FLAG

The House Republican Policy Committee urges the prompt enactment of legislation that would prohibit the deliberate and defiant desecration of the American Flag.

It is strange indeed to see on the same day in the same newspapers, pictures of American young men facing danger and death in Vietnam and pictures of other American young men burning their nation's flag in the safety of an American park. Certainly, the Bill of Rights never was intended to protect those who would contemptuously set fire to the American Flag.

One of the greatest strengths of this nation is the right of dissent. This right was established by our Founding Fathers and must remain inviolate. However, the right of dissent from particular policies or with particular individuals never was intended to sanction the desecration of the American Flag which is the symbol of our national heritage and unites all Americans in their allegiance "to the Republic for which it stands."

[Our Washington Column (Distributed by National Newspaper Association)]

MAIN STREET, U.S.A.

(By Bert Mills)

WASHINGTON, May 1.-Patriotic Americans have endured much in recent years from youthful crackpots protesting one thing or another but surely outrage is the only word to describe the feelings of most people who saw the picture or read about the recent flag burning in a New York park.

Americans today hold few things sacred but if the flag is not on everybody's list there is no list at all. Patriotism may be old fashioned but respect for the flag ought to be mandatory for everybody claiming the protection that the flag symbolizes.

New York City policemen witnessed the Central Park flag burning but did nothing to prevent the misguided peace demonstrators from carrying out their traitorous act. Doubtless New York's finest were under strict orders to do nothing that would provoke a riot. Just possibly most Americans would have preferred police action to prevent the flag being burned, even at the risk of a riot.

Suppose a New York policeman, perhaps one with a son in the front lines in Vietnam, had been unable to stomach the flag burning. Suppose this patriot had disregarded orders, pulled his pistol and threatened to shoot anybody who desecrated the flag. Suppose the demonstrators had persisted and the policeman had shot and killed the first youth to touch a match to the flag.

Would that patriotic policeman have been adjudged a trigger happy cop guilty of murder? Or would the American public have backed up his defense of the flag? It is interesting to speculate on what verdict public opinion would have rendered. Most people will be surprised to know that it is not a Federal offense to burn the American flag. There is a New York state law that apparently can be invoked to impose a $50 fine on the New York flag burners. No doubt the Communist Party would be delighted to pay that fine. If not, Hanoi would surely forward a check upon request.

Long before the New York flag burning, a bill was pending in Congress to make it a Federal crime to deface, mutilate, or desecrate the American flag in public. More than 150 House members supported the bill back in 1966 but it never received a hearing. Possibly politics doomed the bill because it was introduced by a Republican, Rep. Richard L. Rondebush of Indiana.

The Roudebush bill was re-introduced on the first day of the 90th Congress last January. It is H.R. 1207. It has rested in a pigeonhole of the House Judiciary Committee ever since. Possibly a few patriots are still outraged enough by the New York incident to insist that their Representatives get behind this bill and make it law.

H.R. 1207 would impose a fine of not more than $1,000 and a prison sentence of not more than one year on "whoever publicly mutilates, defaces, defiles, defies, tramples upon or casts contempt, either by word or act, upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States."

Surely that is not drastic legislation. Surely it will not vitiate the right of protest. Surely it will not violate the Constitutional liberties of any American. Surely it is a law that should have been added to the statute books years ago. What are you waiting for Congress?

Flag waving has been out of style for years but flag burning by Americans is an act of treason few thinking citizens can pass off as mere mischief by misguided youths. Congress recently passed a law to make it a crime to burn a draft card. Enforcement has been slow at best.

And maybe that slow enforcement explains why the lunatic fringe is now applying the match to the flag. Maybe officials have been leaning over backwards too long. Maybe it is time to crack down. Coddling of unruly demonstrators has not worked, the record shows.

Patriotism can't be legislated but it is time the American public drew a line between legitimate dissent over national policies and treasonous acts by a tiny minority. If the voice of the people is heard in Washington, it will not take long for Congress to act.

Why not invest a couple of minutes and fifteen cents to tell your Senators and Representatives to stop coddling those who abuse their freedoms as Americans? All it would take would be to clip this column, write "I agree” in the margin, and send it winging to Washington.

Mr. ROGERS. Your colleague, Mr. Quillen, testified about the law in the State of Tennessee.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. Do you know of any prosecution for flag desecration that has been brought in your State under that State law?

Mr. KUYKENDALL. No, I do not know of any.

I am proud to say that in my State I know of no necessity for prosecution.

Mr. ROGERS. You know of no incident in the last 5 years in your State?

Mr. KUYKENDALL. That is right.

Mr. ROGERS. What is your thought as to whether or not we should have a Federal law which would preempt the field and strike down State laws?

Do you think we should preempt the field by a uniform Federal law and do away with the State laws?

Mr. KUYKENDALL. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not feel we should preempt. I think we should complement, and in this case the Federal law would be a minimum, for instance, because in the case where the State law's penalties were higher and more severe than the proposed Federal law, then the State law could possibly prevail. I think this is a complement, this bill, not a preemption. There are many other cases where there are State laws on the books that are in conjunction with Federal laws, as the learned chairman, I believe former attorney general of the State of Colorado knows, that there are many cases where there are complementary laws on the books. This would be intended to be so. Mr. ROGERS. You are suggesting that when we report a bill we preserve the States right to go ahead with their own laws in this field. Mr. KUYKENDALL. Oh, absolutely.

Mr. ROGERS. In your bill, H.R. 8536, on line 7, you state:

Whoever publicly mutilates, defaces, defiles, defies, and tramples upon, or casts contempt either by word or act upon any flag, standard, color or ensign of the United States shall be punished by imprisonment—

and so on. Have you any objection to the elimination of the term "either by word" and confine it strictly to an “act”?

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, not only do I not object; I have a couple of changes I would like to recommend here.

On line 7, immediately after the word "whoever," I would like to put there, "willfully and with malice publicly mutilates," and then to cast out the words on line 8, "either by" and put in the words "by overt act". You notice in my statement, Mr. Chairman, that I clearly state that the people who either ignorantly or innocently somehow desecrate the flag-these people are not the target of this legislation.

The people who with malice aforethought, with intent-this is the intent of my legislation.

Mr. ROGERS. You would be willing that your bill be so amended? Mr. KUYKENDALL. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Whitener.

Mr. WHITENER. I have no questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kuykendall.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Jacobs.

Mr. JACOBS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. McClory?

Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment the gentlemen on his very forthright and very important statement to the committee here this morning.

I would like to ask a few questions which are suggested by an editorial which appears in this morning's Washington Post, an editorial expressing opposition to the gentleman's legislation.

The editorial reads, in part:

There is not the slightest need for Federal legislation invading the jurisdiction of the states in this connection. And in point of fact the Federal Government has no facilities for enforcing such legislation. Let's not inflate a nuisance into a

menace.

Flag burning is a silly and ineffectual gesture on the level of hanging someone in effigy. The person hung in effigy may be annoyed but is unlikely to be injured. But the United States can be gravely endangered by official outbursts of hysterical "patriotism" aimed at odious opinions-or at odious expressions of opinions. The country's temperature is already feverish. Genuine patriotism will aim at cooling it down, not at heating it up.

How do you feel about that? Do you feel it satisfies the purpose of Congress in this field that the various 50 States have legislation but that there is no Federal legislation except that applicable within the District of Columbia?

Mr. KUYKENDALL. I can't help but view any States rights proclamation by this particular newspaper with a little suspicion.

I haven't noticed their being a champion of States rights over the last 20 years.

Mr. McCLORY. The editorial also says:

And in point of the fact the Federal Government has no facilities for enforcing such legislation.

Do you feel that the Federal Government would be without authority to apprehend offenders or to enforce this law in case it should

Mr. KUYKENDALL. In the first place, I do not agree that they have no facilities. Certainly we have facilities. I believe there is an organization known as the FBI. I don't think the Washington Post thinks

much of the FBI, but we do have one, and, secondly, if we did not have one, that would still be no excuse for not allowing a necessary law to be put on the books. Just because we do not now have the facilities to enforce a law doesn't mean it shouldn't be enforced.

Mr. McCLORY. I have gathered from the testimony that has been presented heretofore to the committee, as well as your own testimony, that really one of the needs for a Federal law is that notwithstanding the existence of State statutes on the subject, there has been no enforcement or, in several instances at least, there has been no enforcement with regard to these offensive acts of publicly and maliciously, or at least willfully, burning the American flag. When this sort of conduct is reproduced on television for the benefit of all of the television viewers, the 10 or 20 or 50 million viewers of television in the Nation, what effect does this have on the morale and on the sense of loyalty to our Nation if such conduct goes unpunished?

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. McClory, I agree with your statement entirely. It is my considered judgment that, in some cases, of course, the State laws are very minimum misdemeanors. I think there is one law that has as small as $10 fine on it. Extradition under these laws is very difficult, if not impossible, but in this case of the recent outbreaks of anti-Americanism, if you will, I think the American people are telling us as the members of this body, "All right, what are you going to do about it? Do you care?"

And I think this is not only what many State governments are telling us, but what the people are telling us today, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, "Do you care about this and are you going to do anything about it?"

Mr. McCLORY. It is your intention that we should not invade any constitutional rights of free speech, but within the authority granted to us by the Constitution to delineate this and describe this offensive conduct, which is conduct of disloyalty, which is conduct designed to break down the respect for law and order, or to promote disorder in the Nation, that within the constitutional limits we should act favorably on such legislation?

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Yes. My bill is intended for punishment of people who, by physical act, defile the physical symbol which is the symbol of the United States.

Mr. McCLORY. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Wiggins?

Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to know from the gentleman what conduct other than oral words, in your judgment, sir, would constitute "defies" against the flag, as used in your bill?

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Just this morning, Mr. Wiggins, I looked up the definition of the word "defies," and Mr. Webster says "defies" means to "challenge, to combat, to goad into trying to perform something proposed as impossible; contempt of opposition.'

I do not feel that removal of the word "defies" would harm the bill. In fact, I would not oppose that at all.

Mr. WIGGINS. And the language, "or cast contempt," assuming we accept your modification by removing "either by word" and limit this bill to physical acts