Mr. ROGERS. It passed with a few dissenting votes in both the House and the Senate.

Now, you felt a need for that piece of legislation, and helped to bring its enactment about.

May I inquire if the passage of this legislation has tended to lessen or increase the number of draft card burning incidents-do you have any information in that regard?

Mr. RIVERS. I don't know. I have asked the Department of Justice to keep us advised on this, and they say they are following it vigorously. I don't know whether they agree with the policy or not. They conjecture what will happen in some cases. They forget we write the policy and they are supposed to enforce the law.

That is inconsequential, but positive and swift legal action should follow each instance of this.

Mr. ROGERS. We had a witness here the other day who said the antidesecration law should be so positive and swift that the minute a violation was committed the perpetrator should be indicted and almost sentenced the same day. He suggested that any indictment take first place on the court calendar.

Would you want to go that far?

Mr. RIVERS. I happen to have been in the Department of Justice. When I was down there, they had a different policy than what they have now.

In answer to your question, I believe in due process.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Rivers. We appreciate your coming and giving us the benefit of your thinking.

Mr. RIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much you letting me come.

Mr. ROGERS. Our next witness is the Honorable Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, author of H.R. 8649.

STATEMENT OF HON. DURWARD G. HALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. HALL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and colleagues and members of the committee.

I presume to trespass on your time, Mr. Chairman, as a nonlegally trained mind. I hope to convey a different point of view from a different section of the country than the other witnesses you have heard and will hear. The point of view that we are dealing with is the protection of principles that remain eternal.

For in truth, it is indeed a sorry state of affairs and a black day in the history of our Republic when a Member of Congress must appear before this committee or that this distinguished committee must sit for the purpose of considering a law that would make it a criminal offense to desecrate the U.S. colors.

I am sure that the Founding Fathers and past Congresses never in their wildest dreams conceived that such a law would be required. As you well know, our Republic has existed almost 180 years without such a law. Now the time and events have caught up with us so that such a law in my opinion must be enacted.

We are all aware of the bordering-on-treasonous activities that occurred in Central Park in New York City last month.

Here, the first amendment, the right of free expression was perverted into irresponsible unlimited license.

This activity as manifested by burning the U.S. flag shocked the conscience of all America and gave birth to a hue and cry from the public for criminal sanctions.

I am sure you will hear those much better qualified and those who were in attendance speak about this, so I will presume to discuss this problem from another tack.

Mr. Chairman, these so-called proponents of free dissent say they have committed no transgression by destroying a piece of cloth. They first say that the flag is nothing but a mere symbol.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a flag, and I ask you and the committee, is this a mere piece of cloth? Is this a mere symbol?

No, Old Glory, behind you and to your right, is not a mere symbol. But for the purpose of discussion, let us assume it is a symbol, but never a mere symbol.

At this point, I would say that the Stars and Stripes should not take precedence over that which it symbolizes. Let's take the question of whether a soldier on the battlefield should save the American ensign or save a fallen comrade in arms.

I, too, serve on the Committee on Armed Services. I, too, know the esprit de corps, and high spirit of our men serving in Vietnam in order that we not reward aggression from the north.

I believe that there would be no argument that under such a hypothetical situation that the soldier should save his buddy and forget the colors, because here the flag represents the American people and the Nation, while the fallen soldier is actually of the American people.

But from this point, the rational recognition of men over symbols, from that to burning the flag, is a far distant cry in my opinion.

Symbols, whether some academicians like it or not, have great importance to the people, and have had a profound effect upon the march of civilization, and nations.

Take the crucifix. We all know that it is not Christ on the Cross, but the representation of him and his sacrifice. One might say that it is a symbol, and you should have the right to burn it during a St. Patrick's Day parade. This would very likely lead to the breaking up of your teeth by a powerful Irish fist.

Take the other symbol, the swastika, originally a harmless symbol of the early American Indian, but after nazification, it became the most dreaded symbol of brutality that mankind has ever known.

Let someone of the elite new left stroll through the Jewish section of New York City wrapped in a Nazi flag.

Again, I certainly would not recommend such a course of action.

Now, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, what these socalled new leftists must finally face if they are to have an understanding of people at all is that humans have emotions and traditions, as well as intellect.

There is a difference. Men have feelings as well as thoughts. Men have hearts as well as brains. Love, kindness, loyalty, charity, bravery, and a host of other fine qualities emerge from emotions, not from intellect.

Mr. Chairman, I would make a final analogy in closing.

Those who committed this flag atrocity in Central Park might well

ponder what penalties would be imposed upon anyone who, opposing North Vietnam's involvement in the war, chose to burn the colors of North Vietnam in the public square in Hanoi.

I am sure you would agree that the smoke would still be hanging in the air when the firing squad's bullets would put the dissenter to his final rest.

I am not for this summary punishment. I think it is not for man, in the meaning of the line out of context from "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" to exact vengeance "with a terrible swift sword," for the penalties that would be imposed here for the desecration of our flag are very modest indeed.

I recommend its passage or similar legislation in the wisdom of this committee.

I thank you for this opportunity and for holding these hearings. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. McClory.

Mr. McCLORY. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for the very powerful and impressive statement he has given the committee this morning.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Wiggins?

Mr. WIGGINS. I thank you, Mr. Hall, and I am grateful for your testimony this morning.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman. I have no questions. I think we want to accommodate all of our members, and time is of the essence, and I join in the expression of appreciation for the testimony.

Mr. ZELENKO. As I understand it, the State of Missouri has enacted a statute on desecration.

Can you tell the committee what the enforcement has been in the State of Missouri?

Mr. HALL. There have been no overt or well-publicized incidents, to my knowledge, in the State of Missouri. As you know, we are a State that has two principal municipalities, St. Louis on one side of the State and Greater Kansas City on the other. We are rather proud that we have had no problems such as this, but I can tell the distinguished counsel on the Judiciary Committee that our legislature is in session, and it is considering putting more teeth into this legislation.

Mr. ZELENKO. Thank you.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Hall, we appreciate your appearing. Our next witness is the Honorable Claude Pepper, author of H.R. 8980.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLAUDE PEPPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. PEPPER. Thank you. I would ask to incorporate my statement in the record.

Mr. ROGERS. It will be so incorporated.

(The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. CLAUDE PEPPER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF

FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, I want to thank you for the privilege of being here with you this morning and commend what this great Committee is doing in the cause of bringing dignity to our American Flag. In the kind of understatement which gave his words the ring of complete

candor, the commander of American forces in Vietnam, General Westmoreland, recently said: "The burning of the flag-I cannot view that as other than an unpatriotic act. Thousands of men have died for the flag, and they are still dying for it in Vietnam."

Ever since the turn of the century, there have been efforts in Congress to make it a Federal crime to burn or otherwise desecrate the American flag. These hearings are another effort in that direction, an effort which I sincerely trust will succeed.

The bill that I have sponsored for this purpose is H.R. 8980.

It is true that all fifty States and the District of Columbia have laws making the desecration of the flag punishable as a crime. Penalties range from none in New Hampshire to twenty-five years in Texas. Several States have increased or are considering the desirability of increasing their penalties for desecration of the flag.

Every State could punish for murder, too, yet Congress not long ago saw fit to make it a Federal crime to murder a President of the United States. The reasons for the enactment may not be relevant to the reasons for also making desecration of the flag a Federal crime, but at least it is clear that the existence of State penalties does not preclude the exercise of Federal legislative power in the same area.

I do not wish to repeat all the valid reasons for such a bill that have been spread wide in the newspapers, in the Congressional Record, and that have been heard in this Subcommittee's hearings. Most of these reasons reflect sincerely and deeply held patriotic beliefs and emotions, and I am in complete agreement with them.

It is particularly unfortunate that those who wish to express their dissent from the policies of their government in the conduct of the war in Vietnam have adopted flag-burning as a symbol of protest. I can think of no quicker way for them to engender support for the policies they propose. Dissenters must learn to dissent in a way that is acceptable to most Americans.

After all, the parents of young boys who are drafted to fight and die cannot be expected to restrain their rage at such abuses as flag-burnings. Why should their children be maimed or killed when others not only do not serve under the flag of the United States but also desecrate that flag? Do the flag-burners who attempt to justify their acts as expressions of dissent protected by the First Amendment have any idea of how little dissent is tolerated on the part of a private in the Army? Why should patriotic Americans, willing to do their part, be denied the simplest and most basic freedoms (and that is just how armies have to be run if they are to be run at all) in order to protect the freedom of those who mock the national emblem, who refuse to serve in the armed forces, and whose marching is confined to protest demonstrations?

That great veterans' organization, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, at its 67th National Conventional last year, adopted a resolution stating: "We strongly support legislation providing punishment . . . for any person who publicly and willfully destroys, mutilates, or desecrates the American Flag." The distinguished senior vice-commander of the V.F.W. testified before this Subcommittee on Monday that, "It is the position of the V.F.W. that the Congress must make desecration of the Flag a crime. Present laws concerning disrespect for the Flag are inadequate to meet the times. . . What is most regrettable is that defilement of our Flag has been interpreted by other nations and particularly by North Vietnam as a substantial resentment of the American people to the Vietnam war effort. The Flag of the United States is a Federal banner and a Federal concern. Let us guard that concern."

We must deter and punish any acts that are deliberately intended to cause desecration of the flag of the United States. That flag is the symbol of our national independence, of our freedom, of the precious heritage won for us by brave men and women over the generations. If the flag-burners hold the American heritage in contempt, that is their business, but they have no right to inflict their contempt for it on the rest of us.

They have a right to their opinions, and we have a right to ours. That is the basis for a free society. They must not be permitted to abuse the freedom of others. Public and over acts of disdain and contempt for the beliefs and traditions of the majority of Americans must not be protected under quixotic assertions of constitutional rights. If these characters want to burn flags, let them do so privately in their own furnaces at home. If they must burn American flags in public, let us jail them under a Federal criminal statute. If that sounds tough. so be it.

Mr. PEPPER. My bill is H.R. 8980, as the chairman has indicated. Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary to tell this distinguished and patriotic committee the meaning of the American flag to them or their committee or to the Congress of this country.

I think that there is no doubt about the right and power of the Congress, and I believe now the duty, to enact legislation suitably to protect the American flag.

In the first place, in the very preamble of the Constitution, one of the purposes of setting up the Constitution was to provide for the common defense, and the flag is intimately and most significantly related to the common defense.

The Congress has the authority and the duty to raise armies and navies and defense forces, and the flag is the symbol of those forces, and hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans over the years have died defending and perpetuating the principles of that flag.

Now I realize that there are those who say that because there are statutes provided in the several States for mutilation and defiling and contempt upon the flag that the Federal Government should not enact such legislation.

Yet the most vivid example to the contrary was the enactment of legislation by the Congress some time ago when we found it necessary to protect the life of the President of the United States.

Murder, of course, is punishable in every State of the Union, but we all, I think, wisely came to the conclusion, and I believe this able chairman handled that legislation-I recall appearing before your subcommittee with respect to that legislation.

We were not satisfied to leave to the several States, however conscientiously they might be expected to perform their several duties, the protection of the President of our country, because he is the leader of our country, chosen by the people for his exalted position.

Now, if we have the authority to protect against homicide of the President of the United States because he is the Chief Magistrate of our land, it seems to me indisputable that we have the authority to protect the integrity and the significance and the symbolism of the flag of our country against those who disrespect it.

Now, the question that I have, I followed the general language of the statutes that are proposed on this subject and my bill on page 2 says:

Whoever publicly mutilates, defaces, defies, defiles, tramples upon, or casts contempt either by word or act, upon any flag, standard, colors or ensign of the United States, shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more than $10,000 or both.

Now, we all realize that in order to protect the flag, we do not wish to jeopardize the legitimate freedom of speech and the legitimate freedom of assembly and the other precious things that that flag symbolizes as well as our courage and our character and our faith.

One of those, of course, is the right of criticism and the right of dissent. I am not suggesting and I know this committee would not countenance any more alien and seditions laws, or disagree with whatever comes with a citizen's proper dissent with a political leader, and I realize the courts would be expected to construe the intent of Congress as not meaning any effort to deprive any citizen of the lawful right of freedom of speech and of dissent.