Stars and Stripes." And by this time, the tears were streaming down this man's face. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this man made me realize how much more this flag is than just another piece of cloth as some would maintain. Speaking to the question of whether or not this is an issue that should be left to the States or to the Federal Government, I would like to say that this is an area where the Federal Government should be involved. This is a National, not a State, symbol and should be protected by Federal legislation. Like many Members of Congress, I was astounded to find that we didn't have a Federal statute to protect it. If you will notice the bill that I introduced, I feel we can deal only with the physical desecration of the flag. The constitutionality of some of these other purposes going beyond the physical desecration of the flag, would be extremely doubtful. I know that this great committee is giving considerable study to this question. I further wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for scheduling today an opponent of this legislation from my hometown as he wrote me the only letter that I received in opposition to this bill. Even though I disagreed with practically every word contained in the letter, I feel that under our form of government, of which this flag is symbolic, he has a right to be heard. And I shall forever protect that right. Today he will be testifying in this very chair that I am now occupying in opposition to every word that I have said in favor of this legislation. This is the American way. I commend the chairman for scheduling him today. Mr. ROGERS. Than you, Mr. Latta. We appreciate your coming to testify, and we are looking forward to hearing the witness this afternoon. Mr. WHITENER. Thank you, Mr. Latta. I have no questions. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Latta, have there been any flag burnings or other desecrations of the flag in your district or in Ohio? Mr. LATTA. No, there have not. Mr. WIGGINS. I would like to ask the gentleman's differentiation between heaping verbal abuse upon the flag and setting fire to it in lieu of saying those words. Mr. LATTA. The matter of free speech, I think, will be involved when this statute is tested, and I am fearful that we might be treading in an area that they on the other side of the street might rule unconstitutional. I would like to see a piece of legislation that would withstand the constitutional test. Mr. WIGGINS. If a person held a flag in his hand and said, "All that I feel, all that I want to say about this flag I am going to express this way," and then set fire to it Mr. LATTA. I think it is a physical act when he touches a match to it, but I think you are going to run into a constitutional question if he didn't do anything other than curse it, but if he spit upon it, I think you would have another situation. Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you. Mr. POFF. No questions. Mr. ZELENKO. Your bill, sir, uses the words, "whoever publicly burns, tears, mutilates, or otherwise defaces, tramples upon, or casts 79-543-67-14 contempt," and I gather your testimony is that the latter phrase "casts contempt," which may include speech, is one that you are not wedded to? Mr. LATTA. That is correct. Mr. ZELENKO. Other bills use terms such as "defy," or "defile." Is it your testimony that those terms as well have a certain ambiguity, and that is the reason they are not included in your bill? Mr. LATTA. Right. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Our next witness is the Honorable Ed Reinecke, from California, author of H.R. 9121. STATEMENT BY HON. ED REINECKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. REINECKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to congratulate you on holding these prompt hearings on this matter. Rather than to restate what has been said very eloquently here this morning, I will try to recap the principal points of my argument. Certainly all of us were amazed-I believe it happened about a year and a half ago—when the flag was burned and spat upon in, as I recall, Atlanta, Ga. It was at that time that it came to my attention that there was no Federal law covering the defacement or mutilation of the American flag. I put a bill in the last Congress, and it is that same bill which I introduced again this year. We are all aware that there is a law covering the desecration of the flag in the District of Columbia, and I think it could be easily argued why the law should cover the District only and not cover the States as well. Certainly the flag is a national symbol, it predates the signing of the Constitution and the existence of the States themselves. I feel the flag is a national obligation, a Federal symbol of our country, and as such certainly should find justification and jurisdiction in the Federal laws. Some States have a law at the present time. California does have such a law. I am not aware of any investigations or prosecutions under this law, although recently there was a committee formed within my district to investigate complaints involving abusive practices at a local school. But, I feel that the lack of such a Federal law strikes at the very roots of law and order. If we are to spend millions of dollars teaching our children respect for law and order and engaging in patriotic exercises in the morning, saluting the flag, isn't it rather contradictory to turn our backs and overlook the possibility of a Federal law to protect the flag that the children are taught to revere? We have had a number of instances in the last year. We have had them overseas, as well as at home, and I think for us to turn our backs on it at this time would be something less than responsible. There have been laws introduced in the Congress since 1939, yet these are the first significant hearings that have been held, and I commend the chairmen for this. I would like to close my testimony by telling you of a ceremony in which I participated this past week end in New York City. Last Friday, I had a flag flown over the Capitol, and at 2:30 in the afternoon, Tom Kelly, President of the Congressional Medal of Honor Association, Mr. Ray Gimmler, chairman of the "Support Our Men in Vietnam Parade," Chuck Connors, a friend of mine from the west coast, and I raised that flag on a staff at the Central Park site where the U.S. flag was burned on April 15. This same flag led the parade in which 250,000 people marched down Fifth Avenue on May 13, 1967. Then the flag was flown to the west coast by Chuck Connors. By the time the airplane pulled up at the airport, there was an Army band, and an honor guard to greet this flag. This flag was transferred to the hands of a sergeant, and then was transferred to the hands of another sergeant, who is going to Vietnam to deliver the flag to General Westmoreland. This is something we can do to show the people we do revere this flag, and I think this sequence which I just described was triggered largely by the outraged reaction on the part of many citizens in our country, and a substantial number of the 250,000 who joined that parade were there because here was an opportunity for them to show they are behind the flag, and they are behind our boys in Vietnam. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Are there any questions? Mr. WHITENER. Thank you very much. Mr. McCLORY. I want to commend the gentleman on his testimony and also his initiative and leadership in connection with this trip you took with the American flag to counteract the desecration and burning of the American flag in New York City. The gentleman mentioned that some incidents have occurred overseas. Would it be the gentleman's intention that this statute should apply to American citizens who desecrate the American flag overseas, providing we get jurisdiction of them? Mr. REINECKE. Not being an attorney, I would be hard put to give you a comprehensive answer to that. If it is an American citizen, I would feel there is a responsibility, particularly if it occurred on any property supervised in any way by our Government, an embassy or military base or whatever. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you. Our next witness is the Hon. Paul E. Rogers, of Florida, author of H.R. 8993. STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL G. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. PAUL G. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, too, the opportunity to appear. I would file a statement, if I may, sir, and comment quickly. Mr. ROGERS. The statement will be filed for the record and then proceed in your own manner. (The document referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL G. ROGERS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you the Committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. Had I felt so strongly about the desecration of the American flag, I would have simply submitted a statement for the Record and not appeared. For I feel that the Congress stands firmly and solidly behind this legislation, and I feel it will be passed. But, Mr. Chairman, I do feel quite strongly about this. My constituents feel strongly about it and I am proud that they do. This feeling reached its height several weeks ago when demonstrators publicly burned the flag. I believe the New York incident focused national attention on a situation that had been building for quite some time. In my mind this legislation has no bearing whatsoever on the world situation, the war in Viet Nam, nor the Selective Service System. The issue here is much more basic and far reaching. It is an issue which was given life when men banded together and founded this nation. The issue is simply that this Flag is the national standard. Being so, it represents the very way of life and government which we all live under, regardless of our satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the way of life and that form of government. I personally believe in both with a firm conviction. This form of government, under the Articles of the Constitution, is the most lasting work of democracy mankind has ever fashioned. And because it reflects the wishes of all citizens, it has provided for dissent, for debate, and discussion. And for that reason, I am more than concerned, more than perplexed, and more than saddened by recent incidents where the national standard, the symbol of democracy and individual freedom, has been defiled and desecrated in the name of democracy and freedom. Thus, these people have desecrated the very symbol of the form of government that gives them these rights. We have fashioned an orderly and open avenue of dissent for those who do not agree with the policies of government. For this there is free speech, which has never been abridged, and there is the ballot box, the most effective expression of dissatisfaction with public officials we have. Every two years we elect an entire House of Representatives and % of the Senate. Every four years we elect a President and % of the Senate. But for those who distain these orderly and open forms and who would strike down and degrade our national standard and its historic symbolism, I feel there should be a corresponding punishment. My bill would fix a fine not to exceed $1,000 or a prison term not to exceed one year, or both. I sincerely feel that this is neither overly stringent nor lax. And at this time I would again urge the Committee to report this bill as quickly as possible, that some remedy to this disgraceful behavior can be arrived at as speedily as possible. Mr. PAUL G. ROGERS. I know you have heard testimony from many people already, and I will try not to be repetitious, other than to say that I agree, and that my bill provides that it should be an act which "defaces, defiles, defies, tramples upon, or casts contempt upon any flag, standard, colors or ensign ***.* I also would agree that any American citizen, even though the act is committed overseas, should be subject to penalties when jurisdiction is obtained by an individual. Now I think it is essential for us to pass legislation like this because we have, first of all, no Federal law; but also to bear up in the mind. of some of our people, and the Congress, the importance of this. I was shocked when the flag was burned in New York City, when Ambassador Goldberg issued a comment even after the Secretary of State had expressed concern about this type of demonstration and its effect on the conduct of our war in Vietnam. Ambassador Goldberg said he felt it was only loyal dissent. I think this bill and quick action by the Congress can be taken as an act to help straighten out the thinking of even some of our own governmental officials representing our country, and I would hope that Ambassador Goldberg would take it that way, because in his statement he did not distinguish the act of the flag burning, or other physical dissent otherwise expressed. His blanket statement came out as loyal dissent, which gave an endorsement that I hope he did not intend to give. Now I notice he also said that he did not agree with anything that would be illegal, but that there was no Federal law there, although there might be a State law. Perhaps the thinking is fuzzy along these lines, so I think Congress should be very firm in its intent in passing this law. I would hope that our officials would not tend to give statements that are so broad without distinguishing acts that are not proper in condoning the type of activity that went on in New York. I think this legislation would tend to help straighten out those matters, and it should. I thank the gentleman for his kindness. Mr. ROGERS. Are there any questions? Mr. WHITENER. I certainly thank Mr. Rogers for being with us and I have no questions. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. McClory? Mr. McCLORY. May I ask this of Mr. Rogers: You feel that we should have a Federal statute and we should also retain our State statutes so that we would have both Federal and State jurisdictions of this? Mr. ROGERS. That is correct. Mr. WIGGINS. Just one brief question. In your prepared remarks, you say this: In my mind, this legislation has no bearing whatsoever on the world situation, the war in Vietnam, nor the Selective Service System. I would like you to enlarge on that a little bit and inquire specifically whether you think this legislation has any impact at all on these matters. Mr. PAUL G. ROGERS. The point I was trying to make there is that I think there is a deeper issue than involvement in one war, or whatever it might be. I think this goes to the whole national character of our Government and the type of government we stand for. Any defilement, whether there is a war going on or not, should not affect the defilement of the flag of the United States. Mr. WIGGINS. Do you agree with the remarks of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services-I think you were here when he was testifying that these flag desecrations do have an adverse effect on the troops in Vietnam or elsewhere? Mr. PAUL G. ROGERS. I don't see how they could be interpreted otherwise. I think so. Mr. WIGGINS. And that they might be misconstrued by nations abroad as indicating a generally felt dissent by all American people in regard to American policies in Vietnam? Mr. PAUL G. ROGERS. Well, I think that can be interpreted that way to a great extent. |