Mr. ROGERS. Would you be willing to have your bill amended so that the violation would constitute a felony, a year and a day? Mr. QUILLEN. I really think that we could not have any penalty too strict for the desecration of our flag, because as I look at it here, to your right, I ask myself a question this morning, "How bright are the colors, the red, white, and blue, down deep in my heart, because, well, when those colors start to fade in anyone's heart, our freedom starts to fade," and to me it is not just a piece of cloth. It represents all the things that these thousands and hundreds of thousands of men have died for, and many hundreds of thousands are going to die in the future to protect it. Anything short of a firing squad, even though it be severe, would be agreeable to me. I felt that in recommending my bill that probably a moderate measure, to begin with, would be a stepping stone to proper protection. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Quillen. Any questions? Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Quillen, as the chairman has pointed out, there are 50 States that have legislation at present, and I note your Tennessee Legislature has moved Congress to pass a Federal act. The penalty there is, as you pointed out, quite low. Is there any legislation pending in Tennessee to increase the State penalty? Mr. QUILLEN. I received word Sunday that there is a law modeled after my own bill. I haven't seen the provisions of it, Mr. Whitener, but it is modeled after my bill. Mr. WHITENER. Getting to the language of your bill, what do you contemplate by the use of the words "cast contempt"? Mr. QUILLEN. For anyone as a State case exists in one of the Western States, where a man was put in jail by casting contempt on the flag for anyone who refuses to pay allegiance to the flag, or spits upon it, or any kind of contempt, that would be "casting contempt," in my opinion. Mr. WHITENER. The word "defiles," what did you have in mind about that? Mr. QUILLEN. Just as the word "defile" means in the dictionary, Mr. Whitener. In working out the language on this, I went along with other Members who had introduced a bill, and also similar to the District of Columbia bill, which in itself carries a stiff penalty. But "defile," we would go along with Webster in that regard, I would say. I think the language, keeping in mind that I am not an attorney, and I think that your committee, Mr. Chairman, and members, should prescribe the language for the bill and get it so that it would be sound, so that when it does become a Federal law there would be no question about enforcement, and I would commend you for that action. Mr. WHITENER. What do you mean by the words, "standard, colors, or ensign of the United States"? Mr. QUILLEN. Standards, colors, or anything-we have had standards before, and we have had ensigns before, and we have the flag. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Jacobs? Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Quillen, under the provisions of your bill, is it possible to burn an American flag without being in violation? Mr. QUILLEN. Yes, sir; provisions would be made, if a flag is frayed, it could be burned in a peaceful way, without being defiled or contempt being cast upon it. There is an orderly way to take care of it Mr. JACOBS. The traditional ceremonial way Mr. QUILLEN. That is right. We know that the desecration of the flag is a willful proposition. When a man goes out to cast contempt, to destroy it, defile it, to say that it does not represent the things in which we all believe. To me, that is contempt and that contempt should be subject to punishment. Mr. JACOBS. Let me ask you further, then, in your opinion is it possible to violate the provisions of your bill without burning the American flag! Mr. QUILLEN. Definitely; definitely. Mr. JACOBS. An incident is alleged in Manchester's book "The Death of The President," where in Dallas, a retired major general of the U.S. Army, flew the American flag upside down in front of his house. In your judgment, would that violate the provisions of your bill? Mr. QUILLEN. Already, the law that the President proposed in 1942, prescribes the correct use of the flag. I would say, if the officer did that in contempt of the United States of America, definitely he should come under the provisions of this bill. Mr. JACOBS. Supposing he just did it Mr. QUILLEN. If he did it accidently Mr. JACOBS. It is alleged to have been a deliberate act. My question is, in proving a violation of your bill, would it be a question of disgracing the United States of America, or would it be sufficient just to disgrace the flag of the United States of Americawith the intent to disgrace the flag? Mr. QUILLEN. When you disgrace the flag, you automatically disgrace the country, because it is the symbol of our country. Mr. JACOBS. I think that answers our question. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Whitener. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Quillen, I note your bill would amend section 3, title 4 of the United States Code, and in that existing law, to get back to my question of a moment ago, we find the following language: The words "flag, standard, colors, or ensign”, as used herein shall include any flag. standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance of any size, evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America, or a picture or representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America. Now I take it as a matter of draftsmanship you intend that the definition in the present section 3 of title 4 would be the meaning of "flag, standard, colors or ensign of the United States" as mentioned in your bill.. Mr. QUILLEN. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITENER. So a paper reproduction, a photograph Mr. WHITENER. You don't really require that in your bill. You just say "whoever publicly" does it. Mr. QUILLEN. Of course, Mr. Whitener, I think this: There might be another section that this law could be placed under. As I said in the beginning, I am not an attorney. I feel that your committee, taking the subject matter of my bill, will bring out a clean bill to recommend to your full committee, keeping in mind what I have said in my speech, because I believe that we should have a Federal law for those who would publicly desecrate our flag. To what section, to what comma, to what semicolon, or what definition, let me leave that in your good hands, because I am sure you will handle it. Mr. WHITENER. I am sure, from what you have said, that you would add the element of willfulness. Mr. QUILLEN. Yes, sir. I think anyone who does something, as Mr. Jacobs pointed out, that would be willful, because he knew what he was doing. But those who make a mistake, I think certainly they should not be prosecuted. Mr. WHITENER. And the law should make that abundantly clear. Mr. QUILLEN. I think so. Mr. WHITENER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. McClory. Mr. MCCLORY. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his detailed, carefully prepared and well-documented statement. I notice that measures introduced by many of our colleagues mention the burning of the flag. You don't mention "burn." You don't have any objection to adding that Mr. QUILLEN. Actually, burning would be desecrating, but I have no objection. Mr. McCLORY. The section of the law that the gentleman from Tennessee seeks to amend by his bill, H.R. 6385, is a section which relates to the District of Columbia, and I assume that the definition section to which the gentleman from North Carolina made reference regarding "flags" and "standards" and so on would apply solely to the District of Columbia, unless the bill were further amended to apply to the rest of the 50 States. So I assume the intention of your legislation is that this should apply to the 50 States and Puerto Rico and Guam. Mr. QUILLEN. The 50 States, any possession of the United States, the United States and its possessions. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, very much. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Poff. Mr. POFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On examining the language of the gentleman's bill, H.R. 6385, and trying to make up my own mind about precisely what your purpose is, H.R. 6385 provides first, that the first sentence of subsection (a) of section 3 of title 4, shall be designated as subsection (a). It provides further that a new subsection (b) be inserted at that point. Mr. QUILLEN. Yes, sir. Mr. PoFF. Under customary rules of legislative draftsmanship, this would have the effect of creating two separate bills. The first would apply to offenses committed in the District of Columbia, and the second, as I understand the gentleman's last response, would apply nationwide. Is that your purpose? Mr. QUILLEN. A nationwide purpose. Mr. POFF. Do you also intend that a separate penalty attach for the offense if it is committed in the District of Columbia? Mr. QUILLEN. No, I do not. I will say to the gentleman from Virginia, I would hope that the District of Columbia would have the same penalty as that for the entire 50 States. Mr. PoFF. Then you would favor an amendment Mr. QUILLEN. I would say to the gentleman from Virginia, as I said to Mr. Whitener, that I am not an attorney, and my intention, sir, is to have a Federal law covering the 50 States, the possessions of the United States, that this flag of ours shall not be desecrated willfully in any way. Mr. POFF. With reference to the question of preemption, do you intend that if this bill is passed, and if it has national application, that it preempt the laws in the several States under the supremacy clause of the Constitution? Mr. QUILLEN. I will say to the gentleman from Virginia that I think the desecration of our flag should be a Federal offense and should be prosecuted by the Federal Government, preferably the FBI, because I think in that way we could have standard fines and imprisonment sentences. If the States wanted to concur with the Federal law and carry it out, I am sure there would be no objection in that regard. But the State, when a person robs a bank, dealing with Federal funds, the FBI steps in immediately, and it becomes a Federal offense. The FBI then works with State and local law enforcement officersthat is as it should be. When one defaces or destroys postage, it becomes a Federal offense. When they destroy money in an unauthorized way it becomes a Federal offense, or if a person wants to make his own money it is a Federal offense. So I say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that I feel it should be a Federal law, it should be carried out with teeth, and passed as quickly as possible. I would say that the temperature of the people of this country now is such that this law is demanded. Mr. POFF. I thank the gentleman. Mr. ROGERS. Counsel has one question. Mr. ZELENKO. Congressman, your bill would penalize not only physical attacks on the flag, but also statements directed against the flag? Mr. QUILLEN. If done deliberately, yes. Mr. ZELENKO. Some suggest that unless there is a clear and present danger, freedom of speech would apply. Would you be satisfied if physical Mr. QUILLEN. Yes. In my remarks, I said I wanted nothing that would interfere with the freedom of speech. But you cannot say that we stand idly by and see someone in this very room curse our flag and defile it. I think, to me, that is a disgrace and should be stopped. However, if it is an infringement on freedom of speech, I certainly do not want to leave that reaction here this morning. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Quillen. We certainly appreciate your counsel and guidance. Mr. QUILLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being here, I have from the Library of Congress the provisions relating to the U.S. flag. Mr. ROGERS. We have them here for consideration. Mr. QUILLEN. Thank you. Secondly, Congressman Dick Fulton, of Tennessee, wanted me to leave a statement for the record. Mr. ROGERS. We will receive it. (The document referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY HON. RICHARD FULTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Mr. Chairman, my duties on the Ways and Means Committee, currently meeting in executive session on the Social Security amendments of 1967, prevent me from appearing in person before your Committee this morning. In my absence I have requested my Colleague from Tennessee, the Honorable James H. Quillen, to submit my statement, I would like to thank Rep. Quillen for his assistance and commend him for his effective efforts in behalf of this important legislation. STATEMENT BY HON. RICHARD FULTON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THY STATE OF TENNESSEE Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Members of this Distinguished Committee for allowing me to speak this morning in behalf of my bill to provide Federal penalties for acts of desecration committed against the American Flag. It does seem ludicrous that a need should exist in this great Democracy for consideration of such legislation. This is a Nation of great freedom. Certainly freedom of expression abounds in the United States today as in no other Nation the world has known. But unfortunately, there are radicals in America who would use this freedom to subvert our form of government for some alien "ism" or some doctrine of fascism or anarchy. The latter often drape themselves in the flag, camouflaging their twisted motives in the mantle of patriotism. The former regard the right of dissent as license to pursue their ends beyond the bounds of responsible conduct. Flag-burning and desecration have emerged today as an instrument of irresponsible expression of dissent and it is as repulsive to the vast majority of our. American citizenry as were the vile and venomous tracts of hate directed against our late President Kennedy, tracts which still flow from the pens of hate pamphleters. There is little doubt in my mind that our Nation will withstand any assault leveled at it by the irresponsible elements of the radical left or radical right. This is not a new bill. I was privileged to sponsor it in the 89th Congress. Why then, consider legislation concerning desecration of the flag at this time? If for no other reason than to begin a line of demarcation beyond which expression of dissent is no longer responsible but is unacceptable to responsible citizens and contrary to law. I am fully aware that there are State statutes which deal with this matter. But our Flag is not a State institution. It knows, neither State nor regional boundries nor is it conscious of race, color or creed. It is a symbol of this Nation, of its greatness and yes, of its shortcomings. The vast majority of Americans are, I believe, proud of their flag and the great good which it symbolizes in fact and ideal, as they are proud of their. country. |