I would like to say right here, Mr. Chairman, philosophically, you and I have had many differences, but we have never differed on the Constitution, and I know of no man in my acquaintance who has a better knowledge of the Constitution than you.

I have said this many times, and I have said it in connection with the jurisdiction of the court case. The colloquy which you had with the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Boggs, and others on this subject was distinguished.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we must have strong penalties if the people are going to respect the law, positive knowledge that one will be severely dealt with if he violates the dignity of the United States, and that must be known to the perpetrator.

Now why do I say it is important to enact legislation today when for so many years the country has had no law to this effect?

I say it today because there are a few irresponsible Americans who show contempt for certain policies which the United States is pursuing, have taken it upon themselves to burn, or otherwise deface and defile in public demonstrations the very symbol of America.

Last night I read again "The Star-Spangled Banner," and once I visited Fort McKinley over at Baltimore, and I tried to picture in my own eyes, Francis Scott Key, when he envisioned those things that he thought might happen to the flag and how it was still flying the next morning, so magnificently written in the national hymn of this Republic.

We should memorize every single stanza of "The Star-Spangled Banner."

This is the symbol of everything for which we stand.

It is the act of desecration itself to which my bill is addressed. It is not aimed at limiting the right of free expression or as a measure to stifle the voice of dissent.

You know, the other day, in our own committee, how so many of these newspapers around here and other places leaped upon the words of Mr. Hébert taken out of context about the first amendment to the Constitution.

It is so easy for people to misquote people, so I will try to stick with my statement, as much as I like to interpolate.

I have not agreed, and don't agree with many of the things going on in the streets of this country, but I recognize the right of so many of these people to make these statements, to genuinely protest, but the act of desecration of the American flag, Mr. Chairman, goes beyond the bounds of propriety, and the Congress must now do something about it.

I am sure there will be some who will argue that the burning of the American flag in a public meeting is the most dramatic form of communication possible and, as such, is merely symbolic speech protected by the first amendment.

To those who would advance such an argument, I can only point out that numerous laws have been enacted making it a Federal criminal offense to destroy, injure, or mutilate Government property. Let me cite to you examples from title 18, United States Code.

Section 32: Willful destruction of any aircraft used in interstate commerce or aircraft facilities.

Section 33: Willful destruction of any motor vehicles used in interstate commerce or motor vehicle facilities.

Section 41: Destruction of wildlife, nests, eggs, and so forth, or Federal property in Federal wildlife refuges.

Section 81: Arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdictions.

Section 331: Mutilation, diminution, and falsification of coins. Section 332: Debasement of coins, alteration of official scales, or embezzlement of metals.

Section 333: Mutilation of national bank obligations.

Section 1164: Destruction, defacing, or removal of boundary signs in Indian reservation or Indian country.

Section 1361: Willful injury or "depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States ***"

Then it goes on, destruction of mail, wrecking trains.

Now if we were to accept such an argument, where will we stop? I am sure all would agree that free speech protection ends when intertwined with acts of violence. More difficult, of course, are unconventional but more peaceful symbolic actions-and while such acts may be utilized to mobilize public opinion against an existing statute or Government policy, sincerity of purpose alone cannot transform conduct into speech protected by the first amendment.

But even if we did assume, without, of course, agreeing, that the desecration of the American flag is considered to be symbolic speech protected by the first amendment, I think everyone will agree that in certain instances, speech may be regulated or even prohibited under the clear and present danger test which, in its classic statement, is this, and this comes from the late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

whether the words used or used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.

Now, you are familiar with this case, Schenck v. U.S. In this case there is a famous expression which is known to every schoolboy now, that you can't holler "fire" in a crowded theatre.

And what is the "clear and present danger" that we are trying to prevent? At the present time when the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in combat with the armed forces of-and this is where I come in-of a foreign nation, the act of desecration of our national symbol is an act which undoubtedly would mislead the enemy and probably prolong the war. And in this connection, if you heard "Meet the Press" yesterday, and some representative of France was one of the members of the panel, he spoke about these street scenes in America, that we have all these demonstrations.

He said, if this were going on in Europe it would be a symbol that the Government is about to fall, and he went along these lines, and he drew a parallel of America, the parallel of free speech,.

The burning of the flag, for your information, has caused my mail to increase 100 percent from the boys in Vietnam, writing me and asking me what is going on in America. I get the mail, and my counsel sitting here beside me can tell you my mail has increased over 870-odd percent since I became chairman and most of it has been in this year and last year.

I get the mail when this happens, and the draft card burning legislation of which I am the author and the time is now. William Tyler Page wrote this, with which I am sure you are familiar, and it was approved by the House as a regulation, on the 3d of April 1918. I knew him. He was a great chairman. This is what he said and this is what the House passed:

I believe the United States of America, as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed that democracy in the Republic is a sovereign nation of sovereign states, a union: one and inseparable.

I therefore believe, Mr. Chairman, my duty to my country is to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, respect its flag, and defend it against all enemies.

We have got ample precedent to legislate in this field, I think all of you will agree that we have precedent. In the first place, Congress has acted to prevent desecration of the American flag in the District of Columbia, and this is in section 3, title 4 of the United States Code.

The Attorney General, in 1925, stated that while the desecration or improper use of the flag outside the District has not been made a Federal offense, he held that if Congress wishes to assume such control, it has power under the Constitution to do so, and no contrary opinion has been issued.

I think you will agree that it has a right to enact such a law.

It should be national policy. Mr. Chairman, every hope and aspiration of men and women everywhere who yearn for freedom of the democratic way of life which is represented in our flag. This flag is more than a piece of cloth, it is a symbol of national honor. To trample on it is to sow the seeds of destruction of our Nation itself.

Recently, I received a letter, and let me quote from that letter:

As to the burning of the national flag in Central Park, New York, that is about the lowest thing that anybody can do, but it is felt that the burning of the flag bore no malicious intention in itself, just to make the stupid president and the worn out legislators know how the nation feels towards the slaughtering of our boys in Vietnam, specially when there is no reason at all for it, just because of the obsession of war criminals like Johnson, Humphrey, McNamara, Rusk, Wirtz.

The burning of the national flag in Central Park clearly denoted that if the people could get to Johnson, to Humphrey, to McNamara, to Rusk, to Wirtz, and to all the senators behind Johnson, we would throw them in a big tank, sprinkle them with a mixture of gasoline and oil and set fire, thereby freeing United States of America of a bunch of undesirable skunks.

No wonder he didn't have the guts to sign that letter, whoever he

was.

This is the sort of thing that is sweeping America. I think such a bill as I have introduced would give the congressional answer to these traitors, these traitors who are urging anarchy rather than practicing the democratic processes that we have tried so hard to preserve. Let Congress stand up and announce to the world that we are proud to be Americans and that we will not tolerate the desecration of the American flag.

We are the only branch of the Government that the American people can put their hands on, and the people are telling you and me each day that we should do something about it.

I wrote the Card Burning Act, and one case held that it was constitutional for Congress to-the Miller case, which was approved by the second circuit, and in substance the Miller case held that the public interest is protected by proper functioning of the Selective Service System, the purpose served by the statute making it unlawful to destroy a draft card out weighs any alleged symbol of freedom of expression, and the statute is constitutional.

Now this case really held that the court has no right to go behind the intent of the Congress, in the Miller case.

Now, the O'Brien case said this was the first-it didn't, of course, overrule the military, unless it came in this morning. I try to keep up with what is going on in the courts.

The O'Brien case said this was symbolic action to burn the card before a crowd. I guess it follows from that decision that if you went home and burned your card in the fireplace in privacy you would be guilty of a crime. But they say to burn it in public is a symbolic act of free speech.

Of course the Department of Justice has requested a writ on this, and I hope the Supreme Court will give it to them.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't need to say anything else, unless you gentlemen want to say something to me. I would be complimented if you would. I notice the Washington Post has, according to its custom, come out against any such thing as this, in an editorial. This, too, of course, was to be presumed.

Mr. ROGERS. I may say, Mr. Rivers, that you are not the only one who has received letters, as you indicated. I have received some.

I would like to read you one portion of this. It says:

Finally, what damage are the flag burners doing? It clearly harms no individual, only a fool could think that flag burning can weaken our country or lessen its greatness.

And that is just a sample of some letters that I have received, and I wonder if you have any comment other than what you have already stated in your statement?

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, with your great mind and your great knowledge of the Constitution, I am sure you can give them the answer far better than I, and I wager you will tell him what Christ told John on the Isle of Patmos.

Mr. ROGERS. Do you believe that if we limited our flag bill to the actual destruction of the flag itself, that we would be on safe constitutional grounds?

Mr. RIVERS. We have both in my bill, by condemning it publicly as well as the desecration and the destruction.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you.

Mr. McClory?

Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to state, first of all, how important I feel your statement is here today, Mr. Rivers, because of your experience with the draft card burning legislation, because of your office as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and because of your familiarity, better than anyone else, I would judge, with respect to the effect of the burning and desecration of the American flag which we are endeavoring to designate as a Federal offense.

Now, it has been suggested to this committee that because there are only a few people who have seen fit to desecrate the American flag by burning it, or in other acts of the desecration, the enactment of a Federal law isn't justified. How do you feel about that? Do you think the number of crimes, the number of offenses, is significant?

Mr. RIVERS. I don't think that has anything to do with it. Think of the stories that have been written about this flag; how it has inspired people. My goodness, when you lose respect for the symbol of your Government, you lose respect for everything that gives people something on which to stand.

A lot of people have no regard-or didn't pay any attention to the less than 2 percent of the people in Russia who were Communists, or certainly not even 3 percent of the hard core. It is only 3 percent. But they have control of a powerful lot of people, and going around the streets, you hear things like, "It can't happen here." But don't kid yourself. It can happen here.

And TV has transformed America. This filthy crowd that was going to come and take over my committee; I knew what they were going to do.

I wasn't in town last Monday. They wanted to get in there and lie on the floor and have TV all over the country. They wouldn't have got in my committee.

When Mr. Willis wrote and told me of the letter I received from this crowd, requesting the hearing before my committee, was the same address as those who tore up the Un-American Activities Committee. I wrote them back and told them they were not going to testify before my committee.

When they got here, I had pretty good intelligence on them and issued instructions that they were not going to get into this building. I left orders that one could get in and talk, but they were not interested in that.

Mr. McCLORY. In other words, in the classroom incident and on the grounds of the U.N., they are performing in front of millions of people, and also, of course, the number of those who oppose and find this conduct repulsive, as is the case of the vast majority of the American people today, is also tremendous. This is one reason for us to have this legislation, because of the tremendous demand for Congress to do something about it.

Mr. RIVERS. No question about it.

I was reading about the burning of the American flag in Madrid, Spain, on the campus of the university. I got word from the Spanish Government that these are so-called American students on this campus. They always make sure they have TV coverage or newspaper coverage.

The Spanish police don't go on the campus unless they are called for help, and this crowd had all this publicity, Americans burning the flag, and they all wanted that publicity.

Mr. MCCLORY. Do you see any distinction between the draft card burning and the burning of the American flag?

The reason I ask is that the draft card burning was referred to as something in the Miller case that, if permitted to go on, would disrupt the selective service law.

Don't you think that the burning of the American flag is going to