At this point, I would like to inject that I would, of course, have no objection to the complete striking of section 2, because I am aware of the committee's usual practice in not setting forth the purposes in the legislation.

I urge full support of this legislation. And, I believe this approachto protect those to whom obscene materials might be offensive, degrading and even harmful-would be helpful in developing a broad national attitude toward sex that is educated and developed with correct knowledge about sex and value-consciousness.

Hopefully, in the future, pornography will not hold the interest of so many Americans. But, now is the time to change the direction of the overabundance of pornography.

If I might add, the standard that I understand Senator Dirksen suggested for determining obscenity sounds to me like a good one: that the jury could make a factual determination of that as a question of fact and settle the issue, and it seems to me that might bring the obscenity mores to the community in which it is being applied. I, for one, think that might be helpful.

People live in a community usually because they want to choose its mores and may not want to be inflicted with those from as far away as they can get mail.

As I see the problem-the first amendment has been mentioned; I certainly think that is a paramount consideration—I think underlying this problem also is the junk mail problem that we hear so many complaints about just as we do with the obscene material. People say, "We are getting mail we don't want." Whether it is obscene or not, they are using the mails to promote businesses that some would argue don't pay their fair share or they just don't want to wade through mail that they didn't order. I think certainly this is the kind of mail they should not have to wade through if they didn't order it.

For this reason, I am also offering similar testimony to the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, because it is working on the same problem.

Back to the first amendment, I would hope that we might be on the threshold of a reexamination of the first amendment, anyway. It seems to me that it is worshiped as sort of a sacred free-speech item, and, of course, we all respect free speech, but when we look at the communications media, television and radio get some regulation from the FCC, more than they think they should have but perhaps less than some would like to see those media regulated.

When we get to the press-publishers, printers, and newspapers-we don't see any degree of regulation, it seems to me, and when we talk about it we hear cries about the sacredness of the first amendment. It seems to me the purpose of the first amendment would be to insure that the public get all relevant facts on all sides of the question so it is best able to make its own decision, and I question how well that is served, anyway, in so many of our numerous cities with the onepaper town, whether they always get both sides; frequently they will ery for a two-party system, but I never hear them crusading in a State, county, or city for two-paper cities or counties.

I would also hope that if the subcommittee had some way to conduct an investigation perhaps in line with this legislation, I would believe

43-337-70-14

that would be helpful. Perhaps questioning or submitting questionnaires or examining, taking statements from the people who are engaged in this business in the purveying of this.

I have in mind similar studies such as the Small Business Committee has made on the sweepstake system, where they have sent out hundreds or thousands of questionnaires, I guess, with the implicit suggestion they would subpena them if they didn't give them the information.

And the Small Business Committee on foundations, they have returns in from some 5,500 or more foundations to find out exactly how this business does work. How profitable is it? If you would find the soft underbelly of the sexy mail business. I would hope the committee would do that if possible.

We have a Select Committee on Crime, and that is fine. They are doing a great job. It is a job I would think if the Judiciary had undertaken it, we might not need the Select Committee on Crime, and I would prefer to see that handled in a regularly standing committee. Thank you, gentlemen. I have talked beyond my knowledge. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you.

Mr. HUNGATE. Oh, Mr. Chairman, may I make a couple more comments on this particular bill? Do you have a copy of it?

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. No. As a matter of fact, I was just going to point out to you that the bill you have co-sponsored is undoubtedly referred to the Post Office and Civil Service Committee.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, let me comment on it if I may.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes.

Mr. HUNGATE. In this bill, it provides that prior to sending any sexually provocative material, sender shall have sent such addressee a notification containing certain specific notice or notice to the same effect in words prescribed by the Postmaster General. They have to state their desire to get the advertisement, the information, the devices pertaining to nudity, sexual conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, and so on. I think it may be overly explicit in some of its terms. It is defined as obscene where it exhibits physical contacts with the breast of the lady. Well, that may be a child nursing. There is a danger in becoming too explicit in defining what is obscene.

But as far as requiring the people to make application and state specifically they want it and that they are 21, I don't see why a man that wants this sort of literature shouldn't at least have to supply as much information as a man that wants 22-caliber ammunition. In some of the gun laws, we find it possible to make people register and give certain information. I would think the same way we might require it here.

I think that is all.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. There are some distinctions.

The committee will receive a copy of this bill if it has not already done so.

(The bill referred to, H.R. 14202, appears in app. B.)

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I am not sure that we have the time to make such an investigation. Investigations of the economics of the industry are, however, within the jurisdiction of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography who presumably are, according to their progress report, undertaking rather exhaustive inquiries, both from the stand

point of impact and also from the standpoint of economics and distribution and the like.

It would be possibly quite useful to the committee to have the results. I am not sure that we will have them by the time we are constrained to act on this question.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the names of allegedly major purveyors of this material are available. I mean, are they generally known?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I think they are available. I would anticipate that before our hearings are closed, publishers of this material will be represented before this committee by counsel or otherwise to express their point of view.

Mr. HUNGATE. That is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind, Mr. Chairman. Of the various bills this committee may see fit to consider, I wonder if these people might not be offered an opportunity to comment on certain specific measures. I would think that would be helpful, and maybe even their absence of comment would be helpful. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Whatever we may think of their business, they are entitled to be heard. And indeed we have the problem of definítion. There are many publishers who may be affected who are not publishers of what is loosely termed "hard-core pornography" but are otherwise reputable publishers who nonetheless may find themselves affected by these proposed bills. They will want to be heard. We will get that perspective, too, and quite soon as a matter of fact.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, I suppose I am somewhat prejudiced in that I think there are serious constitutional problems here, and I think your subcommittee is perhaps better fitted to deal with some of those in wholehearted cooperation with the other committees to whom this may fall, and that is really a concern of mine that it doesn't-well, we could go to the gun bill again; I understand it went to Ways and Means at one time for tax reasons, went to Interstate and Foreign Commerce for other reasons, but when it came to your committee some action was taken, and I would hope that that would be the case here.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. The gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. POFF. I am grateful, too, for the gentleman's testimony. He will be sitting with us on the full committee when we complete our deliberations and at that time will be able to make, I know, a major contribution to the work of the full committee.

I was interested in your comment about the State laws. Would you care to explain just briefly the essentials of the Missouri law? I assume it would probably be typical of other State laws with respect to minors. Mr. HUNGATE. Well, first as to the definition, 16 years would be the age, and on that subject there, the bill as drawn takes minors as they are declared in each State. I can see that the committee might want to make a decision as to minors in each State. But in any event, anyone under a specified age. In other words, if some State had a minor at 14. you might not want to accept that; you might want to move it to 16. I would want to do more research before I bring the gentleman authoritative comment on Missouri law on the subject. I would say, from my experience, it is singularly ineffectual.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Because it is inapplicable, nonfunctional, or because it is not enforced?

Mr. HUNGATE. Because in most cases it is not enforced, and I would think perhaps the nature of the problem-I am not critical of those who don't enforce it really, because it is not a localized thing like burglarly or robbery that you can pinpoint at one place.

Mr. POFF. But do I understand correctly that if one of your constituents cared to do so, instead of sending that material to his Congressman, he could go to his local prosecuting attorney, and if the mail came into the possession of a person under the defined age, they could prosecute locally?

Mr. HUNGATE. That is true.

Mr. Porr. If they could get venue and if they could get service of process, but they cannot.

Mr. HUNGATE. I think that looks to me like a very difficult problem, yes. A good bit of this would be mail from, say, California or New York into Missouri. I would think that would be difficult.

Mr. POFF. Now, your bill, as I understood your explanation of it, would create a Federal ban on use of the mails to violate State law; is that correct?

Mr. HUNGATE. As to minors, that is correct, yes, sir.

Mr. POFF. And there are some 30-some States that have such laws? Mr. HUNGATE. Thirty-six, I think. It is over 30, yes, sir.

Mr. POFF. Well, now, you have not addressed the subject of the bill before our committee. Do you have a feeling at this time about the constitutionality or wisdom of policy of passing bills such as the administration's bill?

Mr. HUNGATE, I would think-as to constitutionality first?

Mr. POFF. Yes.

Mr. HUNGATE. I would think the power would exist. There are probably interstate commerce laws somewhere in that area. I don't know as I am famliar enough with all of the bills that have been introduced to comment as to which I think might be better. My view really is that as a Congressman, as a Representative, the amount of mail I get on this subject, the amount of pressure and complaints, which are accompanied in many cases with samples, convinces me that we do need to take some action on it.

As I have indicated before, I would undoubtedly defer to this subcommittee's judgment as to which of these bills, after all your testimony, would be the better one; but I think that some action is really imperative, and I can understand the demands of time, but I would like sometime to see something of an investigative nature in areas. such as this taken on by this subcommittee because I would think it is singularly well qualified to do so.

Mr. POFF. I thank the gentleman. I defer to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I apologize to Mr. Hungate for not having been here to hear his statement, and so I can't inquire in any depth. I was interested in the question put by our colleague Mr. Poff relative to the character of your mail on the subject. I was wondering if your mail addresses itself almost exclusively to the issue of using the mails for

this sort of purpose or whether it goes into another field. I have some mail that has come in relative to the movies. Do you get any mail on the movies?

Mr. HUNGATE. I would not say I didn't get any, but I get very little. Substantially what I am getting is regarding the mail, as you suggest, although I think here again it is mixed. The people that write me don't believe that these people should go unpunished, either. They would like to have something done with the people that do use it for this purpose and, as I say, I get samples on this. The movies are not significant in my mail.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I see. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. BIESTER. No questions.

Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you for your contribution.

As our next witness we are pleased to welcome Hon. Earl F. Landgrebe. You may proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. EARL F. LANDGREBE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. LANDGREBE. Mr. Chairman, I, too, am happy to have this opportunity to appear before this committee, and my comments are more in a general nature. I am in hopes of introducing a bill this year that would order the Health, Education, and Welfare Department of our Government to determine what is pornographic and what isn't: in other words, set some standards that would be used by the Post Office Department in determining what can be sent through the mails and what cannot.

I am having some problems, of course, in working out the details of a rather complicated matter, but I do believe that the HEW should be best qualified to determine what is pornographic and what isn't. So, with that bit of comment, I will read my rather brief statement and will be glad to try to answer questions.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation to you and your committee for permitting me to testify on a matter of grave concern. not only to the people of my own district but to all Americans.

According to the mail I receive, the subject of pornographic literature is one of the most serious concerns of my constituents. As President Nixon said in his message to Congress last May:

American homes are being bombarded with the largest volume of sex-oriented mail in history. Most of it is unsolicited, unwanted, and deeply offensive to those who receive it.

From your own experience and testimony of previous witnesses, I am sure this committee is aware of the extent and the vulgarity of this obscene literature, not only as it exists on the newsstands and in the bookshops but also in the mails. Also, I am sure the committee is aware of the mood and determination of the people to have this kind of erotic and provocative matter eliminated from the market and the mails.

To continue to permit the sale and advertising of matter which is so obviously offensive to even the lowest community standards is,