will of the American people in fulfillment of our obligation as elected representatives. The court may flounder, lose its sense of direction, get out of step with the American public or overlook its first overriding obligations; let us nevertheless perform our duty and work our will as we mirror the feelings, attitude and wishes of our constituents and if some court insensitive to the agony and anguish of America chooses to rule this statute unconstitutional, we will try again and again and again and again. I thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 5190, OCTOBER 8, 1969

Today almost any youngster can walk into a store in his town and purchase a book or magazine or pamphlet or picture that is aimed at appealing to his prurient interests. He can see any number of movies of a pornographic nature often times in spite of self-imposed restrictions by the movie houses and the industry. But in these areas parents can exercise parental control over what the child may be exposed to.

However, the villainous purveyors of smut are no longer waiting for their victims to come to them. They have now taken to the mails and through many devious means are mailing pornographic materials to homes where children reside. Unknowingly children will open these mails and be exposed to materials which they are not psychologically and emotionally prepared to understand.

There is little legislation on the books that will stop the use of the mails for this purpose. It is for this reason that I have introduced H.R. 5190. This will give the Postmaster-General the legislative muscle needed to dry up the ever-growing flow of smut to homes with children.

Our present Postmaster General Winton M. Blount, a fellow Alabamian, has been making every effort to hamper the use of the mails by these fly-by-night business concerns who deal in smut. Last week his Department revoked the post office box privileges of eight dealers in sexually oriented materials.

This is the first significant action by a Postmaster General in a long time to stop the mailing of pornography. But the use of administrative authority by the Postmaster General is a weak tool. The bill being considered here today will strengthen that tool and add measurably to his Department's powers to control these harmful mailings of smut.

I believe a review of some of the measures on the books at the moment will give you an indication of the vital need for this legislation.

A few years ago in Congress, we passed a law to provide that persons receiving this material could return it to the Post Office with orders that no more mailings from that particular source be sent to the home. This was a step in the right direction, but not enough. I am sure you will agree with me that this suffers on two accounts. First, it does nothing to prevent the initial mailings. The damage to a child's psyche or moral fiber may already have been done. Second, it is a long and complicated process to stop the materials, starting with the necessity of the postal patron to fill out forms to prevent further mailings. Even this is ineffective since companies that deal in pornographic materials change names and status frequently.

In 1967 I proposed a bill setting up a commission to study the problem and make recommendations. Legislation very closely following the proposal I made was approved in October of that year. Now, is the time to take a definite step to curtail all mailings of pornographic materials to minors or homes wherein minors reside.

There is a great urgency in this matter as the amount of unsolicited pornography mailed into the homes is growing by leaps and bounds. As an indication of the rising incidence of pornographic material being mailed, the Post Office Department provided me with information indicating that under the pandering law that went into effect in April 1968, 334,928 persons have requested that these mailings be stopped during the first 16 months. The Post Office was able to issue 257,133 orders to that effect based on the complaints. And these are only the complaints. How many people received the pornographic mailings and simply disgarded them? How many were unaware that there was something they could do about these mailings?

Let me quote some other statistics that show the astronomical rise in the peddling of smut. In the fiscal year of 1967, 140,000 complaints were received by

the Post Office Department from patrons who had been mailed pornographic materials. In fiscal 1968 that number rose to 167,000. And in the fiscal year just concluded that number has jumped to over 234,000 complaints.

We must act now to stop this threat to the very roots of the moral fiber of the nation-the developing child. We must attack the source-those vile, perverted individuals who prey on the innocence of our little children. We must take a real step forward in eliminating such vice from the mails. I believe this bill is such a step. It attacks the violator directly by making the act of mailing unsolicited pornography a crime. I strongly urge you to report this bill out of committee and submit it to a vote of the House.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANTE B. FASCELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 9422

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss this most important matter of prohibiting the distribution of obscene literature to minors.

I commend this committee for the concern and fine work it has demonstrated in dealing with this issue. Certainly this is not a partisan matter, but a problem that is common to all citizens, and especially to parents of school-age children. The dissemination of obscene literature to young people through the mail has been of great concern to me for many years. My own efforts as a member of the Congress to halt the flow of obscenity go back to my first term, in the 84th Congress, when I was a member of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee. After our committee made an extensive study of the distribution of obscene and fraudulent materials through the U.S. postal system, Congress passed legislation authorizing the Postmaster General to impound mail directed to a person or firm known to be distributing such literature. I also backed legislation in the 85th Congress authorizing the detention of such mail, both at the point of origin and point of destination. In the next Congress, we strengthened the Post Office Department's powers to detain these indecent and salacious materials by giving authorities adequate time to prepare criminal charges. Still another strong effort to combat smut was made when the "antipandering" bill was passed by the 90th Congress. This allows any postal patron receiving material which he considers objectionable to request that the Post Office order the sender to remove the receiver's name from this mailing list. Failure to comply with such order may result in action in the district court of the United States.

We cannot, and do not intend to violate the freedom of speech clause of the Constitution. But we can prevent the spread of this undesirable, salacious material to our young people.

After much difficulty. the Supreme Court has arrived at a definition of obscenity. The Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), was the land-mark case. In that and subsequent decisions, the test of obscenity was "whether, to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest"; whether the material is presented in a manner as to be "patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or repre. sentation of sexual matters; and the material is utterly without redeeming social value."

The imporant phrase in the Roth decision which must be elucidated is "the average person." Are children under sixteen years of age to be considered "average"? I say No. At such an early age, lewd literature can have a most disastrous effect-corruption of morals, subversion of parental teaching, are but a few of the harmful effects. It is precisely this young group that has been a prime target of the smut-peddlers.

My bill, H.R. 9422 is designed to protect these young people. No attempt has been made to define obscenity. Instead, specific categories of pornography which are considered harmful to minors have been enumerated. The bill proposes to make it unlawful for anyone to use the mail "to sell, offer for sale. deliver or distribute, or provide to a minor" any material of the categories specified therein or to solicit for the sale and distribution thereof. Offenders to this federal statute would be fined not more thna $5000 or imprisoned for not more than five years. or both, for the first violation, and fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for ten years, or both, for subsequent offenses.

In 1968 the Post Office Department received in excess of 165,000 formal complaints from recipients of unsolicited offensive mailings. Furthermore, I have received innumerable letters from constituents protesting the flow of pornographic material and obscene advertisements. Investigation of the staggering number of complaints made by these citizens against unsolicited obscenity has disclosed that most come from parents of school-age children. Indeed, the pattern of unscrupulous publishers and dealers has been known for years; they attempt to "hook" young people on smut at an early age, then continue to pander to their newly aroused interest as they grow to adulthood. The unconscionable effect of this filthy material on the emotional development of our youngsters is ignored by the smut merchants, who often develop mailing lists of children from responses to innocent advertisements for stamps, model airplane kits, and toys. Clearly, we cannot allow these callous pornographers-for-profit to continue their multi-million dollar trade in trash to pollute the minds of our youth. I offer this legislation to provide postal authorities with expanded power to protect schoolage children from this traffic in filth.

In concluding, I urge the committee to carefully consider the proposals brought before it today, and to adopt immediately a strong measure to halt the circulation of this unsolicited, demoralizing filth to our youth.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAMILTON FISH, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK ON H.R. 6755 AND H.R. 11031, OCTOBER 27, 1969

Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this subject.

As you know, I am along with many of my Colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, am also a co-sponsor of President Nixon's proposal to ban from Interstate Commerce material harmful to minors.

The huge number of bills that have been introduced on this subject clearly indicates that this is a large and growing problem causing considerable distress and anger. It is not only we Members of Congress who are receiving complaints on this but also it has become a matter of concern of all public officials. I would like to at this point in the Record submit a copy of the Senate Concurrent Resolution Number 72, adopted by the legislature of New York:

(Document is in subcommittee files.)

It is just one example of the concern about the problem of interstate dissemination of pornographic, obscene, and objectionable material.

Even though States such as New York have excellent, fair and constitutional laws on the book to protect minors, they cannot cope with and combat material that comes into New York from outside their jurisdiction.

To illustrate this type of unsolicited advertising which in many cases borders on hard-core pornography itself, I submit for the Committee's consideration a file my staff has accumulated containing the various types of salacious adver tising. Although I have included only one copy of each of these, I can assure you my constituents have written hundreds of angry letters containing one or more of these mailings. One of my constituents received five different ads. Included in this submission are all five with the envelopes in which they

came.

In further regard to the inability of local law enforcement to enforce the State Law on the books, I would like to submit for the Record, copies of letters I have received from Sheriffs, District Attorneys of Columbia, Dutchess, Schoharie and Ulster Counties and from a County Judge in Greene County all of which are in my Congressional District.

(Documents are in subcommittee files.)

Gentlemen: It is indeed obvious that there is indeed a very serious problem. I am fully aware of the sensitive constitutional problems involved with legislation of this kind. I would respectfully recommend to you the text of my bill, H.R. 6755, which is based almost word for word on the New York Statute upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Ginsberg vs. New York (390 V.S. 629) as the minimal legislation in this field which could be enacted. I urge you to give favorable consideration to legislation that will recog nize the unique status of minors and give relief in this important matter.

STATEMENT OF HON. O. C. FISHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, ON H.R. 5171, OCTOBER 8, 1969

Mr. Chairman, I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 5171, which was drafted by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett). I have examined a statement prepared by Mr. Bennett which explains and supports this bill. I associate myself with that testimony, and I join in urging this committee to take favorable action on this or some similar proposal.

The volume of pornographic material which is being sent through the mails these days is fantastic. Many samples of it are referred to me by constituents. While I recognize the road blocks which have been thrown in the path of efforts to control this traffic in smut, due to some Supreme Court rulings, there seems to be an area that lends itself to effective legislation and H.R. 5171 attempts to fill that vacuum. It is imperative that this Congress act promptly and approve legislation which may have a fair chance of court acceptance. The time for action is now.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the comprehensive statement of my colleague Mr. Bennett, I shall not engage in repetitious comments. We are hopeful that the committee will take early action on this legislation, which would improve chances for final enactment during the current session.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES G. FULTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, OCTOBER 14, 1969

Dear Congressman Kastenmeier: Please enter of record at the Hearings my strong support of anti obscenity bills.

It is my opinion that the right of privacy, as well as the right of family protection of young people and the privacy of the family home, is being wrongfully invaded by persons, firms and corporations engaged in the racket of using obscenity and filth as an easy money scheme.

The power to injure and destroy through unwanted materials is not a guaranteed freedom under our United States Constitution, but so far has been a permissive license to profit by wrong doing, and attacking the privacy of our families with unwanted and undesirable materials which have not been requested in most cases, and under present laws can not be stopped.

Count on my full support of any one of the adequate anti obscenity bills which are now pending before your Subcommittee for action.

I would request that this letter be included as part of your Committee hearings, if this is possible.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD FULTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, ON H.R. 7715 (ANTI-OBSCENITY), OCTOBER 23, 1969

Mr. Chairman: One of the most repulsive experiences I know of is to open a piece of unsolicited mail, delivered to your own home, and discover it to be a lewd and obscene advertisement soliciting the purchase of pornography.

What is much worse is to return home at night and learn from your wife that your young son or daughter has received such mail.

Fortunately, I have not suffered the latter experience, but several persons have complained to me, with justified anger, that it has happened in their home to their children.

It is my hope that this Committee, though I know it is a herculean task, will write legislation that can effectively halt the peddling of this filth in America. Though the courts apparently cannot define what is pornography in any restrictive sense, I believe I can spot it, and I have no doubt that every member of this Committee can also. The problem is how to legislate within the findings of the courts.

I do believe this Committee and the Congress can write legislation designed to keep this material from being pandered to our youth and at the same time meet the test of judicial guidelines.

The pandering of pornography, through the mails and interstate commerce, in recent years has increased at an alarming rate. Much of it is directed directly at our youth.

While I do not wish to establish moral guidelines for the Nation, I do feel that we must do all in our power to keep this material from the hands, vision and minds of young America.

The bill which I am sponsoring and which the Committee is considering today, H.R. 7715, is designed to do just that. The legislation would prohibit the dissemination of books, magazines, movies and other materials in interstate commerce and through the mails which are considered to be objectional for persons under 18 years of age.

It is patterned after a New York State statute which has been held constitutional in Ginsberg v. New York (390 U.S. 629). The court held that the law prohibiting the sale or pandering of pornographic materials to persons under 17 years of age met the requirements of the Constitution. It found that material which might not be considered objectional for adults could be considered so for juveniles.

At this time, we have no effective Federal regulation of or protection against the soliciting of youth for the purchase of pornography. This bill would provide that protection by making it a violation of Federal law to knowingly sell, offer for sale, loan, deliver, distribute, or provide a minor in interstate commerce or through the mails material which is defined as "harmful to minors" under the bill.

Under the commerce clause we regulate or prohibit the dissemination of items to minors because of their potential hazard to physical health and sound body development. Under the commerce clause it would appear that the Congress also has the right to apply this same prohibition to pornographic material which is a potential hazard to the development of sound mental health and attitudes concerning sex in the youth of America.

I believe we should exercise this right and that this bill, H.R. 7715, would be effective. I would like to point out, however, that if the Committee feels stronger and more comprehensive legislation can be written that will meet the court guidelines, then I would certainly be inclined to support it.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM S. GETTYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 6186

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Judiciary Committee, it is my firm conviction that the Congress should prohibit the dissemination to our young people of the grossly obscene and pathologically morbid materials being circulated in our country and that this can be done without violence to our concepts of freedom of expression and without resort to restrictive censorship.

I believe in freedom of speech and press, but I believe equally that the eirenlation among young people of much of the material with which we are concerned goes beyond any limits of decency which the majority of our people can approve. That. I am certain, is the feeling of those I represent.

This measure is aimed at those who make money out of the selling and exhibition to young people of depictions of forms of sexual conduct and sado-masochistic abuse and would permit final determination by the courts in the area where the charges are brought of the question of what is harmful to minors. The Appeals Court and Supreme Court would be without jurisdiction to upset such local determination.

The Bill would provide punishment for those who move in interstate commerce or through the mails matter patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors and utterly without redeeming social importance for minors. The Bill should be enacted.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT N. GIAIMO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT ON H.R. 14203

Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend you and the members of your subcommittee for your determined efforts to protect the youth of this country from the flood of unsolicited, unwanted pornographic material which has descended upon thousands of American homes.

You face a most difficult and vital task, for your actions will help determine