of "hard-core" pornography to a family with children under 16 a Federal offense, punishable by fine and imprisonment.

I have received many complaints from people in my District who have received pornography through the mails. Last year the Post Office Department received over 165,000 formal complaints from people who had received such materials through the mails, and it is my guess that the number of those receiving such material is much larger than the list of formal complaints would suggest. The fact that such obscene mailings are being received by those who do not want such smut indicates that our laws dealing with the control of pornography are not doing the job.

The Record is full of statements about pornography and our attempts to combat it. We are all against it; there are laws on the books against it; and there have been many court cases dealing with it. But I frankly think that these efforts have been somewhat thwarted by the decisions of the Supreme Court in this area. I certainly realize the difficulty in determining what is obscene and the danger of infringing on our Constitutional freedoms. It is clear, however, that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that "hard-core" pornography is not protected by the Constitution and certainly parents have the right to protect their children from such pornography. I believe, therefore, that this legislation certainly satisfies the test of Constitutionality.

My interest is in finding an effective curb against the dissemination of pornography, especially to children, and I believe my proposed legislation would accomplish this purpose. I therefore urge that you report this legislation favorably.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN Kuykendall, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE ON H.R. 10969 AND H.R. 12850, OCTOBER 17, 1969

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you in support of the proposed legislation to strengthen the laws governing the shipment and mailing of obscene literature. Although I have introduced two bills on this subject, H.R. 10969 and H.R. 12850, my purpose in appearing before you today is to urge that you approve the strongest possible measure to help combat the most vicious attack on our nation's moral structure the pandering to the base appetites of some of our weaker members of society.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have given the filth peddlers a free hand in poisoning the minds of our young men and women, even our children down to the elementary school level. The increase in the amount of such material being sent through the mails and shipped in interstate commerce is beyond the imagination. It seems that the City of Memphis, which is in my Congressional District, has been singled out by these merchants of perversion as a special target. Not a single home in our city is safe from the insidious undermining of all that is decent in our society.

A book-store which openly flaunts in its windows and on its shelves the worst kind of material dealing with sex and perversion enjoys almost complete freedom because police efforts to close it up are stymied by court action based on Supreme Court decisions which gave license to the development of such operations. The decent, law-abiding citizens of Memphis, along with parents, educators, clergymen, health officials everywhere are demanding that Congress take all action necessary to enable local officials to crack down on these spoilers of the minds of our young.

There is no need for me to go into detail on the kind of trash that is befouling our commerce. I am sure every member of this Committee as well as all the members of Congress have received samples of it as I have. Suffice it to say our files are bulging with it, sent to us by an angry people who are growing impatient with the failure of Congress to act. That Congress is sufficiently aroused to the danger that exists in the free distribution of such perverted material and the more-or-less protection afforded the purveyors of it, is attested to by the number of bills your Committee is now considering. I hope you can expedite action and produce for approval by the entire Congress a measure to protect our whole society against the few greedy solicitors who would destroy every moral fabric to add to their illicit horde.

I assure you, Mr. Chairman and members of this great Committee, that you will earn the eternal gratitude of the people of Memphis whom it is my privilege to represent in Congress and the people of America as well.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALTON LENNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Re H.R. 10679 and H.R. 11593, October 22, 1969

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you during your consideration of proposed legislation dealing with the dissemination of pornography and obscene materials. The tremendous increase during the last few years in mass mailing of offensive sexually-oriented material is of utmost concern to me and to the great majority of my constituents and demands the immediate attention of Congress.

As you know, on July 8, 1969, Postmaster General Blount, in a statement before the Postal Operations Subcommittee of the House Government Operations Committee, said: "Recently, our (Post Office Department) major concern has been with the indiscriminate mass mailing of offensive, sexually-oriented advertisements."

Even more disturbing, and I am sure you will agree, is the fact that 75% of this smut mail circulated in the United States eventually falls into the hands of young boys and girls under eighteen years of age, whose minds and emotions are not yet fully developed.

Presently, there is only one law designed to prevent the flow of unsolicited smut material. It is, as you gentlemen know, Public Law 90-206, approved December 16, 1967. Unfortunately, action under this law is remedial and not preventive and leaves to the addressee only the determination of whether the material he received is erotically arousing or sexually provocative. If the individual considers it so, he may return it to the Postmaster General with the request that the sender remove his name from the mailing list. Up to October 1, 1969, over 300,000 have made such a request of the Postmaster General.

I believe you gentlemen will agree that the individual should not have received the material in the first place, nor should he be burdened to make the request of the Postmaster General. While this addressee would be protected in the future. it is obvious that the peddlers will double their efforts to send smut materials out to others.

Recognzing that some other approach had to be taken to correct this serious problem, I have done considerable research and study on the question. I introduced H.R. 10679 and H.R.11593, both pending in this committee. I also introduced H.R. 11594, which is pending in the Post Office and Civil Service Committee. It is my considered judgment that these bills will meet the constitutional test and, if implemented by the law enforcement departments of our Government, will solve this now shocking problem regarding the dissemination of obscene materials. My bill, H.R. 10679, would prohibit the dissemination through interstate commerce, including the mails, or material harmful to a person under the age of eighteen, and also restrict the exhibition of movies or other presentations harmful to minors. This problem has become so serious that in my opinion interstate commerce and the United States mails must be denied the purveyors of prurient and sex-oriented filth.

H.R. 11593 would prohibit the use of interstate commerce and the United States mails for the transportation of salacious advertising. The subject of pornography in the United States mails has aroused the serious concern of Members of Congress, who have introduced over two hundred bills to deal with the problem. The purpose of the legislation I have introduced is to protect the rights of our citizens who have been receiving unsolicited pornographic, obscene and salacious material through the mail. I will appreciate your favorable consideration and action to correct this alarming problem.

STATEMENT OF HON. GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON H.R. 6186, OCTOBER 17, 1969

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate this opportunity to express my support of legislation which I co-sponsored to prohibit the dissemination through interstate commerce or the mails of materials harmful to persons under the age of 18 years, and to restrict the exhibition of movies or other presentations harmful to such persons.

At no time in our nation's history have our American homes been subjected to such a massive volume of sex-oriented mail. Most of it is unsolicited, unwanted.

and deeply offensive to those who receive it. Every week I receive letters from angry mothers and fathers who resent the unwanted intrusions this salacious mail makes into their homes. Parents are asking for federal assistance to protect their children from exposure to these erotic publications.

Fornography has become a multimillion dollar operation. Smut peddlers prey upon inexperienced and impressionable young people at the very time of their character formation, subverting the principles of morality that decent parents are trying to instill in their children. The U.S. mails should not be freely available to those who would profit from pandering to the natural curiosity of the young. Many publications dealing with sex are protected under the broad umbrella of the First Amendment prohibition against any law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Within the constitutional restrictions, legislation is needed to withhold from pornography profiteers the use of the U.S. mails to purvey obscenity and perversion within the privacy of the home.

To guarantee the right of parents to protect their children from the flood of sex-oriented materials moving through the mails, I joined with my colleagues in co-sponsoring H.R. 6186 to prohibit the use of interstate facilities, including the mails. for the transportation of harmful matter to minors.

Our federal statutes do not set forth the legal criteria for establishing the obscene character of material. Rather, the obscenity legal criteria for what constitutes obscene material is spelled out by the Supreme Court in various decisions, which is called, for convenience, the "Roth test." In the belief that material which might not be legally obscene for adults might nevertheless have harmful effects on children exposed to it, some states, such as New York, have enacted laws to protect their youth from such obscene and objectionable materials. The United States Supreme Court has recognized, in repeated decisions, the unique status of minors and has upheld the New York statute. Building on this judicial precedent, the legislation which I co-sponsored, H.R. 6186, is patterned after the New York statute in order to provide a constitutionally sound measure to provide federal protection for the young.

To accomplish the protection of our homes and children, H.R. 6186 would add a new section to be numbered "section 1466" to Title 18 of the United States Code and make it a federal crime, punishable by stiff fine and imprisonment, to knowingly sell, or otherwise make available, to minors under 18 years of age certain objectionable textual material and certain objectionable motion pictures. I sincerely believe that federal legislation is needed today to guard the rights of our citizens, especially our children under 18, who are receiving unsolicited pornographic mail. President Nixon, Postmaster General Blount, the almost 200 Members of Congress who are supporting anti-smut legislation, and vast numbers of American parents all have urged that action be taken to curb the quantity and character of obscene material that is being disseminated throughout our Nation.

The legislation before the Committee will, I believe, rightly return to parents the ability to protect their children from obscenity by strengthening the constitutional restrictions on smut peddlers who are guided solely by the enormous profits such material can bring. To sellers of smut, the use of the mails and the facilities of interstate commerce are essential to their business. If the mails and facilities of interstate commerce are closed to them, they no longer will be able to distribute enough material to make their operations profitable. It is my hope that the Committee will favorably report this legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. MCCLURE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO, OCTOBER 20, 1969

It is a pleasure to submit this statement to the Committee on the Judiciary in behalf of legislation to curb the dissemination of pornography. The mere fact that these hearings are being held give me great hope that this Committee, in its wisdom, will find an appropriate response to a deplorable situation in the country today.

As you undoubtedly know, the Subcommittee on Postal Operations, of which I am a member, is also conducting hearings on this subject. Surely between the two committees, an acceptable solution can be found which will be upheld by the Courts and undo the great harm perpetrated by some of their recent decisions.

Because of my own work on the Subcommittee, I realize the many-faceted problems of writing legislation in this field. In order to write an effective law concerning pornography, your committee must determine just what falls in this category. Webster defines pornography as "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement. He further defines obscenity as disgusting to the senses, abhorrent to morality or virtue, or designed to incite lust or depravity." If Webster lacks exactness, he may find comfort in the dubious honor of standing next to a Supreme Court Justice who has so much difficulty with the definition that he refuses to try to define this word. Mr. Justice Black avoids the problem by saying that obscenity does not exist at all. Perhaps the Justice's refusal to look at alleged obscene material, which was the very essence of the litigation before him, might have contributed to his confusion by making him question that premise.

But my object in appearing here today is not to castigate those who compounded the problem in the past. Rather, it is to look to the future with renewed confidence that Congress is determined to find acceptable alternatives and to hope that the anticipated changes in the makeup of the Court will find this legislation constitutionally acceptable.

I think any lawmaker attempting to control obscenity should take note of the various Justices' opinions on obscenity as outlined in Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767. In this case the court notes the opinions as follows: (1) the BlackDouglas "no-power-at-all-to-censor" view; (2) the Stewart "I-know-it-when-Isee-it" view; (3) the multi-factored "prurient-interest, affront-community-standards, no-redeeming-social-value" subscribed to by Brennan, Fortas and the Chief Justice, and (4) the same test minus the "redeeming-social-value" preferred by White. Personally, I will not add to the semantic thicket now by trying to define what is obscene and what is not. However, I am sure that a great harm is being perpetrated upon my constituents in Idaho and, likewise, all over the nation. When I receive letters from mothers with minor children so upset with receiving unsolicited material that they are on the verge of tears, I feel that this lawmaking body must respond and the response must be quick and thorough. After analyzing the voluminous testimony this committee is receiving on the control of obscenity, I feel the basic decision to be made will be whether to recognize an individual's right to be free from activities which offend his sense of personal dignity or to subvert this right to the commercial peddler of what I consider to be anti-social material, with its attendant damage to the social fabric.

My name appears as co-sponsor on two of the bills pending before you—H.R. 9057 and H.R. 14100. I do not pretend that either of these is the complete answer to the problem. But I do feel that each offers a possible partial solution and should be given every consideration by this panel. I assure you that when this matter finally comes up on the House floor, I will support any bill which has as its purpose the right of an individual to be free from unwanted and unsolicited material that is repugnant to his sensibilities. In taking this position, I want further to assure you that I am backed by virtually every citizen in my State.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN B. MCKNEALLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 7484, OCTOBER 3, 1969

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I want to thank you for affording me this opportunity to testify in support of legislation designed to prohibit the mailing of obscene matter to minors.

The whole traffic in pornographic material is distasteful, but when I see the material being mailed today, unsolicited, to minors and to homes in which minors reside, I am made sick in my stomach. That is why I introduced legislation early this year to prohibit this frightful traffic. It must be stopped! If one gives any credence to the recent report of the President's Commission on Violence regarding the adverse effect upon children of television programs, especially Satur day morning cartoons, which depict violence, it is not unreasonable to assume that pornographic material in the hands of these same minors has an effect, deleterious to their moral and personality development. As a matter of fact, it is crazy to think that it does not affect their development.

My bill, H.R. 7484, would protect children under sixteen years of ago by adding a new Section 1466 to Title 18 of the United States Code, to make it a Federal

crime to knowingly use the mails to sell, offer for sale, deliver, distribute or provide a minor under sixteen years of age (a) any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of a human body which depicts nudity, sexual conduct, or sado-masochistic abuse in a manner designed to primarily appeal to the viewer's prurient interest; or (b) any book, magazine, or other printed matter, however reproduced, or sound recording which depicts nudity, sexual conduct, or sadomasochistic abuse or which contains explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct, or sado-masochistic abuse and which is designed to appeal to the listener's or reader's prurient interest.

Violations of these provisions will be subject to a maximum fine of $5,000 and/or imprisonment of not more than five years for the first offense. Subsequent convictions for such offense would carry a maximum fine of $10,000 and/or imprisonment of not more than ten years. The bill also provides for the same penalties for anyone who knowingly uses the mails to make an unsolicited sale, offer to sell, delivery, or distribution of the above material to an adult who has a child under sixteen living with him.

Over the years, Congress and the states have enacted laws designed to curtail and prevent the traffic in obscenity only to have most of them struck down by the Judiciary, mainly on constitutional grounds. It has been a trial and error process, and we must continue our effort to find a solution.

The recent progress report of the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography published in July of this year contained the following observation: "The Legal Panel, noting Congress' directive that recommended action should not in any way interfere with constitutional rights, reviewed recent case law regarding obscenity and pornography for guidelines concerning permissible legislative action. Apart from general obscenity statutes, constitutional precedents suggest three primary directions for effective legislative action to control erotic materials: 1) statutes with specific concern for juveniles.

Since there is not, at present, a Federal law specifically designed to protect children from obscene matter in the mails, my bill takes the first direction which the President's Commission indicates is needed and is feasible.

I am confident that its terms are specifically defined so that it will withstand any attack as to vagueness. Further, I am also confident that its definition of what is obscene, insofar as minor children are concerned, will also withstand any scrutiny by the courts because it is patterned after a New York State criminal obscenity statute designed to protect minors which was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Ginsberg vs. State of New York, decided April 22, 1968.

Even former Chief Justice Earl Warren, whose Court has been criticized for its decisions in this field, stated in a radio interview, which was reprinted in the New York Times of June 27, 1969, that the Court has specifically said that "obscenity is not protected under the Free Speech Laws of the Constitution. The only question involved is what is obscenity. . . ."

I believe that my bill has defined obscenity as it relates to minors in such a fashion that it would be upheld by any court in the land. I urge you to act favorably on this legislation.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB MATHIAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OCTOBER 1, 1969

Mr. Chairman, I want to add my support to this subcommittee's effort to adopt legislation that will effectively deal with the problem of obscene advertisements and the interstate traffic of pornographic materials.

The youth of our Nation are daily being subjected to material that is clearly obscene. This unsolicited material, which is distributed through the mails, inflames the minds and imagination of our young people in an extremely objectionable and distasteful manner.

It is estimated that nearly 100 million pieces of obscene material is sent through the mails each year, for a profit estimated to be about $500 million. The greatest majority of it is directed at the young. Pornographers pay high prices for the names and addresses of young people below the age of 18. They