Mr. Chairman, no person should have to tolerate this invasion of his home-this invasion of privacy. I believe that S. 3072, if enacted, will help to protect the privacy of our citizens.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to be heard as the first of your witnesses this morning.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you very much.

Only this, Ed, about the introduction of my bill which is confined more or less to interstate as against the inclusion of intrastate: I believe that under the Constitution we have the authority to regulate both, because it is a system that is integrated and a system that can easily be used both for intrastate and interstate. Sometimes the line of distinction is so fine that there is no question at all about it in my mind that there is no violation of the Constitution.

Senator LONG. We agree with you entirely, Senator.

Senator PASTORE. One other observation: The reason why I did not include intrastate-not because I did not think it is just as vile for a person to use the telephone for these reasons in the District of Columbia as it would be across the border, let's say, to Virginia and Maryland was strictly because I feel that the States ought to assume some of this responsibility.

If we were to preempt the field strictly for the Federal Government, you can imagine what a herculean task and tremendous burden this would place on the Federal Government.

I think that the States ought to assume some of this responsibility, and I think they want to, and I think that they could facilitate the detection and identification of these people making the calls. There is no question in my mind that those making such calls are perverted. They are sadistic. There is no question about that at all.

You do have these people who are sexual perverts and who often use obscene language. They pick out women's names from telephone books deliberately and then call them. They do this, and they vent their spleen on them.

I do not know of anything that is more vicious or should be corrected more than that.

Senator LONG. Thank you, Senator. We agree with you rather generally.

Senator PASTORE. I do not think you and I are very far apart. Senator LONG. I think we are very close together on it. you very much.

Thank

Senator PASTORE. I have here a compilation of all of the abusive calls received by the Bell System in the month of March, State by State, showing the number of abusive calls, number of accounts, statutes, and complaints; a list of States in which there are statutes relating to the use of profane or obscene language over the telephone; a list of States in which there are no statutes; and a compilation showing the State statutes relating to the use of obscene or indecent language over the telephone or making of threatening or annoying calls, and I am going to ask that this be inserted in the record at this point. (The document referred to follows:)

64-953 0-66— 3

LIST OF STATES IN WHICH THERE ARE STATUTES RELATING TO THE USE OF PROFANE OR OBSCENE LANGUAGE OVER THE TELEPHONE AND THE MAKING OF THREATENING OR ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALLS

LIST OF STATES IN WHICH THERE ARE NO STATUTES RELATING TO THE USE OF PROFANE OR OBSCENE LANGUAGE OVER THE TELEPHONE AND THE MAKING OF THREATENING OR ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALLS

Statutes relating to the use of obscene or indecent language over telephone or making of threatening or annoying calls

1 Colorado is the only State to also prohibit extortion of money or other thing of value from any person or family by means of the telephone.

2 Prosecution has been under the disorderly conduct provisions of the District of Columbia Code; however, H.R. 10497, which passed House, now pending in U.S. Senate, will cover.

3 Public service commission may adopt rules authorizing telephone employees to cooperate with police Telephone company may be subpenaed to supply information on above calls. Virginia also has a provision prohibiting malicious calls giving false information about third persons.

Senator PASTORE. I quite agree with Mr. Long, there are a lot of people who do not want to carry this any further, people who are harassed and tormented with these calls but feel that there is no need of giving the publicity so they do not report it.

I do not think we ought to secure any limitation from the fact that these are the reported calls and that is it. It goes beyond that. There is no question at all about it.

I have a statement from my colleague, Senator Pell, which will be made part of the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT BY SENATOR CLAIBORNE PELL IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having this opportunity to register my support for the legislation before your subcommittee, particularly your own bill, S. 2825, providing penalties of up to $1,000 or 1 year in prison, or both, for making obscene or harassing telephone calls in interstate or foreign commerce.

I have a personal interest in this legislation, and my personal interest supports my conviction that such legislation would be sound public policy. Members of my own family have been victimized and bothered by such calls, and I know at first hand how very distressing it can be to have the privacy and security of one's home violated in such an abusive and frightening way.

It seems to me that the penalties proposed by this bill are thoroughly warranted and should serve to deter those who may be tempted to commit such malicious mischief. It is high time that we had effective national laws to curb such practices, and I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the lead in introducing this legislation and holding these hearings.

Senator PASTORE. Next we have Mr. Hyde, representing the Federal Communications Commission. We will now hear from him.

STATEMENT OF ROSEL H. HYDE, ACTING CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY GELLER, GENERAL COUNSEL, BERNARD STRASSBURG, DANIEL OHLBAUM, AND KELLEY GRIFFITH

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am Rosel H. Hyde, Acting Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. I appear here today in response to the committee's invitation to discuss S. 2825 and S. 3072. These bills would both amend the Communications Act of 1934 to deal with the problem of the misuse of telephone facilities to make abusive, obscene, and harassing calls.

S. 3072, which is not limited to interstate telephone calls, would prohibit the threat of personal injury and the making of repeated telephone communications with intent to harass or torment another person. It provides for a fine or not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.

S. 2825 would apply only to telephone communications in interstate or foreign commerce, and would prohibit three classes of telephone communications: obscene calls; anonymous calls made in a manner reasonably to be expected "to annoy, abuse, torment, threaten, harass, or embarrass" other persons; and repeated calls made with the same intent, whether anonymous or not.

S. 2825 would also prohibit anyone from knowingly permitting a telephone under his control to be so used. It provides for a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.

S. 2825 appears to be modeled closely upon H.R. 10497, which provides criminal penalties for certain telephone calls made in the District of Columbia. The latter bill passed the House of Representatives on October 11, 1965, but has not been adopted, by the Senate. The Federal Communications Commission is fully in accord with the effort which these two bills constitute to deal more effectively with the problem of obscene and harassing telephone calls. Such calls have apparently been increasing in number. The telephone, unfortunately, provides a ready cloak of anonymity to the sort of person who can somehow derive satisfaction or pleasure from frightening other people. This cloak has been availed of by such people in various