,

C 13/2- bi

9D-6 ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

GOVERNMEN1'

StorageKSU LIBRARIES 

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETIETH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 375

A BILL TO AMEND THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 WITH

RESPECT TO OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN

INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE

FEBRUARY 16, 1967

Serial 90-6

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

76-529 WASHINGTON : 1967

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY LIBlicitot:)
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, Chairman

JOHN 0. PASTORE, Rhode Island

A. S. MIKE MONRONEY, Oklahoma

FRANK J. LAUSCHE, Ohio

E. L. BARTLETT, Alaska

VANCE HARTKE, Indiana

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

DANIEL B. BREWSTER, Maryland

RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

FREDERICK J. LORDAN, Staff Director

JAMES J. BARRY, Assistant Staff Director

MICHAEL PERTSCHUK, General Counsel

RALPH W. HORTON, Assistant General Counsel

NICHOLAS ZAPPLE, Communications Counsel

NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire

THRUSTON B. MORTON, Kentucky

HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania

WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont

JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas

ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS

JOHN 0. PASTORE, Rhode Island, Chairman

A. S. MIKE MONRONEY, Oklahoma

VANCE HARTKE, Indiana

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan

RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

II

HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania

JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas

ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan

•
A

CONTENTS

Page

Text of S. 375 

Statement of—

Hon. Lionel Van Deerlin, a U.S. Representative from the State of

California. 8

Berg, Brig. Gen. William W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

for Military Personnel Policy, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C 14

Hyde, Hon. Rosel H., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.0 2,10

Kertz, Hubert, vice president, American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

195 Broadway, New York, N.Y 15

Mott, Adm. William C,. executive vice president, -U.S. Independent

Telephone Association, 438 Pennsylvania Building, 425 13th Street,

NW., Washington, D.0 19

Rodgers, Paul, general counsel, National Association of Railroad &

Utilities Commissioners, 3327 Interstate Commerce Building,

Washington, D.0 23

Letters submitted—

Hon. Edward V. Long, Missouri, dated February 15, 1967, with

attached statement 6

Herald E. Stringer, director, The American Legion, dated February 23,

1967, with attached statement 25

Statements and documents submitted—

Hon. Edward V. Long, U.S. Senate 6

Hon. Cornelius E. Gallagher

'

U.S. House of Representatives 6

Hon. Lionel Van Deerlin, U.S. House of Representatives 8

Hon. Rosel H. Hyde, Federal Communications Commission 10

Brig. Gen. William W. Berg, Department of Defense 14

Hubert Kertz, American Telephone & Telegraph Co 15

Adm. William C. Mott, U.S. Independent Telephone Association_ __ _ 19

Paul Rodgers, National Association of Railroad & Utilities Commissioners 23

James R. Wilson Jr., director, National Security Division, the American Legion, 1608 "K" Street NW., Washington, D.0 25

Bell Telephone System summary of abusive calling, November 1966.. 13

Bell Telephone System summary of abusive calling, December 1966_ _ 13

Agency comments—

Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia 1

Federal Communications Commission 3, 10

Comptroller General of the United States 3

Index of organizations and Government agencies—

American Legion The 25

American Telephone & Telegraph Co 15

Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia 1

Comptroller General of the United States 3

Department of Defense 14

Federal Comtnunications Commission 3, 11

National Association of Railroad & Utilities Commissioners 23

U.S. Independent Telephone Association 19
N
ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1967

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

COMMUNICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m. in room 5110, New Senate Office

Building, Hon. John 0. Pastore (chairman of the subcommittee)

presiding.

(The bill and agency comments follow:)

[S. 375, 90th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend therommunications Act of 1934 with respect to obscene or harassing telephone calls

in interstate or foreign commerce

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That title II of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new

section:

"SEc. 223. OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.—Whoever by means of

telephone communication in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign

commerce—

"(a) makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal which is

obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent; or

"(b) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without

disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass

any person at the called number; or

"(c) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously

to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

"(d) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues,

solely to harass any person at the called number; or

Whoever knowingly permits any telephone under his control to be used for any

purpose prohibited by this section—

"Shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months,

or both."

FEBRUARY 15, 1967.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia

have for report S. 375, 90th Congress, a bill to amend the Communications Act

of 1934 with respect to obscene and harassing telephone calls in interstate and

foreign commerce.

The bill amends existing law by adding to Title II of the Communications

Act of 1934, immediately following section 222 (47 U.S.C.A., sec. 222), a new

section 223 making it an offense to make a telephone call in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign commerce (1) for the purpose of making any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,

or indecent; (2) without disclosure of identity and with intent to annoy, abuse,

threaten, or harass any person at the called number; (3) for the purpose of making or causing the telephone of another to ring repeatedly or continuously, with

intent to harass any person at the called number; or (4) for the purpose of making repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues, solely to harass

Staff counsel assigned to this hearing: Nicholas Zapple.

1
ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

• any person at the called number. Any person engaging in any of the proscribed

activites, or knowlingly permitting any telephone under his control to be used

for any of the proscribed activities, would, upon conviction, be fined not more

than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months. or both.

The existing District of Columbia disorderly conduct statute (D.C. Code, sec.

22-1121) provides in pertinent part that whoever, with intent to provoke a

breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may

be occasioned thereby, acts in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with,

obstruct, or be offensive to others, shall be fined not more than $250 or be

imprisoned not more than 90 days, or both. This provision of the disorderly

conduct statute on occasion has been used to prosecute persons who by using a

telephone annoy or harass other persons with anonymous, repeated, or obscene

and lewd calls. The Commissioners are informed, however, that as a practical

matter it has been very difficult for the prosecution to prove that such calls, by

such means, constitute a violation of the disorderly conduct statute.

Maryland and Virginia have statutes which prohibit the type of conduct made

unlawful by the bill. Both statutes provide for a fine of not more than $500 or

imprisonment up to twelve months, or both. See Article 27, §555A, Annotated

Code of Maryland (1964) ; §18.1-9 and 238, Code of Virginia (1950) ; and §18.1-

238, Code of Virginia (1964 Supp.).

The Commissioners believe the bill is needed for the purpose of providing

an effective means of dealing with the kind of activity prohibited by it. However, they suggest that the bill might be more effective were it amended to provide

that an offender may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the telephone call

was made, or in the jurisdiction in which it was received. Further, they believe

provision should be made for requiring a pretrial mental examination of a person

making a call of the kind prohibited by the bill. Accordingly, they suggest the

insertion of the subsection designation "(a)" immediately before the first word

of the text of the proposed new section 223, the striking of the quotation marks

at the end of line 17 on page 2, and the addition of the following subsections

"(b)" and "(c)":

"(b) A violation of this section shall be deemed to have occurred at either

the place at which the telephone call was made or the place at which the

telephone call was received.

"(c) The court may in its discretion order any person arrested, indicted,

or otherwise charged with violating this section to undergo a pretrial mental

examination, at a mental hospital designated by the court. All costs of such

examination shall be paid by the Government."

The Commissioners urge enactment of the bill, preferably with the amendments

they have recommended.

The Commissioners have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from

the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the

submission of this report to the Congress.

Sincerely yours,

WALTER N. TOBRINER,

President, Board of Commissioners, D.C.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., February 15, 1967.

The Honorable WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of January 23, 1967,

seeking the Commission's comments on S. 375, a bill to amend the Communications

Act of 1934 with respect to obscene or harassing telephone calls in interstate or

foreign commerce.

On July 27, 1966, the Commission adopted comments on S. 2825, 89th Congress,

which, as it passed the Senate on June 29, 1966, is identical to S. 375. It is

requested that these comments, copies of which are enclosed, be accepted as the

Commission's comments on S. 375.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that while there is no objection to the

presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program,

it believes that the comments and recommendations made by the Department

of Justice on S. 2825, 89th Congress, merit careful consideration by your

Committee.

Sincerely yours,

ROSEL H. HYDE, Chairman.
ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

COMMENTS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ON S. 2825, A BILL

To AMEND THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 WITH RESPECT TO OBSCENE OR

HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE

S. 2825 would add a new section 223 to the Communications Act of 1934, to prohibit, in substance, the making of obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent

telephone calls or those intended to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass, either in interstate or foreign commerce or within the District of Columbia.

Obscene and harassing telephone calls have become a matter of serious concern,

for the dimensions of the problem are already large and are apparently growing.

While the Bell Telephone System, which provides more than 80 percent of the

Nation's telephones, has only recently begun to compile statistics concerning

the number of calls as to which it receives complaints, it estimates it receives

approximately 375,000 complaints a year concerning abusive telephone calls that

threaten or harass the recipients. Figures provided the Commission by the Bell

System show almost 43,000 abusive calls in April of this year, and about 46,000

in May.

S. 2825 would deal not only with obscene calls, but also the anonymous call made

with intent to harass, and repeated calls made solely for the same purpose. The

bill thus covers certain types of anonymous calls which have been of increasing

concern. The telephone may ring at any hour of the day or night, to produce only

a dead line when answered. Sometimes the caller will merely breathe heavily

and then hang up. Sometimes he will utter obscenities. Recently a new and

most offensive form of harassment has been devised. Families of servicemen are

called and given false reports of death or injury, or even

'

hard as it is to believe,

are gloatingly reminded of the death of a son or husband in the service. S. 2825

reaches all of these vicious practices.

Some remedies do exist at the present time. Thirty-eight States have statutes

generally prohibiting the making of various types of obscene, harassing, or

annoying telephone calls. These laws, many of which are of recent origin, appear

to be helping to check intrastate abusive calling. In addition, telephone company

tariffs prohibit obscene language over the telephone or the use of telephone

service in such a manner as to harass or frighten others.

The Bell Telephone System has developed improved equipment to determine

the source of anonymous abusive calls, and has issued instructions to operating

companies for close cooperation with subscribers who complain of obscene or

harassing telephone calls. It is to be hoped that telephone company publicity

recently given to the problem and the manner in which they will serve customers

who receive such calls will have a beneficial effect.

However, no Federal law deals with any part of the problem, except for 18

U.S.C. 875(c), which prohibits interstate communications containing a threat of

personal injury. S. 2825 would apply to all interstate calls and those calls made

within the District of Columbia. Its enactment would facilitate prosecutions

for interstate calls by permitting prosecution where it may be convenient for the

witnesses, since section 3237 of Title 18, U.S. Code, permits prosecution of

offenses in any district in which the offense is begun, is continued, or is completed.

While enforcement of a federal criminal statute dealing with obscene and

harassing calls would appropriately be the responsibility of the Department of

Justice, the Commission is fully in accord with the effort to deal with this problem

which is embodied in S. 2825, and we support its enactment.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, D.C., February 16, 1967.

The Honorable WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,

U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: By letter of January 20, 1967, you requested our

comments on S. 375, entitled: "A BILL To amend the Communications Act of

1934 with respect to obscene or harassing telephone calls in interstate or foreign

commerce."

We have no special information as to the desirability of this measure and,

therefore, make no comments regarding its merits.

Sincerely yours,

FRANK H. WEITZEL,

Assistant Comptroller General of the United States.
•

4 ABTJSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

Senator PASTORE. The hour of 10 having been reached, I will call

this hearing to order.

This is a hearing on S. 375, a bill that would make it a Federal

offense to make certain obscene or harassing telephone calls in interstate or foreign commerce or within the District of Columbia.

It will be recalled that, in the last Congress, the Subcommittee on

Communications received a number of complaints about the growing

practice of using the telephone for abusive and obscene purposes. I

requested the Federal Communications Commission to check out this

subject matter. In its report to me the Commission indicated that

the Bell System received approximately 375,000 complaints a year

concerning abusive telephone calls that threaten or harass the recipient. It was also revealed that only 38 States had statutes making

it a crime to make such calls. Most of the statutes could be classified

in the misdemeanor category.

Above the fact that there were 12 States without statutes on this

subject was the disclosure that there was no Federal statute covering

threatening, harassing, or abusive telephone calls.

The significance of the interstate nature of the problem becomes

more obvious when one turns to a metropolitan area like Washington, D.C., which has Virginia and Maryland on its borders. This, of

course, is true of many areas throughout the United States. In the

District of Columbia it is simple to dial from one area to another area

with direct dialing a way of operation in telephone communications.

A call from one area to another is a mere, simple, dialing maneuver.

Under such circumstances a jurisdictional question immediately

arises.

In order to close this interstate gap, I introduced a bill, S. 2825, in

the 89th Congress. Hearings were held, the bill reported favorably

and passed the Senate on June 29, 1966. It was then referred to the

House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee where, because

of the press of business and the lateness of the session, action was not

taken.

I want to say at this juncture that I personally talked with the

chairman of the committee, Mr. Staggers, who assured me that, if it

were reintroduced in this session of the Congress, he would give it

special attention.

During the hearings conducted last year by the subcommittee, the

Chairman of the FCC, Rosel H. Hyde, supported the legislation.

Brig. Gen. William W. Berg, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

for Military Personnel Policy, presented the views of the Department

of Defense. His testimony showed that a spot check of nine military

bases in the United States turned up approximately 500 reported

cases involving the general problem of obscene or harassing telephone

calls during the past year at these nine bases of which some 87 incidents

involved harassment to some 50 military families in connection with

service in Vietnam. He contended that legislation was necessary in

order to afford a sense of protection to the members of our Armed

Forces and their families from these vicious and despicable acts.

General Berg strongly urged the enactment of the legislation.

Mr. Hubert Kertz, operating vice president of American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

'

also appeared on behalf of the Bell System's

operating companies. Mr. Kertz gave the committee helpful testimony as to the techniques used by the telephone companies so as
ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS 5

to identify the telephone line from which the abusive telephone calls

originated.

He revealed that certain techniques were being used that he did

not want to disclose publicly lest the information would make it

easier for annoyance callers to avoid detection.

Generally, there are three basic detection services. One is a tone

set, a box equipped with an on-and-off switch and connected by a

wire to the annoyed customer's telephone. When a crank call is

received, the customer flips the switch which places a 20,000-cycle

tone on the circuit and also activates an alarm in the central office,

alerting a switchman on duty to start tracing the call. This tone

cannot be heard by either party to the telephone call.

Another device is a pen register attached to the line of a prime

suspect in a crank-call case. This instrument records number called

and the time of the call.

A third device acts as a computer in the central office and puts the

calling number, called number, date, and time on a punchcard.

He indicated that in the month of March 1966 the telephone

company had received 46,000 complaints. In fact, it was pointed

out that crank calls had become so epidemic and evil that special

annoyance call bureaus have been set up in various cities by the Bell

System offices to help shield the victims.

A recent check reveals that total complaints of abusive calls in the

Bell Systems reached a high in August 1966 of 68,000. In October it

was 56,000, and a similar level was reached in November 1966. This

indicates that the problem is still with us.

Mr. Kertz showed that existing State and local criminal legislation

was of great assistance to the telephone companies but believed that

Federal legislation was necessary to close the interstate gap. And

above all, Federal legislation would have a deterring effect on potential

offenders.

Adm. William C. Mott, executive vice president of the U.S. Independent Telephone Association, a trade association composed of over

1,000 telephone companies, strongly supported the legislation.

He stated that a Federal statute prohibiting obscene or harassing

telephone calls in interstate commerce would have a deterring effect

on the making of such calls and might further set an example for those

States not having a statute or whose statutes might need a revision.

Mr. Paul Rodgers, general counsel of the National Association of

Railroad and Utilities Commissioners, expressed the view that State

legislation deals adequately with intrastate threatening and harassing

telephone calls and supported S. 2825 to fill the interstate gap.

S. 375, which is the subject of today's hearings, is the same as the

bill reported by this committee and passed by the Senate last year.

I note from our witness list that each of the men that I have

mentioned above will testify, and I hope they will bring our records

up to date as to what has happened in their respective areas with

reference to obscene and harassing telephone calls. It is my intention

after this hearing is completed to press for early enactment of this

legislation.

We are honored to have with us today Congressman Lionel Van

Deerlin, of California. He is welcome to come forward and testify.

76-529-67-2
6 ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

Before hearing the Congressman, we have a statement here from

Senator Edward B. Long of Missouri, which I ask to be placed in the

record.

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

February 15, 1967.

Hon. JOHN 0. PASTORE,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR JOHN: Regret that it will be impossible for me to appear before your sub- committee February 16 to testify in support of S. 375. Would appreciate, however, your having the attached statement made a part of the hearing record.

You may be assured of my desire to be of all possible assistance in securing the

enactment of this much needed legislation.

Kind personal regards.

Sincerely,

EDWARD V. LONG,

U.S. Senator.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD V. LONG OF MISSOURI

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to express my support for S. 375, legislation which you introduced on January 17 which would amend the Communi- cations Act of 1934 with respect to obscene or harassing telephone calls in interstate or foreign commerce.

I was pleased to appear before your subcommittee last May 11 in support of a

bill I offered in the 89th Congress, S. 3072, with very similar objectives. While

I have not reintroduced this legislation, it is not because I feel that the problem of telephone harassment has been reduced. Rather, it is because I believe S. 375 which is basically the same bill approved by the subcommittee and passed by the Senate last year, offers a responsible solution to the problem.

Complaints similar to those which led me to introduce my bill last year have continued to reach my office on a regular basis. I hope that it will be possible

to secure enactment of this measure without delay.

For many years, it was very difficult, if not impossible, to identify persons harassing others through telephone calls. Now, however, communications tech- nology has advanced to such a degree that I am sure this difficulty can be overcome.

All but about a dozen states have some statutes relating to the misuse of the telephone. I hope that these states will take steps to effectively enforce these laws and that states which have no statutes will take prompt action to provide this protection.

Without a statute against interstate harassment, however, the public will

never be assured of adequate security. The Metropolitan Washington area, which leads the Nation in obscene phone calls, demonstrates the need for a Federal law. While both Virginia and Maryland have statutes relative to these abuses, there is no effective relief available for calls made across the borders of these two states or into or within the District of Columbia.

No person should have to tolerate this invasion of his home—this invasion of his privacy. Early action by your subcommittee will be sincerely appreciated by the thousands of parents, women and prominent persons who have been victimized by abusive and harassing telephone calls.

We also have a statement here from Congressman Cornelius E. Gallagher, of New Jersey. I ask that that be placed in the record

in toto.

(The aforementioned documents follow:)

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CORNELIUS E. GALLAGHER OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am grateful to you for the opportunity to testify today on a measure I have been actively involved with since the summer of 1965.

I think it might be useful at this point to give a short history of the congres- sional efforts in recent times to combat the growing menace of obscene and harassing telephone calls.

On August 16, 1965, I introduced a bill in the House to raise the penalties for obscene calls made within the District of Columbia. At that time and in fact
ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS 7

at the present time, the penalties are woefully inadequate to protect Washington

residents from these callers. My original bill would have raised the District

penalty to correspond with the laws in the neighboring states of Virginia and

Maryland.

This bill, H.R. 10497, was passed unanimously by the House on October 11„

1965. It was then sent to the Senate.

On January 26, 1966, Mr. Chairman, you introduced a bill to make obscene

calls in interstate commerce a Federal crime and to provide penalties of up to,

$1,000 fine and/or one year in jail.

In the meantime, On March 23, 1966, the Senate District Committee held

hearings on my bill. These hearings were never completed, nor was any

legislation ever reported out.

il

Subsequently in May 1966, this Subcommittee began hearings on your original

bl.

Because your original bill, S. 2825, did not include the District of Columbia

and since it had been my original purpose to include protection for the District,

I introduced an amended version of you bill in the House. This bill would have

outlawed, under Federal Penalty, calls made in interstate commerce and those

made within the District of Columbia. This legislation was referred to the

House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and died there when the

89th Congress ended.

The Senate Commerce Committee reported the amended version of S. 2825 on

June 27, 1966, and the bill subsequently passed the Senate on June 29, 1966.

Mr. Chairman, I think it was most unfortunate that with all the effort expended

by both the House and the Senate that no law resulted last year to protect our

citizens from these annoying and abusive calls. I am hopeful that this year

we will see greater success.

I am confident that this Subcommittee will receive testimony from the various

expert witnesses from the telephone companies and other interested parties as

to the increasing number of these calls and the ineffectiveness of the present law

in this area.

I would like to touch for a moment today on one aspect of this problem which

has, perhaps, been overlooked.

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy of the House Government Operations Committee, I have become increasingly aware of, and concerned over, the threats to individual privacy posed by the advancement of our

technology and the resultant responsibility of the Government to protect the

citizens of these United States.

Admittedly, obscene phone calls may seem relatively unimportant when compared to electronic eavesdropping and wiretapping, but I feel that we should be

just as diligent in our efforts to control these 'small" threats as we are with the

larger ones.

When a person contracts to have a telephone installed, I do not believe that

he contracts to open himself up to any kind of caller. Of course, a telephone user

cannot expect to be free from wrong numbers in the middle of a shower, solicitors

in the middle of dinner, or friends in the middle of the night. But I submit that

the telephone user has the right to be protected from deliderate and malicious

calls made for the very purpose of harassing, embarassing and threatening the

recipient. Obscene telephone callers present, to my mind, a definite invasion of

privacy—an invasion lacking even the implied consent flowing from the installation of the telephone in one's home. As in many other areas, I feel that the

Federal Government has a responsibility to help protect innocent citizens from

this intrusion.

As previously presented to this Subcommittee last year, 38 states currently have

laws dealing with obscene and harassing telephone calls. I believe that there is

much the individual states can contribute to the prohibition of these calls. These

state statute g have been effective in the past, and I think they have the potential

to remain as effective deterents to future commission of these crimes.

I further believe that there is no all-pervasive need for the Federal government

to pre-empt the states in this area. It is only in the case of interstate calls and

calls made within the District of Columbia where this Federal enforcement is

necessary and desirable.

I might interject here that I commend the Bell Telephone Systems for their

efforts and success in developing accurate devices to help apprehend these callers.

The Bell System has also performed an outstanding civic service by placing

advertisements in national and local publications stressing the penalties for these

calls and the actions to be taken by a person receiving such a call. These meas-
8 ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

ures will do more than anything else to discourage the pranksters and perverts who

perpetuate these offenses. When the element of anonymity disappears, there will

be less chance of these calls.

Mr. Chairman, I introduced my amended bill, similar to the one which passed

the Senate last year, on January 10, 1967. It is now pending before the House

Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. I think this legislation will result

in an effective tool to cope with these calls and this inherent invasion of privacy.

I feel that the peace of mind of many citizens rests with our action.

Again, my thanks for this opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee and

my gratitude for the intelligent light you are helping to shine on a very real problem.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

FROM THE 37TH DISTRICT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I learned long ago that the way to ingratiate one's self with a

committee is to submit a statement for the record and hold one's

remarks, spoken remarks, as brief as possible.

I think this would be especially compelling in my case when I see

the quality of the witnesses that are waiting to be heard.

Senator PASTORE. Let me just say, a personable gentleman like you,

and a Member of Congress, is ingratiating no matter what you do.

Mr. VAN DEERL1N. Let me respond to that, Mr. Chairman, by

saying that I look forward to the opportunity of hearing, on the

House side, hearing from the chairman of this subcommittee who

once again I am sure will come up with a bill which has passed the

Senate.

I can assure you that, when the pressure is put on us a second time

over there, we will act.

We are accustomed on the House side to seeing much worthy

House legislation die in the Senate, and I find myself in a very

apologetic position when I find a worthy bill like this, which has

passed the Senate and died for want of action on our side of the Hill.

Senator PASTORE. Is that the elementary reciprocity that Dean

Rusk talks about? [Laughter.]

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. In submitting this legislation on the opening

day of Congress—and it is a bill which is identical to your own, Mr.

Chairman, H.R. 1422—I had been moved to action by the interest

shown by the telephone company and by the evidence they provided

that there are some 5,000 objectionable or obscene telephone calls

reported each month in the State of California, which I am privileged

to represent.

And so, as a member of the Communications and Power Subcommittee, I prepared this bill for offering on opening day.

It just happened that I developed a slight conflict of interests, you

might say, in the days immediately preceding the convening of

Congress. I had become involved in a matter of widespread public

interest in those days immediately preceding Congress with regard

to the credentials of one of our colleagues to be sworn in. And

beginning the weekend before the convening of Congress, and right up

to the day and day after, itself, my own home became the target of a

number of such calls as this. And while, as a candidate for public

office I have become accustomed to being awakened at 3 o'clock in

the morning by harassing calls which succeed in their intent of robbing
ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS 9

the candidate of an hour's sleep, because after answering the telephone

you become so angry that you take the phone off the hook and go to

bed and you don't get to sleep for an hour or two, I didn't object to

such calls being resumed in regard to the matter that was before

the House.

I did object, however, when my teenage children, particularly

my daughters, began taking calls which in the most obscene language

imaginable threatened them with death and all the other things that

these strange minds conjure up.

And we have changed our own number and made it an unlisted

number, which I think is regrettable in a public official. I think

we should be available for telephone calls.

I did feel that we learned what this problem is like. I have known,

in newspaper work, of people involved in the news, particularly very

good-looking women who may be pictured in the paper, it is almost

axiomatic that they subject themselves, expecially if their addresses

are given, to objectionable telephone calls. And I feel that I know

firsthand the urgent need for this legislation and I intend to push for

it with all the powers at my command.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the leadership that you have provided, and I will submit the substance of my statement for the record.

Senator PASTORE. You are the typical example, Mr. Congressman.

If I were to dramatize in any possible way within my competence I

would say that your situation is precisely the one thing that we are

directing ourselves to and the one thing that we want to eliminate.

A person has a perfect right to disagree with you. But this idea

of being harassed in the middle of the night, and the obscenities

being spewed upon innocent victims, is despicable and should be

punished as a crime. A "crying trumpet player," if I may use the

expression, is being utilized to arouse the Congress to the need for this

kind of legislation.

I can imagine the anguish and discomfort of your family in being

subjected to this kind of practice. That is the one thing that motivated me.

I don't think we are going to have any trouble in the Senate. We

have already gone through this. I think that the Senate will accept

it this year as they did last year, and I hope that you will be instrumarital in the House in seeing that it gets speedy attention.

I want to thank you for coming here this morning. You have

been a great help.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN LIONEL VAN DEERLIN OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. I am honored to have this

opportunity to appear before you this morning to testify in support of S. 375.

Because of my feeling that this proposal by Senator Pastore would fill a definite

gap in the Communications Act, I have introduced an identical bill, H.R. 1422,

in the House.

There are few offenses more sinister than the telephoned threat made from

behind a coward's shield of anonymity. As your Committee noted in Senate

Report 1334 of the 89th Congress, it is a strange individual indeed who "can

somehow derive satisfaction or pleasure from frightening other people" while

keeping his own identity unknown.

Shortly after I decided to introduce my companion legislation, I learned firsthand what it's like to be the target of abusive telephone calls.
10 ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

After receiving a series of such calls last month at our Washington home, we

were forced to take an unlisted number. For some of the callers, there were no

bounds of decency. My 13-year-old daughter for example, talked to one anonymous person who used obscenities in threatening to kill her and her brothers and

sisters.

I believe that other Members of Congress have been harassed in similar fashion

by unscrupulous persons seeking to intimidate them.

But most disturbing to me are the threats and false reports directed at the wives

and parents of our servicemen. We have all seen news accounts of how service

families have been called in the night by twisted people gloating over the real or

invented deaths of loved ones in Viet Nam.

I am aware that at least 38 States now have statutes of their own to deal with

abusive callers, and Oregon is considering such legislation.

But the State laws in themselves are probably not enough. They should be

supplemented by the appropriate Federal controls proposed in S. 375.

I believe that many a potential abusive caller would think twice before dialing

if he knew he faced possible penalties. The $500 fine and six-month prison term

provided for convictions under S. 375 and H.R. 1422 seem to me to fairly

match the crimes covered by the measures.

It is my hope that S. 375, or legislation very similar to it, will be enacted this

year, for the problem of menacing telephone calls appears to be growing, with

psychotic adults as well as irresponsible youngsters among the perpetrators.

The Bell Telephone Company has indicated that the average number of abusive

calls reported each month in my own State of California is now approaching 5,000.

How many such calls go unreported can only be surmised.

Because of the peculiarly vicious nature of these calls, the remedial legislation

is needed now. I am confident that this distinguished Subcommittee will give

prompt and favorable consideration to S. 375.

At the same time, I pledge that I will do my utmost to obtain a hearing and

favorable action on H.R. 1422 by my own House Committee on Interstate and

Foreign Commerce.

Senator PASTORE. Are there any other Congressmen who want to

testify here?

(No response.)

Senator PASTORE. We are honored this morning to have the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

You have already testified on this, Mr. Hyde. And we have a complete hearing record. This is the same bill. It is identical to the bill

that was passed by the Senate, as I have already pointed out.

I understand that our understanding is that you will put your

statement in the record and bring us up to date as to where this

matter stands now. Is that correct?

STATEMENT OF ROSEL H. HYDE, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Mr. HYDE. Yes, Senator Pastore.

Senator PASTORE. Without objection, the statement will be placed

in the record.

Mr. HYDE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Our statement

is in fact a restatement of our support of what is now S. 375, and the

reasons why we support it are very well outlined in your opening

statement. And certainly documented by the statement just made

by Congressman Van Deerlin.

Senator PASTORE. Let me ask you, has anything transpired from

the time that you appeared here before to the present moment when

you come before this committee, that would indicate to you that

there is less need for this legislation now as there was then?
I

ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS 11

• Mr. HYDE. No, sir. On the contrary, there is evidence of an increasing need in terms of a trend of increasing numbers of calls.

The number has increased over the last 11 months from about 45,000

a month to 51,000. The difference in the figure is not as important

as the trend it discloses.

I would be concerned that the absence of a statute dealing with all

aspects of this may constitute a sort of an invitation to the type of

mind that indulges in this kind of abuse.

The Commission strongly supports the enactment of the legislation

which is before the committee this morning.

Senator PASTORE. Would you like to add anything else, Mr. Hyde?

Au. HYDE. I would add a personal experience. We have calls in

our own home, and I can recall one instance when my wife said, "I

am certainly glad it wasn't Marilyn"—our daughter—"who received

that call," because it was a revolting type of call that no one should

be subjected to.

Senator PASTORE. I want to thank you, Commissioner Hyde.

Mr. HYDE. I have several members of our staff commentary bureau

who will be pleased to assist you in any manner that you might require.

Senator PASTORE. I think your staff did go over this legislation with

a fine-tooth comb the last time.

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir.

Senator PASTORE. And we accepted all the modifications and

suggestions that you made. I think that the bill today is in the form

that you recommended it at that time after you looked it over. Is

that correct?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir. We believe it is in the form for approval, but

should anything new develop, we continue at your service.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you very much. You have been very

cooperative.

Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Senator.

Senator PASTORE. We have Brig. Gen. William Berg here, who is

welcome to come forward.

First, let me welcome you. I say to you what I have also said to

Chairman Hyde. We have your statement in the record. I think

we will incorporate it by reference insofar as those hearings are concerned, for the convenience of Members of Congress.

You have a statement here. I am going to ask that it be placed in

the record in toto.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF ROSEL H. HYDE, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, I am Rosel H. Hyde, Chairman of the Federal Communications

Commission. I appear here today at the Committee's invitation to discuss

S. 375. This bill would add a new section 223 to the Communications Act of 1934

to prohibit, in substance, the making of obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent telephone calls or those intended to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass,

either in interstate or foreign commerce or within the District of Columbia. It

provides for a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six

months, or both.

The Federal Communications Commission is fully in accord with the effort to

deal with the problem of obscene and harassing telephone calls which is embodied

in this bill. S. 375 is identical to S. 2825, 89th Congress, as passed by the Senate

on June 29, 1966, which this Commission supported in its present form.
12 ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

Obscene and harassing telephone calls have become a matter of serious concern.

The dimensions of the problem are already large and are apparently growing.

At the request of the Commission, the Bell Telephone System, which provides

more than 80 percent of the Nation's telephones, began to compile statistics in

February 1966 concerning the number of calls as to which it receives complaints.

The Bell System lists as abusive calls those falling under the headings of obscene,

harassing, threatening, or interference. The figures show that, for eleven months

of 1966, the Bell System received over 568,000 complaints concerning abusive

telephone calls that threaten or harass the recipient, or an average of over 51,000

such complaints each month.

When compilation of complaints began in early 1966 the number of reported

abusive calls was between forty and forty-five thousand per month. The number

of incidents of such calls increased to between fifty and fifty-five thousand per

month as of the latter part of 1966.

Over 56,000 abusive calls were reported in November and over 51,000 in

December. A detailed breakdown of the statistics for these two months is

attached to this statement.

It should be noted that only a small portion of the total number of reported

abusive calls were interstate in nature. During the eleven-month period in

which the Bell System compiled statistics, 512 complaints of abusive interstate

calls were reported. Thirty-six such complaints were received in November and

19 in December, 1966.

S. 375 would deal not only with obscene calls but also the anonymous call

made with intent to harass, and repeated calls made solely for the same purpose.

The bill thus covers certain types of anonymous calls which have been of increasing

concern. The telephone may ring at any hour of the day or night, to produce

only a dead line when answered. Sometimes the caller will merely breathe

heavily and then hang up. Sometimes he will utter obscenities. Recently a

new and most offensive form of harassment has been devised. Families of servicemen care called and given false reports of death or injury, or even, hard as it is

to believe, are gloatingly reminded of the death of a son or husband in the service.

S. 375 reaches all of these vicious practices.

Some remedies do exist at the present time. Thirty-eight States have statutes

generally prohibiting the making of various types of obscene harassing, or annoying telephone calls. These laws, many of which are of recent origin, should assist

the efforts to solve the problem of intrastate abusive calling. In addition, telephone company tariffs prohibit obscene language over the telephone or the use of

telephone service in such a manner as to harass or frighten others.

The Bell Telephone System has developed improved equipment to determine the

source of anonymous abusive calls, and has issued instructions to operating companies for close cooperation with subscribers who complain of obscene or harassing

telephone calls. It is to be hoped that recent publicity given to this matter by

the telephone company and the manner in which they will serve customers who

receive such calls will have the beneficial effect of reducing these insidious practices.

Although Title 18 U.S.C. 875(c) prohibits interstate communications containing a threat of personal injury, and 18 U.S.C. 837(d) prohibits use of the

telephone to make threats of damage to certain property or threats to persons

seeking to make specified uses of such property, no Federal law deals with the

many aspects of the problem of abusive calls. S. 375 would apply to all interstate

calls and those calls made within the District of Columbia. Its enactment

would facilitate prosecutions for interstate calls by permitting prosecution where

it may be convenient for the witnesses, since section 3237 of Title 18, United

States Code, permits prosecution of offenses in any district in which the offense

is begun, is continued, or is completed.

Enforcement of a Federal criminal statute dealing with obscene and harassing

telephone calls would appropriately be the responsibility of the Department of

Justice. From the standpoint of the Federal Communications Commission's

general concern in this area, we are fully in accord with the effort to deal with

this problem which is embodied in S. 375 and support its enactment.
ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS 13

ATTACHMENT No. 1, BELL TELEPHONE SYSTEM SUMMARY OF ABUSIVE CALLING,

NOVEMBER 1966

The figures shown represent actual results for November 1966 in all Bell

Telephone System companies.

Classification: Total number

Abusive 56,796

Commercial solicitation 1, 734

Misdirected 3,097

Breakdown of abusive:

Obscene 12,359

Harassing 39,088

Threatening 2,538

Interference 2,811

Disposition of abusive:

Closed after initial discussion 30,562

Closed after keeping log 13,344

Number change-no transfer 6, 237

Change to nonlist or nonpublished numbers 4,853

Requests for line identification 3,783

Lines successfully identified 699

Cases referred to security 1, 224

Cases requiring disconnection by company 5

Cases resulting in court convictions 58

Cases involving intercity calling 1,342

Cases involving interstate calling 36

Total number closed 50,607

Total number pending 11,021

ATTACHMENT No. 2, BELL TELEPHONE SYSTEM SUMMARY OF ABUSIVE CALLING,

DECEMBER 1966

The figures shown represent actual results for December 1966 in all Bell Telephone System companies.

Classification:

Abusive 

Commercial solicitation 

Misdirected 

Breakdown of abusive:

Obscene 

Harassing 

Threatening 

Interference 

Disposition of abusive:

Closed after initial discussion 

Closed after keeping log 

Number-change-no transfer 

Change to nonlist or nonpublished numbers 

Requests for line identification 

Lines successfully identified 

Cases referred to Security 

Cases requiring disconnection by company 

Cases resulting in court convictions 

Cases involving intercity calling 

Cases involving interstate calling 

Total number closed 

Total number pending 

Total number

51, 439

1, 331

2, 573

11, 571

35, 612

2, 063

2, 193

28, 350

13, 452

5, 092

4, 021

3, 503

755

1, 064

15

39

1, 281

19

47, 763

9, 700
14 ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

Senator PASTORE. The purpose of the hearing here this morning is

to bring the whole situation up to date, as to whether or not the need

exists today as it did then when you testified, and I would hope that

you would direct yourself to that.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. WILLIAM W. BERG, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

General BERG. Mr. Chairman, as we indicated in this short statement, we still strongly support the legislation. We indicate that

there has been a slight drop in the number of cases. Our attribution

of that drop is to the fact that we did hold the hearings and to the

degree of cooperation which now exists between us and the telephone

industry.

Senator PASTORE. I think, too, they had a television show the other

night, and I think when these crackpots—and I use the word advisedly—the minute they are made to understand that this is a

dangerous practice, that they are subject to criminal prosecution and

that they can be not only detected, but identified, that this will have

a very deterrent effect upon the practice to begin with. And that

has been said time and time again.

I think that that program, together with the testimony that has

been adduced here, together with the action of the Senate, and if we

make this a statutory Federal law, I think this will have a very, very

deterrent effect upon these people, and the only reason why they do

it is because they know that in the past it has been hard to discover.

Now that we have the technology to discover these people, and we

have the investigatory facility to identify them, I think that you will

see that the practice will wane more and more.

I am very happy to hear you say that the need exists today as it did

before when your committee met. Thank you very, very much.

General BERG. Thank you, Senator.

Senator PASTORE. General, Mr. Zapple has brought to my attention that you were going to have a summary available for the record.

General BERG. Yes sir.

Senator PASTORE. Wifi you send it up so that we can incorporate it

at this point?

General BERG. Yes, sir.

(The summary was submitted and is in the committee's files.)

(The Statement of General Berg follow:)

• STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. WILLIAM W. BERG

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Brigadier General William

W. Berg, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy.

It was my pleasure to appear before this Committee last May to present the views of the Department of Defense on S. 2825 of the 89th Congress, a predecessor

version of S. 375.

As I stated at that time, the Department of Defense is concerned about the

adverse effect on the morale and welfare of our servicemen and their families of

obscene and harassing communications, particularly as they relate to our military

operations in Vietnam and elsewhere. We welcome and support any legislation which promises our servicemen and their families a measure of protection from

these vicious and despicable acts.

In May of 1966, I reported to your Committee on some 87 incidents then

known of harassment of some 50 military families related to our military opera- tions overseas, mostly in connection with service in Vietnam. This harassment included everything from false reports of death or injury to threats, demands for
ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS 15

money for the Viet Cong, and gloating comment on the actual death in combat

of servicemen. This harassment was mainly by telephone but also included

letters, postcards, telegrams, and even face-to-face visits. Since May of 1966 the

incidence of reported harassment of this nature has dropped significantly. I will

provide for the record a summary of the known details of new incidents. As in

the past we request that any public disclosure of these cases omit reference to

the names of the individuals involved to lessen the possibility of their further

harassment.

We believe that two factors have contributed to the reduced incidence of

harassment of our service families. One is the publicity given to the Nation's

outrage at these acts by your consideration of remedial legislation during the

last session of the Congress. The other is the excellent cooperation we have

received from the commercial telephone companies in developing joint procedures

to protect service families from the perpetrators of this viciousness. The American

Telephone and Telegraph Company has worked with us in behalf of the entire

telephone industry in developing and publicizing procedures for assisting service

families who are victimized by telephonic harassment.

While we have no way of knowing whether or not this welcomed reduction of

harassment is permanent or merely temporary, we do not cite it as evidence

that corrective legislation is not needed. Recognizing that the overall problem

of obscene and harassing communications goes far beyond the matter of harassment of service families, the Department of Defense defers to the wisdom of the

Congress on the content of specific legislation and to the views of the Department

of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission on the technical merit

of particular proposals.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Department of Defense, I thank you and the

Committee for this opportunity to express our views. We stand ready to assist

in any way we can.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my statement.

Senator PASTORE. Our next witness is Mr. Hubert Kertz. You I

want to hear at length.

STATEMENT OF HUBERT KERTZ, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.

Mr. KERTZ. All right, sir. I will start in.

My name is Hubert Kertz, and I am the operating vice president

of the American Telephone & Telegraph Co., and I appear on behalf

of the Bell System telephone operating companies.

As I said in my statement of May 11, 1966, before this committee,

we are very concerned about the problem of abusive calls and we are

doing all we can to stop them.

We are pleased, too, with this committee's continued interest in the

problem, and I appreciate the opportunity to present our views again.

We would welcome legislation at the Federal level along the lines

proposed in Senate bill S. 375.

The Bell System policy has always been to insure that customers

receive the best possible telephone service. When the telephone

becomes an instrument of annoyance or harassment, it is a matter of

serious concern.

Removing sources of customer irritation is an integral part of providing high quality telephone service. In our attempt to eliminate

this problem, we welcome help.

As I mentioned in my previous appearance, the Bell System companies reported having received about 46,000 complaints during the

month of March 1966, involving abusive calls. Subsequently the

number of such complaints received per month increased for awhile

reaching a high of about 68,000 in August of 1966, but declined since

to about 51,000 in December of 1966.
16 ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

I might add parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, that the reason for

that decrease we feel quite sure was the wide advertising campaign

that the American company and the operating companies of the Bell

System started in the middle of 1966 to bring to the attention of the,

public the procedures to follow if they were to receive these types of

abusive calls.

Of course, the only way we can know about such calls is when they

are called to our attention by our customers. There is no doubt

about it that there are many more of these calls made than are indicated by the number of reports that are received.

We consider abusive calling to be a serious problem even though

these 51,000 complaints represent only a small fraction of the more

than 10 billion calls made by our customers in the same month.

We do not know how much of this abusive calling is interstate or

how much is intrastate, but it is our judgment that he problem is

predominantly local in nature.

An interstate call may be a toll call of which there is a record in the

form of a toll ticket or the automatically recorded equivalent—or it

may be a local call such as one from Arlington, Va., to the District of

Columbia. It is only after an investigation of a complaint has been

successfully completed that we are able to classify the offending calls

as interstate or intrastate.

Of the some 51,000 complaints received in December of 1966, only

about 20 have so far been classified as involving interstate calling.

I might add here parenthetically that there were about 70 of them

that were classified as interstate last March. This does not mean

those are the total of the interstate, by any means. There must be

many more than that.

Although this is a small percentage, we think Federal legislation

will also have a deterring effect on potential offenders in interstate

calling and that such legislation would be of practical advantage to

us in attempting to deal with this abusive calling problem.

Senator PASTORE. Mr. Kertz, I want to cover a point. We addressed ourselves to the Justice Department. That one of their

chief objections to the legislation which they thought might not have

been necessary—and that was their prerogative to think so—was the

fact that this would become quite burdensome and would encumber

the Justice Department because of the number of calls involved.

As far as the technology here is concerned—as far as the technology

is concerned—once you have been apprised by a victim of such a call

that he or she did receive such a call, up to that moment there isn't

a great deal that you can do about it because at that moment you

have had no opportunity to bring your technology into play insofar•

as detection is concerned. Am I correct?

Mr. KERTZ. That's correct.

Senator PASTORE. But once you bring your technology into play

and you trace the call successfully, at that moment you can say very

easily whether it is in interstate or intrastate; isn't that a fact?

Mr. KERTZ. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Senator PASTORE. So before the Department of Justice comes into

play at all, the technology itself will separate the interstate from the

intrastate. Am I correct?

Mr. KERTZ. Precisely correct; yes, sir.
ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS 17

Existing State and local criminal legislation is of great help to us.

In view of the fact that most abusive calling appears to be intrastate

and local in nature, we have found that in many cases appropriate

remedial action can be promptly and effectively taken by using our

procedures and tariffs and by our customers having recourse to

State and local criminal prosecutions.

As I stated in my last appearance, 38 States have enacted statutes

specifically outlawing abusive calling. I understand that the legislatures of 11 of the 12 remaining States currently have before them

specific statutes outlawing abusive calling.

Even in the absence of such specific legislation, more general

statutes, such as those dealing with disturbing the peace, have been

used in abusive-calling cases. All in all, in the areas served by the

Bell System the courts convicted 358 abusive callers during 1965 and

788 abusive callers in 1966.

I reviewed with this committee last May the procedures which the

Bell System is following in handling complaints about abusive calls.

We are determined to eliminate such abuse; we are assuming the

responsibility for taking action; we are improving our techniques;

and we are maintaining close contract with each victim until the

abusive-calling problem is solved to his satisfaction.

Over the years we have devised many different techniques to identify

the lines from which anonymous and abusive calls originate. These

techniques have grown more sophisticated as our telephone switching

systems have become more complex. We are continually working on

better and quicker ways of making these line identifications and we

are adding specific equipment to improve our ability to do so.

We believe that successful identification of the calling line and the

publicity following the conviction of the annoying caller will in the

long run substantially deter abusive calling. Local law enforcement

authorities have been most cooperative and extremely helpful in

investigating these cases, as evidenced by the over 100-percent increase

in court convictions in 1966 that I just referred to.

Irr We have conducted a national advertising campaign on this subject.

This advertising clearly enunciated our policy, including our pledge

of assistance to any member of the general public within our operating

areas who is a victim of such calling.

uThe Bell System ads on this subject in 1966 appeared in more than

20 magazines having a total circulation of almost 120 million. This

was the greatest exposure an A.T. & T. informative ad has ever had.

Readership studies have demonstrated wide public interest.

1. Bell System officials have appeared on this subject on a number of

national and local television shows and have spoken about it before

law enforcement and other public groups. We understand that one

of the televiion interviews was seen in 2 million homes by 3 million

adult viewers.

Bell companies have also placed such advertising in local newspapers in their areas. The Bell companies have also conducted

extensive employee information programs outlining our policy and

procedures to be followed.

Let me summarize the Bell System position on the entire matter of

abusive calling We are deeply concerned about this problem. We

are doing all in our power to eliminate it. We still think there is a

need for Federal legislation covering interstate abusive calling and
18 ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

endorse Senate bill S. 375. We stand ready to give this committee

any assistance it requires.

Senator PASTORE. How about inserting a flier in the bill that you

send to each subscriber?

Mr. KERTZ. We have done that, Mr. Chairman. In quite a few

cases the operating companies have done that where there has been a

rash of this type of work. In addition to that, we have had, as I

mentioned before, the ads and local programs and talks and I assure

you 

Senator PASTORE. I realize that, but the other would be a very

personal contact.

Mr. KERTZ. Yes, we have done that, to answer your question.

Senator PASTORE. Now this technology that you use, does this in

any way fall within the area or the category of this very controversial

issue on bugging?

Mr. KERTZ. No, sir, it does not. The techniques that we employ

in identifying the calling line involved in abusive calls does not

monitor the line at all. We do not listen in to the conversation.

Senator PASTORE. The minute I asked this, the press picked up

their pencils. Will you elaborate? This will be a headline, I know.

Mr. KERTZ. I hope the headline comes out right, 1\4r. Chairman.

When we receive a complaint from one of our customers that he or

she is receiving abusive calls, one of the first things we do is ask them

to keep a log when it occurs. Depending upon the severity of the

problem, we then employ some of these electronic techniques that I'm

talking about. The electronic techniques consist in tracing the connection back to the calling line, but in tracing this connection, we are

in no way monitoring the line. We do not get across the wires or the

pair, if you will, the talking connection, rather we get across the signal

leads. So, there is no opportunity for people to monitor this type of

conversation.

Senator PASTORE. And insofar as evidence is concerned in any

prosecution, the accuser will have to be the witness as to what was

said?

Mr. KERTZ. This is correct, sir.

Senator PASTORE. There is no recordation of the conversation?

Mr. KERTZ. No, sir; there is not. I was going to continue to state,

however, Mr. Chairman, that when we get to the point of actually

having the offender prosecuted, the telephone company has at that

point put one of those pen registers on the line of the offending party,

as I indicated to you last May. Now, this is not listening to the

conversation on the line. It is impossible to do that with this equipment. All that the pen register does is to mark on a tape the time

of day and the called number so that what we have here then is a

tape that shows that a particular line on such and such a day at such

and such a time made a call to the called number, that is, the complaining party. Now we are prepared to testify that this was the

case and beyond that we do nothing.

Senator PASTORE. Then, of course, it becomes a question of personal investigation?

Mr. KERTZ. That is correct.

Senator PASTORE. Either by the local police authorities or by the

Federal police authorities, by listening to the person who complains
ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS 19

and to the respondent who apparently is the person who made the

call.

Mr. KERTZ. That is right, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PASTORE. That is a matter of identification at that moment.

It is a question of affirmation or denial or what have you. But beyond

that you are out of the picture.

Mr. KERTZ. That is correct.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you very much. Admiral Mott.

STATEMENT OF ADM. WILLIAM C. MOTT, EXECUTIVE VICE,

PRESIDENT, U.S. INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION, 438

PENNSYLVANIA BUILDING, 425 13TH STREET NW., WASHINGTON, D.C.

Senator PASTORE. How are you, Admiral?

Admiral MOTT. Fine.

Senator PASTORE. Do you have a written statement?

Admiral MOTT. Yes, I do.

Senator PASTORE. Do you want to read it?

Admiral MOTT. Mr. Chairman, I think our interests might be better

served if I filed the statement and just made a few comments.

Senator PASTORE. All right, sir. Admiral, we welcome that.

Without objection, the statement will be made a part of the record.

(The full text follows:)

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. MOTT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is William C. Mott.

As Executive Vice President, I represent the United States Independent Telephone Association, a trade organization with membership constituting well over

90 per cent of the Independent segment of the telephone industry. On behalf

of my members I want to express my deep appreciation for the opportunity of

again appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate

Commerce Committee. As I pointed out last May, our Association fully supports

the endeavors of this Committee in attempting to obtain federal legislation to

make it a crime to originate obscene or harassing telephone calls.

Like all trade associations we operate by policy declaration of our Board of

Directors. Our directive is as follows:

"The USITA supports the concept that federal and state legislation should

provide penalties for the origination of obscene or harassing telephone calls both

in interstate and intrastate commerce. Since there is no federal legislation on the

subject and since not all states have such legislation the Association urges legislative action by the federal and appropriate state governments."

The wording of S. 375 which we are considering today is identical to S. 2825

as reported out by the Senate Committee on Commerce last year, but is slightly

different from the wording of that same bill at the time I testified. I do subscribe

to the changes made last year by the Committee and believe them to be an

improvement. Our members indeed hope that early consideration of this legislation will enable passage and enactment in this session of Congress.

The Committee would be interested, I am sure

'

in what has happened since

the publicity given hearings on S. 2825 last year. We then pointed out that one

of the real advantages of federal legislation is the example it would set for state

legislation. Relatively few harassing calls are interstate. Most are intrastate

where state regulations govern. Therefore state laws are perhaps more important,

as far as prosecution and -conviction go than federal laws.

There were twelve states without 

go,

last year. We are interested in

obtaining state legislation in all twelve. In Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

and Washington, we have the greatest number of telephones. Bills are now in

the hoppers of the legislatures of every one of these five states. Progress is.

being reported on the measures introduced. The executives of telephone associations in these five states have played and are playing a real part in the advocacy

of legislation.
20 ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

The publicity given your hearings and advertising by the Bell System and our

companies have created a favorable 'climate" for the reception of state legislation.

I am sure that the number of states without legislation by the end of 1967 will be

less by far than today. Parenthetically, I would certainly regret to see the federal

government be among the last to enact legislation on the subject.

We do know that manufacturers of telephone central office equipment are now

advertising tracing features in their new equipment and in additions to existing

equipment. Although there is no easy way to determine the availability of call

tracing equipment we know the very great majority of our telephone companies

now realizes its importance.

You will recall that with me when I last testified was Mr. Warren French of

the Shenandoah Telephone Company in nearby Virginia. Before coming to this

hearing I asked Mr. French to advise me of annoying cases traced since we

appeared here. In his relatively small company of 8,000 telephones there have

been no more than 6 complaints since last spring—approximately one every two

months. These have been closed without court actions mainly because they

were domestic or juvenile situations.

One 

instance, 

however, is worth noting because it involved an interstate call.

The calling party in this instance was using what we term a "Wide Area Telephone Service" (WATS) in Washington, D.C. WATS is a fast growing service

and national in scope. There is no individual charge for messages and in that

respect is similar to local telephone calling. Had this case required court action

there would have been no federal statute under which to prosecute. Therefore

federal not state legislation is desirable to cover annoyance calling over WATS

lines.

Also before coming here I checked with the headquarters of the General Telephone System, our largest member. The General System follows the procedures

outlined in the USITA Commercial Committee bulletin which was placed on

record in the previous hearing. But, in addition, the General System companies

have "Security" departments to which they refer those complaints which may

involve the local police. The reports of the Security departments of the General

•operating companies were scanned for me.

The number of Security department annoyance call reports fluctuates from

month to month and from company to company. For example, Florida and California have greater numbers than the rural mid-western states. Cooperation of

the local authorities everywhere is excellent and has probably reached the present

state because of the publicity and activity of last year. The General System

Company in Kentucky last year obtained the first convictions under the Kentucky

law. Two women in Ashland were fined $50 and costs for annoyance calling.

One observation from the General System records is of particular note. In

those instances of serious and repeated calls the pen register, which is attached by

the telephone company to the suspect's line is a valuable tool. This piece of

equipment records the numbers called. It provides printed evidence on local

calls in much the same manner as records on toll calls are made. Such evidence

is extremely handy in local convictions.

It has been a pleasure to return before this Committee. I thank you for your

attention.

Admiral MOTT. Like most people who have been in public life, I

have suffered, too, from these calls and my family, which has four

girls, also has. Of course, the reason was, as Judge Advocate General

of the Navy, I used to have to write some letters about undesirable

discharges in connection with court-martials which were unpopular

with certain people.

To give you an example, it fell to my lot to write the letter which

Secretary Connally signed giving Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald his undesirable discharge from the Marine Corps, which he took a very

dim view of and, of course, he bore no affection for Secretary Connally

because of that.

In the old days, whenever I arrived in New Orleans to give a

speech, I used to find myself being paged in the New Orleans Airport

and invariably it would be the same party telling me that I could

expect not to leave New Orleans alive. Well, the FBI happened to

run that man down and dissuaded him from making any more calls,
ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS 21

but he was a man who had been given an undesirable discharge from

the Navy.

Senator PASTORE. Let me ask you a question, Admiral. This

thing that was brought out here, was this ever brought to the attention

of the Commission that Oswald was teed off against Connally because

of the letter you wrote him?

Admiral Mum'. I'm not certain it was but, of course, Mr. Connally

knows it. I talked to him about it in Texas.

Senator PASTORE. In other words, tell us that once again?

Admiral MOTT. Well, as I believe, it is a matter of public record,

Oswald was in the Marines and this is actually where he got his

penchant for getting mail-order guns and using them. He used to

do this over in Japan and, actually, I think one of the guns fell out of

his locker over there when the lockers were being inspected and I

think he either wounded himself or somebody else. I have forgotten

the details, but he was not the kind of person that the Marine Corps

likes and he was given an undesirable discharge.

I am speaking now from memory, but my recollection is that there

was an appeal to the Secretary, which Mr. Connally had to deny

because he was the Secretary. This is just the kind of thing, well, I

used it for purposes of illustration because it makes you a target

when you are in public life.

Senator PASTORE. Did that discharge have Connally's signature

on it.

Admiral MoTT. Whether the actual discharge had his signature on,

I don't know. I do know that Mr. Connally had to sign a letter in

the case, which I'm sure didn't endear him to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Senator PASTORE. This has nothing to do with this hearing, but is

a very, very unusual and very interesting sidelight.

Admiral MOTT. Yes, sir. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I have testified

before, the U.S. Independent Telephone Association, which is made

up of some 2,300 companies throughout 49 States, including, I might

say, one in Rhode Island over on Prudence Island, which has done

everything that it can to create the kind of climate of opinion in

America which would make it possible not only to pass this legislation,

but to pass legislation in those 12 States which do not now have

legislation. For example, in some of those States, which I mentioned

in my statement: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Washington those are five of the 12 States which do not now have legislation we have been on the telephone with the State telephone secretary. You see, it is a lot easier in the State where you have a State

telephone association to get legislation introduced and put through

the hopper and in each one of these States we have been checking

with them: I'm happy to report that there are bills in the hopper

now. The climate of opinion which has been created here in this

committee by the hearing has been very helpful in getting interest

out in the hinterlands in State legislation.

I, myself, whenever I go to address one of the State associations—

as an example, I'm speaking to the Minnesota Telephone Association

Monday of next week. We have 150 companies in Minnesota

scattered throughout the vast expanse. The Bell System is also

a member of the Minnesota Association and so I will tell about the

interest of this committee and your interest in the legislation when I
22 ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

appear before that committee and urge all of our companies present

to get behind enforcement of this State legislation.

You may remember, Mr. Chairman, I brought with me last year

Mr. Warren French, the executive vice president of the Shenadoah

Telephone Co. down in the Shenadoah Valley, who had this working

arrangement with the Commonwealth attorney in Virginia to bring

about prosecutions and convictions. Last year when I reported to

you, they had had six cases in that telephone company which had

resulted in 50 percent convictions. They had three convictions and

the other three, as you may recall, turned out to be domestic situations.

I called Warren before I came up here today and said, "Warren,

how are you making out since we appeared before the committee last

year?" And he said, "Well, we have had six complaints since last

spring, when I was here, and this is one about every 2 months in this

peaceful valley, and they have all been closed without court action

mainly because they were either domestic or juvenile situations."

But, there is one very interesting call that he reported to me and

this indicates the need, the real need for Federal interstate legislation. One of these calls involved an interstate call over what is

known as a Watts line from Washington, D.C. This is a wide area

telephone service line which the Bell System and our companies, too,

encourage. It is a fast-growing service which is becoming national

in scope. It is the kind of line where there isn't any individual charge

for messages. In that respect, it is similar to local calling. But

had this case required court action, the Virginia statute would have

been of no avail, of course, and this is one added reason for the necessity for Federal legislation in this particular area.

So, Mr. Chairman, I also checked with the General System, which

is our largest member operating in some 38 or 40 States and having

about 8 million telephones in service, and the General System has a

security department, as most big operating companies do. The security departments work very closely with the local police. The

number of calls that they check fluctuates from month to month and

company to company. I think Florida and California lead the parade

as far as the General System is concerned. They have greater

numbers than the rural Midwestern States. But we don't have any

difficulty in our companies, Mr. Chairman, in getting the full cooperation of the local law enforcement authorities and I think the

Bell representative has testified similarly before me.

The General System Co. in Kentucky last year obtained the first

conviction under the Kentucky law. It so happens that the General

System serves the capital of Kentucky. There were two women down

there in Ashland who were fined $50 and costs.

Our manufacturers that serve the independent telephone industry,

such as Automatic Electric and Stromberg-Carlson and North Electric, just to mention a few, have been very sensitive to this problem as

well and their own devices, the pen register, for instance, as you have

already heard described, to attach to the telephone line—they are

actually using advertising for their new equipment and part of their pitch is that their new equipment enables the tracing of these calls.

They are also advertising modifications of old equipment which would

enable tracing of calls or make it easier to trace.
ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS 23

We have the greatest and closest of cooperation with our Bell

colleagues through our commercial committee and other committees

•of the U.S. Independent Telephone Association so that anything that

they have is made available to us. I'm not talking about equipment,

but I'm talking about ideas and, of course, we have the kind of

reciprocity that you mentioned earlier and Mr. Rusk mentioned,

between the industry.

In short, Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Independent Telephone Association has done everything that it knows how to do to give publicity

to the effort that you and this committee are making to get Federal

legislation. Frankly, when the battle is joined in the House, we will

do even more to see to it, if we can, that this legislation does not die

aborning in this session of Congress.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you very much, Admiral.

Our next witness is Mr. Paul Rodgers, general counsel, National

Association of Railroad & Utilities Commissioners.

STATEMENT OF PAUL RODGERS, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD & UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my statement for the

record and will briefly summarize it.

Senator PASTORE. Without objection, so ordered.

(The full text follows:)

STATEMENT OF PAUL RODGERS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Paul Rodgers.

I am the General Counsel for the National Association of Railroad and Utilities

Commissioners (NARUC).

The NARUC was founded in 1889. Within its membership are the governmental bodies of the fifty States and of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico

and the Virgin Islands which regulate carriers and public utilities. The chief

objective of the NARUC is to serve the public interest through the advancement

of governmental regulation of carriers and utilities.

The members of the NARUC appreciate the opportunity you have given me

as their spokesman to make their views known on S. 375 which proposes an

amendment to the Communications Act of 1934 to impose criminal penalties on

persons making obscene or harassing telephone calls in interstate or foreign

commerce.

The NARUC supports the enactment of S. 375.

We are particularly pleased that the scope of S. 375 is limited to "telephone

communication in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign commerce."

We believe that this clear-cut jurisdictional line shows a wholesome regard for the

respective responsibilities of the Federal and State governments in solving this

problem.

I understand that thirty-eight States presently have laws which impose penalties for persons making obscene or harassing telephone calls.

I further understand that eleven of the remaining twelve states are giving

consideration to specific legislative proposals to outlaw abusive calling. In the

meantime, I am advised that these twelve states have general laws, such as those

prohibiting disturbances of the peace, which may have application in attacking

the harassing telephone call problem.

Chairman Ben T. Wiggins of the NARUC Committee on Communications

Problems is also vitally concerned with the problem of abusive calling. He has

called a meeting of his Committee to convene here in Washington on the twentyeighth of this month. At that time, he intends to present to his Committee a

model state bill to outlaw abusive calling in intrastate commerce. His proposal

will closely parallel the language of S. 375.
24 ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

If the Committee and the Officers of the NARUC approve the form of the

model state bill, and I have every reason to believe that they will, it will be

transmitted, under imprimatur of the NARUC, to the chairman of each commission engaged in the regulation of telephone companies. The letter of transmittal will request each commission to seek enactment of the bill by the state

legislature if the commission determines that existing laws are inadequate to cope

with abusive calling.

As you can see, the States have already developed a fairly adequate remedy

to handle the problem in the case of intrastate calling and are now aggressively

pursuing means to strengthen public safeguards in this area. In instances where

state laws may prove insufficient, I believe that we can depend upon the people

to devise appropriate rectifications through their state legislatures. Clearly, the

responsibility for attacking harassing intrastate calls rests with state and local

governments.

In view of these considerations, we believe that the enactment of S. 375 would

be an appropriate means for combating the making of obscene and harassing

telephone calls in interstate or foreign commerce, and at the same time would

foster rather than stifle state and local initiative for combating such calls in

intrastate commerce.

In closing, I wish to invite the members of this Committee to call upon me or

the other members of the staff of the NARUC whenever you need information

concerning state regulation.

Thank you for your attention.

Mr. RODGERS. The NARUC, which is composed of State commissioners, supports your bill, and as has been previously pointed out, 38

States have specific laws dealing with this situation. The remaining

12 have general statutes such as disturbances of the peace, which are

probably applicable. Of these, 11 States I understand now have

under consideration specific legislation to deal with this matter. The

12th State is Iowa and I should hope that they will follow along

shortly.

Now, Chairman Wiggins of the NARUC Committee on Communications Problems has called a meeting of his committee to convene here

in Washington. This is one of our commissioners' committees which

is composed of our leading State commissioners across the Nation

that are interested particularly in telephones. He plans to present

to his committee a model State bill dealing with this problem. The.

language of his model State bill will closely parallel the language of

S. 375.

If the committee adopts the bill, and I feel that it will, the NARUC

office adopts it, and I feel they will, this bill will be transmitted to the

chairman of each of the 15 State commissions, the Virgin Islands, and

Puerto Rico, with a request that they review this bill with their existing legislation and if they find their legislation is insufficient, to urge

the adoption of this bill in their State legislatures.

So, as you can see, I think the States are making rapid progress in

this area and I think that your bill will complement the State activity

to try to solve this problem as best as practicable.

Thank you for the opportunity of testifying, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you, sir.

Now, is there anyone else in this room who desires to talk on S. 375

for or against? The Chair hears none. We will recess until the

further call of the Chair.

I want to thank everyone for coming.

(Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.)
ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS 25

(Letter and statement submitted for the record from the American

Legion follows:)

Hon. JoIFIN 0. PASTORE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications,

Senate Committee on Commerce,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR PASTORE: Enclosed please find a statement by Mr. James R. Wilson, Director, National Security Division, The American Legion, presenting

the position of this organization in support of S. 375, a bill relating to obscene

or harrassing telephone calls in interstate or foreign commerce.

The American Legion does not wish to appear personally before the Subcommittee but would appreciate your including Mr. Wilson's statement in the printed

record of the hearings.

Your continued cooperation with The American Legion is appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

HERALD E. STRINGER, Director.

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. WILSON, JR.

Chairman Pastore, gentlemen of this important subcommittee: At the outset,

let ine express the gratitude of The American Legion for the opportunity to

evidence our support for S. 375. As an organization comprised exclusively of

men and women who honorably served their nation in time of war, we are deeply

concerned with any legislation which serves to curb practices alien to our way

of life.

In 1965, based on complaints from all sections of the United States, representatives of The American Legion testified in support of Senate bill 2351. We,

and others whose stomachs were turned by this vile practice, had high hopes this

legislation would be swiftly approved. As you, Mr. Chairman, and members of

the Subcommittee, know such was not the case.

The testimony I offer is based on a mandate of our last National Convention

held here in the Nation's Capital in August 1966. Resolution 311, the full text

of which follows, was unanimously adopted by delegates representing the more

than 24 million members of The American Legion.

"Whereas There has been an outbreak of vicious, outrageous telephone calls

harassing and threatening widows and relatives of servicemen killed in Viet Nam;

and

"Whereas The American Legion is an organization comprised exclusively of

veterans who served during wartime and therefore have a deep understanding

of the effect of harassment on the families of servicemen; and

"Whereas The American Legion wholeheartedly supports the American position

in Viet Nam to curtail the spread of communism throughout the "Free World;"

and

"Whereas There is presently a bill (S. 2351) before the Congress designed to

protect the morale and efficiency of members of the Armed Forces by making it

a federal offense for anyone to make threats or harass members of the Armed

Forces, their wives, widows or families; now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by The American Legion in National Convention assembled in Washington, D.C., August 30, 31—September 1, 1966, That we support S. 2351 and urge its

immediate passage by the Congress."

Our concern with the harassment of the families of servicemen dates back several

years, but as witnesses who previously appeared testified, the number of harassing

phone calls recently has increased dramatically.

In cases falling within the purview of this proposed legislation, it goes without

saying we are dealing with sick, deranged or depraved individuals in most instances.

However, as the number of American servicemen fighting in Viet Nam grew, so

grew the extent of harassment of their families which leads to the inevitable

conclusion that mental cruelty to the dependents of members of our Armed Forces

is as much a part of war as guns, bullets and bombs. It also follows that among

the sick, the nuts and the pacifists, there are dedicated communists as well.

Psychological warfare against troops is not new. During World War II, it

was used by the Germans and Japanese. But the harassment of the wives,

children, mothers and fathers of soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen sets a new

low in cruelty and barbarism. As you might presume, our primary interest in

THE AMERICAN LEGION,

Washington, D.C., February 23, 1967.
26 ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

S. 375 is the protection of the families of servicemen, particularly those defending

freedom in Viet Nam.

I cannot emphasize too strongly just how important The American Legion

feels this legislation is. May I assure you that it has the unequivocal support

of our organization. If any changes were to be made, my recommendation

would be that the penalties be made more severe.

I thank you.