Mr. HUGHES. Our next witness is Representative Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania. Welcome, Tom. TESTIMONY OF HON. THOMAS J. RIDGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. RIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I echo my colleagues' thanks to you and your subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you, and your untiring leadership on this particular issue. I know recently-as a matter of fact, it was last weekend-that you were very prominently featured in a significant article in northwestern Pennsylvania; and I empathize with your desire to quit opening mail and get on with the task. I know your colleagues support you in that effort. So, again, we congratulate you for your leadership on this particular issue. I would like to ask unanimous consent that my full testimony previously submitted be included as part of the record so I may just summarize. Mr. HUGHES. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. RIDGE. Mr. Chairman, sometime ago after a town meeting, an elderly woman came up to me, and in a clandestine, almost secretive fashion, almost embarrassingly, handed me an envelope that had marked on it "Personal attention, obscene material enclosed." She said, "Congressman, I didn't want to bring this up to you in public but would you please take a look at it when you conclude today or sometime today and report back to me what you think about it and what you think should be done." When I opened the envelope, it revealed a glossy, four-page, multi-colored, very expensive, advertisement for pornographic films. Since all of us from time to time use direct mail for purposes dealing with our profession, we can understand the cost of that kind of mass mailing. Mind you now, it was very well done-four pages, glossy, multi-colored; sexually, very explicit material, advertising low-cost video films. I think the cost was $4.16 each, but the deal was to get nine of them for $49.95. I will tell you that I attached a copy of that sample-you don't quite get the impact of it in black and white-to the testimony I have submitted, and I do hope you include it as part of the record. Mr. HUGHES. I might just say that that is a part of the record, Tom. [The submitted material is available for review in the Crime Subcommittee office.] Mr. RIDGE. Thank you, I appreciate that very much. When I looked into what the Congress and what the Federal Government has tried to do to limit this kind of activity, limit the use of the mails; understanding, of course, the problems and the debate about censorship and freedom of speech; I discovered there existed a statute referred to as the Goldwater Amendment. In this amendment the home owner or the addressee is obliged to go to the Post Office after they have received it and read it, and then it is their duty to sign a form saying that they don't want to receive this information or this kind of solicitation again. Then it is up to their effort with child pornography. But it is up to the Federal Government to enforce it, to make sure that a subsequent mailing does not get delivered to that particular home. We wrestled with this problem for quite some time. I know one of the reasons this committee has been so successful and is so well regarded is that you take your roles as legislators as seriously as any; you are concerned about the First Amendment implications of anything you do that regulates free speech. I think we came up with a responsible and constitutional response to what I think is a problem reaching epidemic proportions around the country. Congresswoman Barbara Boxer and I have introduced the Pornographic Mail Prohibition Act-it's H.R. 4257. We presently have in excess of 150 cosponsors, from both sides of the aisle. Basically what we have done in this legislation is to shift the burden. The burden is now no longer on the addressee; the burden is no longer on the Post Office, the burden is on the purveyor. The key in this is "unsolicited" sexually explicit material. Purveyors of this porno or this trash will send out hundreds of thousands of these glossy, explicit advertisements with the hope of attracting-and obviously they do some response. It is not my intention to regulate access to the information. I think if you take a look at H.R. 4257, we don't. We are not saying that somewhere along the line in the establishment of the relationship between the addressor-or better yet, the purveyor of the trash-to the addressee; they cannot send sexually explicit material. It has to be at the invitation-"the invitation"-of the address ee. We are going to shift the burden from the homeowner and from the Post Office, to those responsible for mailing this. Now what I would like to also ask unanimous consent to do, Mr. Chairman, is recognizing your commitment to upholding the First Amendment and your concern about its implications, I have prepared a constitutional analysis of our approach. It's quite lengthy but I would ask-and will provide you a copy-would ask unanimous consent that it be considered as part of the record and part of my testimony. I would just like to briefly outline it and then conclude. Mr. HUGHES. Without objection, it is so ordered, and so received. COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME TESTIMONY OF TOM RIDGE ON THE PORNOGRAPHIC MAIL PROHIBITION ACT H.R. 4257 A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS A. Introduction H.R. 4257 THE PORNOGRAPHIC MAIL PROHIBITION ACT A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS Obscenity is not protected as "speech" under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Congress may regulate the distribution of obscene literature. The situation is much less clear when dealing with material which does not fall within obscenity standards as defined in the Miller case. In FCC v. Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), the Supreme Court found that "indecency" is separate and distinct from "obscenity". The Court defined indecency as "nonconformance with accepted standards of morality." Id. at 740. Indecency has also been used as shorthand for the second part of the Miller obscenity test offensiveness." See Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478 (1962). Material, even offensive material, which does not meet the Miller standard of obscenity is entitled to protection as speech under the First Amendment. "patent Indecent speech, like many other forms of non-obscene speech, can be regulated. The Supreme Court has allowed regulation of non-obscene speech based on subject matter and context in many cases. eg., Rowan v. Post Office, 397 U.S. 728 (1970) (banning the mailing See, of sexually oriented materials at the request of the postal patron); Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976) (zoning restrictions on adult theaters); Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986) (upheld restriction on "indecent" sexually suggestive language in a political speech by high school student); City of Newport v. Iacobucci, 479 U.S. 93 L.Ed.2d 334 (1986) (upheld city ordinance which prohibited nude or nearly nude dancing in bars.) In response to public and congressional concern over the use of the mails to distribute unsolicited offensive and lewd advertisements, Congress crafted a procedure aimed at protecting the addressee's right "to be let alone". See Rowan v. Post Office, 397 U.S. 728, 731 (1969). This procedure requires addressees to list their names with the Post Office in order to restrict mailings that the addressees deem offensive. Once on the list, the sender is then prohibited from mailing further advertisements to the listed addressees. This prohibition, which is set forth in 18 U.S.C.S. Sec. 1735-37 and 39 U.S.C.S. Sec. 3010-11, is commonly referred to as the "Goldwater Amendment." Congressional findings which supported the Goldwater Amendment are contained in Section 14 of Pub L 91-375, which reads: INVASION OF PRIVACY BY MAILING OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED |