been true since then. The abuses that were anticipated all occurred. The violations of civil liberties that he projected would occur all happened. You see some examples on my right of what the implementation of such an act can naturally-and I would say inevitably-do to principles of civil liberty.

One can talk about mistakes or one can imagine consular officials, or immigration authorities err or misbehave, or are rude, but the thrust of this testimony wasn't really about that. And I think the history of the McCarran-Walter Act has been that the act leads inevitably to behavior of that sort.

So I would urge that if there was any priority item, it should be to finally rid us this abomination.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. In terms of the McCarran-Walter Act-of course, the testimony today, I think, largely spans both personal experiences and institutional experiences which show the range, the ubiquitousness of the application of these policies apparently permitted, if not encouraged, by earlier statutes.

I compliment those who challenge them, because only through that sort of challenge do we get the matters elevated to public concern and the possibility that we can redress, in a general sense, that which is so appropriately complained about.

I am naturally chagrined that both Mrs. Eways and Mr. Yatani were treated in the way they were. Although I would say in the case of Mr. Yatani, I believe that your lawyer should be able-or your organization-should be able to deduce the reasons for thisat least purported reasons-for the abominable treatment that you were subjected to.

In any event, we, today, are indebted to all the witnesses who appeared, both in terms of their experiences and of those who could

not be here.

Regrettably, Mr. Yatani and Mrs. Eways' cases are doubtless not unique. I sense that there are many, many others, regrettably, that probably went through the same experience. And I suspect, in terms of prominent world-respected writers and concerning the ASNE, that there's been a long and similar experience. These experiences are not unique.

The irony is that we should have to wait until this time; when a principal world adversary is engaging in glasnost, we still have the trappings in terms of our own liberties of the cold war, which we cling to desperately-at least many of our colleagues do-for what reason, heaven only knows.

I really don't know any national interest served by the application recently-particularly by the executive branch in terms of the censorships and the limitations on travel; the ideological determinations.

I would hope that we 1 day can go a major step to curing all that. In any event, if we do, we will be in your debt.

I thank the witnesses for their appearance this morning. I remind everyone this is day 1 of 2 days.

Like the 4-hour long television movies, we split our hearings into 2 days, and tomorrow we will have day 2; and perhaps even eventually day 3. The freedom of expression and ideas is something that should concern every American.

FREE TRADE IN IDEAS

THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1989

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,

AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Robert W. Kastenmeier, Geo. W. Crockett, Howard L. Berman, George E. Sangmeister, Mike Synar, Carlos J. Moorhead, and Howard Coble.

Also present: Virginia E. Sloan, assistant counsel; Stephanie A. Ward and Judith W. Krivit, clerks; and Joseph V. Wolfe, minority counsel.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The subcommittee will come to order.

Without objection, the subcommittee will permit the meeting to be covered in whole or in part by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and/or still photography, pursuant to rule 5 of the committee rules.

Yesterday, the first day of these hearings, it is ironic that the Washington Post ran a stunning photo on its front page. The picture was of Hungarian soldiers dismantling the barbed wire of a 40-year-old Iron Curtain between Hungary and Austria.

After reading about that salutary event, we then came into the hearing room to learn about how Americans and foreigners who have business, personal, and professional relationships with each other are still subjected to political litmus tests in this country.

Today we will learn more about restrictions on American travel and our freedom of access to information.

I would hope that the Iron Curtain may be coming down, but the cold war on ideas is not over, regrettably.

We will hear today from two panels. The first will discuss restrictions imposed on America's citizens who wish to travel outside this country. I am particularly pleased that we will hear from four persons, including Dr. Frank Farley of the University of Wisconsin at Madison who represents the American Psychological Association; he is one of my constituents. He and Francis Bradley, an assistant headmaster at George School in Pennsylvania, will testify about restrictions on travel to Cuba.

We will also hear from Thomas Condon, a combat veteran of the Vietnam War and a columnist with the Hartford Courant, and

(103)

from John McAuliff, head of the United States-Indochina Reconciliation Project, about travel restrictions to Southeast Asia.

Gentlemen, we welcome you. Would you please come forward? I think perhaps we will start with Mr. Condon.

I may say that I am very pleased that Mr. Moorhead is here. We can expect interruptions today; the House will be taking up the budget resolution in due course, so we ask your indulgence. We'll try to expedite the hearings as best we can under the circumstances.

Mr. Condon.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. CONDON, REPORTER, THE HARTFORD COURANT, HARTFORD, CT

Mr. CONDON. Thank you, Congressman.

I am speaking today on behalf of perhaps half of the 3.1 million Americans who served in the Vietnam War. There are about half that are interested in returning to Vietnam. I went to Vietnam in January and discovered that there is an absolute grassroots phenomenon in groups of Vietnam veterans from all over the country going back, either to visit, to help build or equip orphanages or clinics, to find land mines, to bring Bibles, various humanitarian projects.

It is very, very therapeutic for those of us who served to go back. Counselors who work with veterans often recommend that veterans revisit the country, to see that the war is over, to see that the country is at peace. It is a great help in putting the experience behind them.

I'm here today because going back is very difficult. I went as part of a group. The tour was completely illegal. It is against the Trading With the Enemy Act to organize tours in Vietnam. We organized the tour in Vietnam and we were in danger of being stopped by the Treasury or being arrested.

I guess the majority of groups are not, but the threat is there. The tours can't advertise, so veterans don't even know that they are allowed to go back to Vietnam.

I just want the committee to note that 20 years ago it was illegal for us not to go; today it is illegal for us to go back. That is inconsistent and it doesn't serve those of us who served in the Vietnam War very well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Condon.