kind of a danger and they replied these are secrets that you can't be told. I said, are you sure that she is a danger, because she has visited Canada and been in Windsor right across the border from Detroit-was she a danger to us there? I think the same thing is true in inviting other foreign dignitaries. One could construe virtually anybody to be a danger to the security of the United States. My sense of what we are about as a Nation is inviting people for the free exchange of ideas. We have invited to our school representatives of the PLO, and would do it again, as long as we invite someone from the other side, from the Israeli Government. That's what education should be about. How can the American people make a decision about Israel-about the Palestinian question-without hearing the Palestinian side? It is vital to making those decisions. We must. Dr. FARLEY. I feel personally that the free exchange of ideas is the absolute cornerstone of this democracy. I feel some of the restrictions we have are rather unsavory. There is another example concerning presumably the longest undefended border in the world, that is our border with Canada, there is a famous Canadian writer, Farley Moet, who once in jest said that he would shoot his .22 rifle at any American fighter plane that was overflying in Canada because he happened to disagree with certain policies. It was a jest. He was invited to come to the States to give a speech a year or 2 ago, and was prevented from doing so at the border. This became a great cause celebre in Canada at the highest levels. But it pointed up the absurdity of some of our concerns over people's opinions and people's attitudes. If we are a beacon of democratic light to the rest of the world, I think we need to clean up some of these issues. Mr. MCAULIFF. I think also the South African regime is an abomination to most Americans, but the issue would never be raised of should we not allow a government representative, a prime minister or a high official from South Africa to come to the United States to present their viewpoint directly to a civic group or a university. It's never seemed an issue, whether symbolically, that by allowing such a person to come to the United States the United States is endorsing apartheid policies. I think we need to be consistent in saying that as a country in which the root of power is in the people, the highest priority for us is that the people be educated in order to influence power. Mr. CROCKETT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you. If there are no more questionsactually many of those people are seen on satellite television, McNeil-Lehrer and so forth, out of country, as a matter of fact, so keeping them physically out of the United States really serves very little purpose. In conclusion, let me thank the four of you for your contributions here this morning. Mr. Condon, did you wish to speak further? Mr. CONDON. One brief last point I want to make with regard to the travel restrictions in Vietnam. They are also inhibiting scientif I am a trustee of the Brandie Scheib Children's Fund, which aids children with birth defects born to Vietnam veterans who were exposed to agent orange. We have 64,000 such children. Vietnam has an identical problem more than twentyfold of more than a million children suffering effects from the herbicide agent orange. There are only two American scientists working part-time cooperating with Vietnam on trying to solve this problem. This is an area of mutual interest and critical interest to thousands of children, and travel restrictions are inhibiting this process as well. Thank you. I just wanted to add that. Mr. KASTENMEIER. A very good point you've made, and I sympathize completely. For many years, it has been observed that our own veterans are suffering from agent orange. Can you imagine the indigenous population that must live in the impregnated soil for 20 years or more, the terrible damage that they must have sustained, these people, as a result of our use of agent orange. Thank you, Mr. Thomas Condon, Mr. John McAuliff, Dr. Frank Farley, and Mr. Francis Bradley for your contributions this morning. Our third panel, and concluding panel, as a matter of fact, consists of three people. They are going to discuss the various restrictions on the import and export of information. From Pamela Jones, a former filmmaker and now a lawyer, we will hear about USIA regulations that limit the export of films. From Mitchell Block, president of Direct Cinema, professor at the University of Southern California, we will hear about the Foreign Agents Registration Act that requires the labeling of certain films as propaganda. Finally, from Dr. Robert Park, director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society and Director of the Center of Materials Research at the University of Maryland, we will hear about the limits on the dissemination of the academic and scientific information that undermines this country's competitive position. May we hear first from you, Ms. Jones? STATEMENT OF PAMELA C. JONES, ESQ., FILMMAKER Ms. JONES. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I am submitting a written statement for the record and I would like to highlight that statement for you now. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Without objection, your statement and any other statements of the preceding panel and this panel will be accepted and made part of the record in full, and you may, if you wish then, abbreviate your statements. Ms. JONES. I will be prepared, hopefully, to answer any questions you may have afterwards. My name is Pamela Catherine Jones. I am the co-producer and director of the film "In Our Own Backyards," on uranium tailings in the United States. The reason I am here today is because my film was denied a certificate of educational character by the U.S. Information Agency, also known as the USIA. The reason the certificate is important is because it enables filmmakers like myself to take advantage of the Beirut Agreement, a multilateral international agreement, which grants duty-free status to eligible audiovisual material. This treaty was intended to as a vehicle to augment internationally the circulation and free flow of educational, cultural and scientific ideas. My film was denied a certificate because the USIA was reviewing films under a set of regulations that were so ambiguous that, in the words of the ninth circuit court of appeals, they "provided agency officials with license to engage in censorship." The court determined that the Agency was using regulations to discriminate on the basis of the film's content, and in particular on the basis of the film's political viewpoint. My film was denied a certificate because its viewpoint was one with which the USIA and Department of Energy officials did not agree. While agency officials should have freedom to express their subjective political beliefs, it becomes censorship when they can position their political persuasions to translate as a penalty, fine, slap on the wrist and intimidation tactics. In short, a chilling effect occurs when public debate regarding political or controversial subject matter is restrained. This is an area most privileged by the first amendment. This is why those regulations were struck down by the district court, and this is why the ninth circuit court referred to those regulations as "patently offensive to the first amendment." While we recognize that in order to implement the Beirut Agreement, some content-based decisions must be made, under traditional principles of constitutional law, those regulations can be and should be narrowly tailored and clearly drawn. Professionally and personally, it is a wrenching experience to have the power of government brought to bear on one's guarantee of the right to freedom of speech. My colleagues and I were fortunate enough to have found comfort in the judiciary. We will pursue our case to have regulations narrowly drafted, enabling ideas to flow freely as intended by the Beirut Agreement, because we are dedicated to preserving our first amendment rights and the constitutional guarantees of future generations of American filmmakers. Freedom of speech, the freedom to express who we are and what we believe is one of the fundamental principles on which this country was founded, and it is what makes us most proud to be Ameri cans. SUMMARY The United States Information Agency (USIA) is charged with implementing the Beirut Agreement, a multi-lateral treaty aimed at augmenting the international circulation of audio-visual material by encouraging countries to grant duty-free status to eligible applicants. The USIA issues Certificates of Educational Character for material they determine meets eligibility requirements contained in Agency regulations. On May 17, 1988 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down these regulations used by the USIA calling them "patently offensive to the First Amendment". A However, prior to judicial intervention, numerous critically-acclaimed American-made films were deemed unacceptable and denied benefits to which they were entitled. sample list follows: THE KILLING GROUND: This 1982 landmark documentary from ABC won an Academy Award nomination for exposing problems related to toxic waste. Nevertheless, it was denied a Certificate because the USIA was assured by the EPA that great progress had been made in managing hazardous waste. IN OUR OWN BACKYARDS: This documentary was selected for a special screening by the Museum of Modern Art; was broadcast nationally on the PBS series "Other Visions, Other Voices"; was a finalist in the American Film Festival but was denied a Certificate because its viewpoint was one with which USIA and Department of Energy officials did not agree. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO CHILDHOOD?: This film received an Emmy Award for Best Information Special but was denied a Certificate because it focused on children's problems, thereby distorting "the real picture of the universe and youth in the U.S." SOLDIER GIRLS: This film was the winner of a British Academy Award and the Prix Italia. However, after confering with the Defense Department, certification was denied. PEACE: A CONSCIOUS CHOICE: This four-minute short film was denied a Certificate because it espoused a cause. Peace. The film we made is neither glamorous nor highly profitable. Indeed, that is almost always true of "educational" and documentary films. By nature they are designed to inform, not sensationalize or excite in the way that makes products sell in our current society. Therefore the added economic burden of export fees is impossible for us to bear. Sometimes the fees are negligible and the hindrance to distribution minor sometimes, not always. It is also true that we are not, technically, being prevented from distributing our film abroad. And, in fact, far more films receive certification than do not. But these points are irrelevant to the situation. The absoluteness of the discrimination is not the point. The fact is if it costs one American citizen one nickel more, or one breath more of effort, to express her point of view than it costs one other whose opinion squares more evenly with the current Administration be it Republican or Democrat then a grave danger is being posed to the First Amendment. It is the most basic freedom on which this country was founded, and it is what makes us most proud to be American citizens. To see that right soiled in any way by the selfprotective interests of the very agency designed to further the reach of that unique quality of American democracy is a betrayal of the Constitution and the intent of the founders of this nation. - We believe Bill No. HR. 1767, The Free Trade In Ideas Act, which has been introduced to the House of Representatives by Congressman Howard Berman would rectify this situation and merits your consideration. Thank you. Submitted by Pamela C. Jones and Susanna Styron/IN OUR OWN BACKYARDS Re: Hearing of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property Such an In 1948 the Beirut Agreement was adopted by the United Nations, pursuant to a recommendation by the United States of America. It was intended to promote "the free flow of ideas" by means of "an unrestricted international exchange" of audio-visual materials to meet the needs of a war-torn world hungry for information. exchange, it was hoped, would foster a new level of international understanding and help engender, a spirit of global cooperation. One impediment to creating such an unrestricted flow of ideas was the fact that marginally profitable documentary films were being subjected to the same international tariffs as those imposed upon high-profit features. While such an expense was merely a line item to the Hollywood studios, to low-budget documentary film-makers the tariffs were and still are considered a deterrent to the international distribution of a film. The Treaty nations decided that in order to facilitate their goals such tariffs should not be levied on films of a cultural, scientific and educational nature. Under the terms of the Agreement, duty-free status was to be granted to audio-visual material able to meet the following criteria: |