LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION. WE WILL OF COURSE MAKE AVAILABLE TO THOSE COMMITTEES WHATEVER TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT ΤΟ THEIR CONSIDERATION OF THESE ISSUES. THE COURTS ARE NOT THE SINGULAR GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE CONGRESS HAS A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY AS WELL. THE ISSUES WE ADDRESS HERE TODAY ARE NOT PARTISAN IN NATURE. WE ALL SUPPORT OUR COUNTRY'S RIGHT TO KEEP OUT TERRORISTS, SPIES, AND OTHERS WHOSE ACTIVITIES WOULD CAUSE GREAT AND IMMINENT HARM TO OUR DEMOCRACY AND BUT THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL OUR CITIZENS. CONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN BELIEF AND ACTIVITY, BETWEEN ADVOCACY AND INCITEMENT TO ACTION. WE LIVE IN A WORLD THAT TRANSCENDS BORDERS. THE SHARING OF IDEAS AND INFORMATION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES IS IMPERATIVE IF WE ARE TO RETAIN OUR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE AND IF WE ARE TO CONTINUE OUR GREAT DEMOCRATIC EXPERIMENT. AMERICA IS AN IMMEASURABLY MORE OPEN SOCIETY THAN IS THE SOVIET UNION. COUNTRY'S STRUGGLE CIRCULATION OF NEW CONSIDERED DANGEROUS. то OPEN ITS SOCIETY, AND ΤΟ ALLOW THE IDEAS IN A LAND WHERE IDEAS WERE OFTEN AMERICA MUST SET A CLEAR AND CONTINUING EXAMPLE TO THE MANY OTHER COUNTRIES STRUGGLING TO OPEN THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS. OUR PARTICIPATION IN THE HELSINKI ACCORDS IS EVIDENCE OF OUR COMMITMENT TO OPENNESS, BUT OUR LAWS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT PARTICIPATION. I REGRET THAT WE WILL NOT HEAR FROM THE NEW ADMINISTRATION DURING THESE HEARINGS. OUR DOOR REMAINS OPEN, HOWEVER, IF THE ADMINISTRATION WISHES TO TESTIFY, AND IN THE HOPE THAT IT WILL AGREE THAT THE TIME HAS COME TO REVIEW AND RECONSIDER THESE LAWS, IN LIGHT OF OUR COMMITMENT ΤΟ HELSINKI AND ΤΟ THE FREE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS. AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOTED, "THE FIRST AMENDMENT PRESUPPOSES THAT RIGHT CONCLUSIONS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE GATHERED OUT OF A MULTITUDE OF TONGUES, THAN THROUGH ANY KIND OF Mr. KASTENMEIER. Unless members have any opening statements Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from California. Mr. BERMAN. First, I want to thank you very much for scheduling these hearings, covering what I think are a series of very important issues. I've introduced H.R. 1767, the free trade in ideas bill, which would allow American citizens to export educational materials free of executive branch interference as well as to permit Americans to travel freely. I am pleased to note, and appreciative, Mr. Chairman, that you are a cosponsor of this legislation. I've for a long time felt that the right to travel is a civil liberty which outweighs any U.S. interest in preventing visits to countries which are under economic embargo. Currently, under the present law, the President has the power to block travel to such nations by imposing currency restrictions on U.S. citizens. The bill that I have would remove that authority. This legislation would recognize that there are certain dangerous, strife-torn parts of the world where the Government does have a legitimate reason to restrict travel. We've already seen how hostage-taking can pervert our foreign policy. In those limited instances, for example, Lebanon today, my legislation would grant the President the power to impose currency restrictions to prevent travel. We've already begun to see the demise of some statutes that wrongly restrict the access of U.S. citizens to information. Last year's trade bill included a part of the free trade in ideas legislation that I carried during the 100th Congress. This provision now prevents the executive branch from interfering with the import or export of publications, films, posters, and other informational materials. While it was a welcome step, as we will hear from many of the witnesses you scheduled for these hearings, much more needs to be done. That's why I've reintroduced the free trade in ideas bill, and that's also why, I suspect, Congressman Frank has introduced his commendable legislation to reform the McCarran-Walter Act. I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your involvement with these issues and for setting these hearings. I think there are very important issues involved in the panels that will be coming before us in the next 2 days. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Berman follows:] OPENING STATEMENT OF REP. HOWARD L. BERMAN SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, MAY 3, 1989 Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for scheduling these hearings on such an important set of issues. The right of Americans to travel freely is extremely important to me, and that is why I have introduced the Free Trade in Ideas Bill. My legislation would also allow American citizens to export educational materials free of executive branch interference that is politically or H.R. 1767 ideologically motivated. I am pleased to note, and deeply appreciative, Mr. Chairman, that you are a cosponsor of this legislation. I firmly believe that the right to travel is a civil liberty which outweighs any U.S. interest in preventing visits to countries which are under economic embargo. Currently, the President has the power to block travel to such nations by imposing currency restrictions on U.S. citizens. My legislation would remove that authority. However, there are certain dangerous, strife-torn parts of the world where I believe the government does have legitimate reason to restrict travel. We have already seen how hostagetaking can pervert our foreign policy. In those limited instances for example, Lebanon today - my legislation would grant the President the power to impose currency restrictions to But, Mr. Chairman, travel bans do not serve United States interests in the context of economic embargoes. For example, those few Americans who are permitted to travel to Cuba often return with serious concerns about human rights violations. Indeed, there is no telling what impressions will be formed when Americans are allowed to exercise their right to inform themselves of what's going on in the world. Mr. Chairman, we have already begun to see the demise of some statutes that wrongly restrict the access of U.S. citizens to information. Last year's Trade Bill included a part of the Free Trade in Ideas legislation that I carried during the 100th Congress. This provision now prevents the executive branch from interfering with the import or export of publications, films, posters, and other informational materials. This was a welcome step, but as we will hear from the many witnesses who will appear before us, much more needs to be done. That is why I introduced the Free Trade in Ideas Bill, and that is why, I suspect, Congressman Frank introduced his commendable legislation to reform the McCarren-Walter Act. I thank you again for your involvement with these issues, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that a majority of our colleagues on Capitol Hill will support these measures. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Moorhead will be arriving later and perhaps he will have a statement. Our first witness today is this country's preeminent first amendment lawyer. Floyd Abrams is always on the cutting edge of first amendment law, from New York Times v. Sullivan to the Pentagon Papers case to current attempts to reform libel laws. He has been a frequent witness before the Judiciary Committee and before this subcommittee. We welcome the opportunity today to receive his views. I also understand that he will be prepared to join our first panel on the McCarran-Walter Act. We would be pleased to have him do So. Mr. Abrams, you are most welcome. You may proceed as you wish. STATEMENT OF FLOYD ABRAMS, ESQ., CAHILL GORDON & Mr. ABRAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate the invitation to appear here today. I will not read my entire statement. I can assure the Chair that I fully understand that I am the appetizer or the hors d'oeuvre of what is to follow today, and I'll try to behave that way. What I thought I would do, though, is to try to summarize what I think are a few of the basic principles which might guide this subcommittee and the Congress as it considers the issues that will be presented in the next 2 days. First, I think it is worth saying and saying again quite how unique we are as a country. The first amendment, I've often thought, is our most important export, just as it is our most important domestic protection against deprivation of freedom of speech or of the press. We are unique in that. Most countries don't believe it. Most countries think we are a little bit crazy for going quite so far in the direction we have towards protecting first amendment rights. You quoted earlier from Judge Learned Hand saying that our view was that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. I believe that the hearings that you will have in the next 2 days relate to areas in which we have been less than fully faithful to that affirmation of Americanism by Judge Hand; and, indeed, to areas in which we in the most profound sense have acted in an unAmerican fashion by limiting speech because of its content, by limiting speakers because of what they have to say, by limiting the spread of ideas because we disagree with them. It seems to me that three premises should underlie your consideration of the testimony today. First, as you observed, Mr. Chairman, it is the Congress, which is both the first and the last decisionmaker in this area; it is the Congress which should first pass upon constitutional issues as it determines what legislation it believes would best serve the public. And it is Congress which is free to take into account first amendment values, even in situations in which the Supreme Court has decided that those values may be |