Copyright term, film labeling, and film preservation legislation : hearings before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 989, H.R. 1248, and H.R. 1734 ... June 1 and July 13, 1995 (1996)

89 And, so, we come here today to talk about the film industry and, you know, history is one of those things that can frequently be short-lived. The French made, to me, some of the most initial and profound developments in the history of cinematography. But there was something in the creative force in this country that I argue was embedded in the first amendment, that allowed a creativity that would not let culture become a department within a government. And that energy, that unlimitedness that is here in this country, quickly moved us ahead, not just in movies, but in all the arts, the literature, the languages. And so today, we are premier. But it was not just a given that it started off like that. To me, I think there is a constitutional nexus that this committee, of all committees in the Congress, is bound to observe and relate to every now and then. And so, I am happy to be here now because the questions are not as easy as they used to be in another generation, Mr. Valenti. We are now torn between the first amendment and some very, very delicate questions. How obscene is "Pulp Fiction," and as great an art, and what if anything can or should we do about it? And what about gangster rap? Want to play it for your 4-year-old son? And so we come here now caught up in new and more difficult constitutional questions at the very moment that we are moving now into a more technical, a more technological era than ever before where all of our telecommunications, our digital, our TV, our telephones, begin now to interact in new and powerful ways that will require us to now go back and examine some of the very basic premises that we have nurtured for all these years. And so I close my comments observing that very much with us, today, Carlos, is the spirit, and the former leadership of Bob Kastenmeier, who for more than a decade led and inspired this committee. As a matter of fact, he did such a good job, that if you weren't on the Intellectual Property Subcommittee you left it to Kastenmeier and Moorhead and later on Berman and let it go at that. The rest of the Judiciary Committee took a pass on these questions. But we can't do it anymore. And the reason we can't do it and because a lot of my wonderful new leaders in government are telling us that venerable institutions no longer need to exist. I am told on one hand that we don't need to worry about antitrust activity in the department and then I am told on the other that the very agency they would cede it to, the FCC, doesn't need to exist. You only need an executive office there. Who needs Federal Communications Commissions? Well, I think we need both. And I am not one of those — and maybe I am one of the old dinosaurs around the 104th, but I am not one of those that rush to this dismantling process with unconcealed glee. I think it ought to be a very careful, deliberate, well-thought-out approach. And now that we are out of that forced march called 100 days, we are now able to give some thought and dignity to the proceedings in the Congress. And this committee, under our chairman, I know is committed to that. As a matter of fact, some consider it a weakness; his fairness is too fair, I think it is a strength. And I think it keeps this commit