quent cowboy, from an eloquent urban knight, and the intensity of my dilemma has not been assuaged.

I may be the only member of this subcommittee who sees it, but I genuinely see merit on both sides as I said at the outset. So Álan, lost souls that we are-Mr. Chairman, I will continue to await some sort of profound road-to-Damascus-type conversion whereby uncertainty will be dispelled. Thank you both for being with us. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you for coming.

Mr. SIMPSON. We are going to bring it to you, Howard.
Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BRYANT. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HUGHES. The gentlelady from Colorado.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry for being late, and I am sorry they don't want the Federal Trade Commission to look at distortions of work done by proponents of campaign ads. But I think one of the things that troubles people here is back in my territory, there is a feeling that the Federal Government_only helps those who don't need help. And I think that is what I am hearing from some of my colleagues, that people feel that these labels allow very powerful people to go in, and studios want them and are bidding for them and surely everybody knows that they are selling them to airlines and they are putting them in videos and that they do cut things.

So don't they have lawyers? I mean, isn't there some way to negotiate this in the contract? In other words, why can't this be negotiated in the contract at the beginning? Why do we need a Federal law to protect people? I always thought they were surrounded by lawyers and all sorts of people who were more interested in those than those in who use legal aid.

Mr. MRAZEK. Why do we have a landmark protection act at the Federal Government? Why do we protect Stephen Decatur's home down on Lafayette Square? Why do we protect John Philip Sousa's music as a Federal Government? We do it because they are an enduring part of our national cultural heritage, and the work of people like William Wyler and Billy Wilder and George Stephens, Sr., and Fred Zimmerman and many others. Masterpiece works accomplished by these great artists, are being desecrated. That is why we have this legislation.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. But if you were their lawyer, when were you cutting the deal, wouldn't you try to have some control for them, because you would be so concerned about their work? I mean, I assume they are going in with an attorney. If not, we ought to pass a law they ought to get an attorney when they go negotiate.

Mr. MRAZEK. We are talking about an art form that was really created in this country, and it evolved over the course of 70 years. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I agree.

Mr. MRAZEK. And, you know, we are now talking about the heritage of the past. We are past the point when they could have negotiated those questions, and perhaps they would have if they had had the influence of the studio to do it.

Mr. SIMPSON. I would just say, Pat, that I don't look upon this as a group of society that needs help. I look upon it as a simple matter of integrity, of preserving their creativity in whatever art form they happen to engage; and I think movies are an art form.

I have visited with directors who have come to this country and have become naturalized citizens of this country; and they said, this is the statement I wanted to make about my country. I wanted to do it in black and white. I knew exactly how long it was, and I knew what I intended to say, and I am sick to my stomach when I see what they have done to a film just to work in one more thing or do something, or fit it for the table. We do food labeling. We do every other kind of labeling. The Government is interested in all sorts of business labeling, and all we are saying is, we are asking for a tiny message that says, "Warning, this film has been materially altered," and then the materially altered is described as four separate segments and then nothing more.

I would be glad to work with anyone. I am fully aware of the controversy in it, and we knew when we started. We have chuckled for lots of years on this one.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, thank you. It was nice. I think that is the hardest part that I see, that you are going to have to sell on a wagon train out West when someone says, you spent your time trying to help these poor little guys who are only worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet that is their image of what the Federal Government does anyway, and I think any reasonably prudent-to use the old legal standard, any reasonably prudent director or writer would know that this goes on. This is the real world, so deal with it when they are bidding for your services, you know.

But I guess that is what we have to look at.

Mr. HUGHES. I just want to thank both our witnesses. It is a very, very interesting issue and frankly the whole subject of protecting the integrity of artistic works is an important area. Our own system is a little different than in other systems around the world. Trying to accommodate these two competing areas is a very difficult assignment.

We are not talking about economic issues insofar as moral rights from the perspective you have taken; we are talking about the integrity of an artist's work and we will continue to wrestle with what is a very complex set of circumstances.

We are indebted to you today. You have given us a lot of time, and you have been very helpful to us. We appreciate it.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. HUGHES. We have a unique opportunity this morning to learn firsthand about technical alterations that are made in motion pictures. I would like to welcome Mr. Scorsese, renowned film director and member of the Directors Guild of America, who has brought us such wonderful films as "Goodfellas," "Raging Bull," "After Hours," and most recently, "Cape Fear."

He has turned his talents into a film for today's hearing, documented modifications made to motion pictures. If he will come forward-we need to welcome you this morning.

I would also like to welcome another member of the panel, Mr. Charles Sherman, the senior vice president of the National Association of Broadcast Auditors, who is appearing today on behalf of the National Association of Broadcast Auditors and the Association of Independent Television Stations. Mr. Sherman was president of WHOI-TV in Illinois prior to joining NAB.

We welcome you today to come forward now and assume your places at the witness table.

Mr. Scorsese, welcome.

Mr. Scorsese, Mr. Sherman, we have your statements, which, without objection, will be made a part of the record in full. So we hope you can summarize for us.

We are just delighted to have you with us. I understand that you have deferred to Mr. Sherman first.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. SHERMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF TELEVISION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS AND THE ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT TELEVISION STATIONS

Mr. SHERMAN. It is fine. I guess-which videotape is ready to roll? We appreciate the people in the Directors Guild and so forth for allowing us to use their equipment. I guess you could say, Mr. Chairman, it is a new form of the retransmission concept, and we hope that you understand that we are not technicians. We are, unfortunately, just general managers and directors, and we don't understand all of the technical things. But we hope, going from that small box into this one will work.

So, could you roll it, please?

[Video presentation.]

Mr. HUGHES. Is that the end of the

Mr. SHERMAN. That is the end of ours, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HUGHES. Get the lights. Thank you.

Would you like to add any

Mr. SHERMAN. I have nothing to add to the tape.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. SHERMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, TELEVISION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION BROADCASTERS

OF

ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT TELEVISION STATIONS

AND THE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Charles E. Sherman, Senior Vice President of Television for the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), which represents the owners and operators of America's radio and television stations, as well as all major networks.

I am appearing at this hearing today on behalf of NAB and the Association of Independent TV Stations (INTV), which represents independent television stations, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the broadcasters' perspective on H.R. 3051, the Film Disclosure Act of 1991, introduced by Representative Robert Mrazek, of New York. NAB and INTV are members of the Committee For America's Copyright Community, and we would like to associate ourselves with the testimony submitted today by CACC.

This bill is not in the best interests of either television stations or the public. This legislation, whether attempting to "preserve" the character of motion pictures which are aired on television, or providing purported "truth in labeling" to consumers regarding every movie that has been even minimally or routinely edited for television, simply would make such broadcasts needlessly complicated and clearly more expensive.

Since broadcasters routinely must utilize various editing techniques to prepare movies for broadcast, this bill would force us to apply pejorative labels to these films, both when they are promoted and when they are aired. The effect of this bill would be two-fold. Broadcasters would be discouraged from obtaining the rights to films for broadcast purposes, and our viewers would be told that the films we broadcast are somehow inferior, and they would be discouraged from watching them. Thus, this legislation would hinder access to films for millions of American television viewers, while it would create a new property right for a certain few categories of filmmakers, under the guise of providing more information to consumers. We oppose this bill, which would go well beyond current American copyright laws.

Editing and Alteration Techniques Used by Broadcasters

In order that stations may broadcast theatrically-released motion pictures, a number of customary editorial techniques are often employed. These techniques are used for economic, legal, ethical and/or technical reasons. Let me briefly touch upon the more common of these techniques.

Broadcasters need to be permitted to edit movies or other audio-visual works for commercials and other insertions. Our only means of raising the revenue needed to purchase the rights to air movies is by selling air time. These insertions include commercial announcements, public service announcements, station identifications, station and network promotions, and news and weather updates. Several of these are functions which stations are legally required to perform as licensees under the Communications Act of 1934.

A second technique is the editing of motion pictures and other programs to fit preexisting television time schedules. Our ability to provide a wide variety of programming, including local, national and international news, sporting events and other forms of entertainment programming, requires us to start and end programming at precise times.

Broadcasters also need to edit movies for content. As holders of FCC licenses, television broadcasters are legally responsible for virtually all material transmitted to the viewing audience. A station that airs material which contains indecent or obscene material is in danger of violating the Communications Act and risks the loss of its license. In addition, broadcasters must be sensitive to the standards of their communities and edit programming that may not be obscene or indecent, but which still is too "adult" or otherwise inappropriate to transmit over the public airwaves to the intended audience.

Finally, it often is necessary to make technical adjustments to theatrically-released motion pictures for broadcast dissemination. Because the aspect ratio (height to width) of a motion picture screen is different than that of a television screen, this adjustment is achieved either through a process called "letter boxing" or through panning and scanning.

Letter boxing retains the aspect ratio of movie film by placing thick black borders at the top and bottom of the television screen. Panning and scanning, however, allows the viewer to receive a full screen of video information without such distracting borders being added.

Some viewers may favor one method over the other, but there appears to be little reason for Congress to enact legislation which expresses a preference. This question can best be settled by the viewing public, and we would submit that allowing broadcasters to use the technique which audiences prefer makes the most sense for all parties concerned.

The Film Disclosure Act -- A Solution in Search of a Problem

The legislation before the subcommittee today would change the current system of editing movies for broadcast. H.R. 3051, the Film Disclosure Act of 1992, would amend federal trademark law to require that those who make films available to consumers label any films which have been "materially altered" -- a term defined so broadly as to include even the most minimal or routine editing. The bill also requires that all advertising and promotional materials for such films be similarly labeled.

The labeling and notification requirements imposed on broadcasters and providers of motion picture programming are sweeping. Such labels could easily reach several paragraphs in length, detailing the specific nature of each "alteration," and listing the objections of the principal director, screenwriter and cinematographer, or their heirs, to each "alteration." The labels would be required for any change from a film's theatrical version, including procedures commonly used to adapt films for home video, television and cable.