John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1-\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon, (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek). (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. WEINER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I am not able to answer why the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is doing this. I have been asked that quite a bit. This is a weaker amendment on gun shows than the McCollum amendment. And here is the bottom line. If this amendment is passed, then criminals will be able to get guns at gun shows. That is where this all comes out. Is there anybody that has not read about this amendment? Is there anybody who does not know that 24 hours is not sufficient? Is there anyone that does not know that gun shows take place frequently on weekends and that a 24-hour rule will get them off? It requires a check only when a gun is offered for sale and the buyer accepts the offer near a gun show. This tells the criminal to window shop at gun shows and then to close the deal somewhere else. Does anyone not really understand what is going on here?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind my friend that if it had not been for the Committee on Rules, we would be in bed, too, tonight. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is an interesting concept here in which we now move the government into the labeling system business and we will now have an all-controlling, omnipotent Federal Trade Commission which will now be directly responsible for the labeling system for video games, movie and sound packages having violent content. I hope everybody is thinking about what this is going to do in terms of the relationship of the government to commerce in the United States. The Federal Trade Commission has its hands full now. Outside of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, it is the only antitrust division that we have, FTC. So it is with some reluctance that I indicate to my dear friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) that this goes a little bit beyond the pale in terms of its overreach. What we are doing is creating a politburo that will move much of the entertainment industry to Washington, D.C. and I think we want to stop and think a minute about what we are doing. We had an interesting hearing on May 13 on youth and violence. One of the great ideas, and I am not sure if the authors of this amendment are aware, which came out of it was the notion that there ought to be one kind of labeling system for all the entertainment industry. It was advanced by a media critic. It made a lot of sense. At the panel was Jack Valenti himself, representing the movie industry. It is, I think, under active consideration. What we find is the problem here, instead of trying to see if the entertainment industry will move on our recommendations, is that here we have decided that they are not or they will not or they cannot and we will now do it for them by commanding the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate a government labeling system. This kind of parallels the Hyde amendment that was rejected yesterday. It is a little bit more tailored. But it still is constitutionally suspect because of the vagueness. Not defining what violence means means that we will be in the courts for quite a long period of time. It is overbroad because it would apply to historical programs and restrict the dissemination of facts. It also may be considered not exactly necessary because the covered industries are using labels and, as I have suggested, they are moving toward even improving them. We have a problem with the V-chip, but I understand from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) that there may be an amendment that can correct it. With regard to whether the amendment is premature or not, we are assuming that the entertainment products with violence are automatically harmful to youth and we impose a costly and burdensome labeling system. Might it not be better to wait for the definitive evidence of such links before imposing an intrusive government regulation system? Under the Markey amendment just passed, we decided to have the Surgeon General conduct a study. In another arena we have NIH conducting a study. So without trying to punt on this, there is the unambiguous scientific evidence that really needs to be brought to bear. I am hopeful that we will consider this with great care. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.