Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the Coble amendment to this bill. I urge its adoption. Mr. Dickinson, the Patent and Trademark Office director, reports that this bill, unamended, would force the agency to institute a hiring freeze that would prevent the director from replacing roughly 600 patent examiners and attorneys who are scheduled to leave the agency in fiscal year 2001. The director also reports that this funding level would increase the time required for PTO to process Patent and Trademark applications. Therefore, an additional 68,000 patents would be delayed until fiscal year 2002. We are talking about user fees. These are fees paid to the PTO. We are not asking to borrow from other sources, other funds. We are asking to retain the user fees collected by the PTO. I am certainly for a balanced budget. And Congress has to set priorities, but this is not a good priority. This Patent and Trademark Office facilitates the economy in a way that other agencies cannot. It is important that we retain our technological edge. It is important that inventors and developers get the protection they need to encourage the innovation and the creativity and the invention. This is penny wise and pound foolish. Do not hobble this agency. This is one of the most useful productive agencies in Government. And by allowing it to retain an additional $133 million in fee income, this at least allows the PTO to tread water, if not to make progress. So I strongly suggest the priority which suggests it is useful to cut funds from the Patent and Trademark Office is wrong, that we need to fully fund its operations. I support the Coble amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, because I suspect I am running out of it, I just would say to the gentleman that, since 1992, the workload has increased 75 percent. And this is not an expenditure, it is an investment. Patents and trademarks help our economy. They forward our economy. They encourage the development. So this is an investment, not a subtraction, and the workload requires that we keep pace. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and urge each of my colleagues to pass this rule. However, tonight I also appear before you in support of full funding for the U.S. Copyright Office. The bill that the House will consider later tonight, as explained to me, represents a 38 percent reduction in the Office's total net funding. In human terms, this corresponds to a pink slip for at least one of every four employees at the Office. And siphoning money from the Office's ``No Year Account'' will only delay the inevitable; roughly the same number of people would lose their jobs through Fiscal Year 2002. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about all of $5 million for what amounts to a tiny government entity. Tiny, but important. The Copyright Office registers works submitted for copyrights and makes these works available to the Library of Congress for its collections and exchange programs. The resulting cuts set forth in the bill would greatly compromise the ability of the Office to provide a timely and accurate public records of copyright ownership. Applications for registrations would plummet, thereby generating irreplaceable losses to the collections of the Library of Congress. The mandatory deposit system, along with public information services, would suffer. And from our own little corner of the world, we in the Congress would be denied necessary counsel from the leading federal entity on copyright law and policy. Mr. Speaker, copyright industries constitute the largest segment of our national economy. While I both respect and admire the work of the appropriators, in this instance I believe the Congress is acting in a penny-wise but pound-foolish manner. While I support passage of the rule and the forthcoming bill, it is my hope that during the conference it is possible to restore the necessary funding for the U.S. Copyright Office.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I did not want to get into this debate. It is very late. But it is difficult to remain silent when so many things are being said about such an important subject. And there is no more important subject, there really is not, because this concerns the nature of man. This concerns the value we assign to that tiny little minute little beginning of human life in the womb. Is that something we can throw away and destroy because it is now inconvenient or is that a human life and as a member of the human family entitled to life, liberty, and the pursue happiness? I suggest to my colleagues that that little defenseless, powerless, voiceless little preborn child deserves the protection of society, not its enmity. Rather than picking on the most vulnerable by trying to impose our will on a pregnant woman in jail, we are defending the most vulnerable, which is the unborn child, who has nobody to defend him or her, more likely her than him. It is defending the powerless that we seek to do in not using and withholding taxpayers' money to pay for abortions. Now, nobody is denying the constitutional right to an abortion. More is the pity. That is one of the tragedies of our time, that our Supreme Court has said it is all right to exterminate another human being for almost any reason during the 9 months. That is what the substance of that decision is. And any more than one had to agree with Dred Scott, one does not have to agree that Roe v. Wade is a good decision. It is not. It is a tragic decision. But because we have the constitutional right does not mean we have a right to have it paid for, to have its implementation, its exercise paid for by the public purse. We have a right to free speech, but we do not have a right to the Government buying us a megaphone. So make the distinction. No one says they do not have the right, but who should pay for it? The public ought not to have to pay to exterminate innocent children. My colleagues call it health care. It is not very healthy for the unborn child, abortion. It is terminal. Capital punishment is a popular cause now, and people are rallying to the defense of prisoners who have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of murder. Well, the unborn child has committed no crime. It has been brought into the world without any option on his or her part, and she or he is there, defenseless; and it is my colleagues' job and it is my job not to impose a religious view on anybody but to follow the founders of our country who said that we all have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My colleagues can escape this, I suppose, by defining the unborn as not yet human, as one of our good friends did over there when he said he did not know when human life begins. It begins at the beginning. When a woman is pregnant, she is pregnant with what? She is pregnant with life, human life. And that is not animal, mineral or vegetable; it is a tiny member of the human family. And if my colleagues are ambiguous as to when that little tiny entity becomes a beneficiary of the Constitution, then they have not thought about it, and they have a failure of imagination. No, that little life is a human life. It is vulnerable, it is powerless, and somebody has to defend it. We have to defend it. It is innocent and deserves protection. So I hope this amendment, well- intentioned as it is, but terribly, tragically misguided, is defeated.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. If the gentleman from Illinois will yield, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), is it his understanding that the intent of the language is to urge the FAA, which has delayed action for approximately 2 years, to begin promptly to process an environmental impact statement which will finally review Illinois' proposal to build a third airport on 23,845 acres in Peotone, Illinois, not in a piecemeal or partial fashion, but rather in a comprehensive and thorough manner?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his efforts and responsiveness on this very important issue to the residents of my district and throughout the State of Illinois.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it always is a mystery to me why so many good people, and the advocates of this amendment are as good as they get, can support such a hollow cause as killing an unborn child. That is the what an abortion is. Do you ever hear the saying, get real? Well, they talk about euphemisms, about choice. We are all for choice, but there is only one choice, whether it is in a military hospital or in an abortion clinic; it is a live baby, or a dead baby. That is the choice they are opting for. Mr. Chairman, military facilities are paid for by taxpayers, and they do not want the facilities used to kill unborn children. The phrase ``terminate a pregnancy,'' that is fraudulent. You exterminate a pregnancy. Every pregnancy terminates at the end of 9 months. No, our military is to defend life, not to exterminate defenseless, powerless, unborn life. I know lots of tough situations occur where a pregnancy is terribly awkward. It can even threaten your health. Those are serious and we cannot minimize them. But I will tell you what is serious; taking a little life that has a future and exterminating it for any reason other than to save another life. So if abortion is just another procedure, and getting rid of the child is no big deal because it is really not a member of the human family, it is a thing, it is expendable, then, fine, this is probably a good idea. But if you think human life is something that is special, something that is sacred, if you think that all people are possessed of inalienable rights, the first of which is life, then it would seem to me, do not use taxpayer facilities.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), no one attacks anyone's reverence for life. I attack killing unborn children, however, and I will defend them. Secondly, no one is stopping a woman from exercising her constitutional right to have an abortion because of Roe versus Wade. Under the law, women have that right but they do not have the right to have the government pay for any part of it. We have a right of free speech. That does not mean the government has to buy someone a megaphone or a typewriter. People can exercise it. Taxpayers' funds are expended when military facilities are used and there is no constitutional right to that, and so that is the difference.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that, in addition to being very honored to help pass this excellent bill and the regret it took so many years to get to this point, one of the ancillary benefits of the campaign for this bill was a visit by the governor of Minnesota, Mr. Ventura. He and I did engage in some arm wrestling. And I want to say that the fact that he let me win has nothing to do with my support for this excellent bill.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, Mr. Speaker, this body considers legislation to facilitate citizenship opportunities for Hmong refugees who were recruited by the United States to assist our combat effort in Indochina. Twenty-five years after the end of the Vietnam War, we honor the heroism and sacrifices of the Hmong. At great personal peril and loss of life, they fought with us and performed critical roles in dangerous missions on our behalf. As a former CIA officer pointed out in a statement submitted to the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims in the last Congress, and I quote, ``Throughout the war, CIA's paramilitary forces collected intelligence, used it in combat operations to tie down some 50,000 North Vietnamese forces in Laos, rescued downed American pilots and protected sensitive American installations at remote mountain tops.'' Those Hmong veterans who survive the war face severe persecution for their association with us. H.R. 371 acknowledges that many Hmong veterans face unique language problems that present insurmountable obstacles to U.S. citizenship. The Hmong we recruited during the Vietnam War, including some at a very early age, lived at a predominantly preliterate society. Lieutenant Colonel Wangyee Vang, National President, Lao Veterans of America, explained in his statement for the 1997 hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, ``Cultural barriers and the fact that a written Hmong language was not used in much of Laos until late in its history have compounded the problems of literacy for the Hmong.'' In recognition of their compelling and extraordinary sacrifices, H.R. 371 provides for an exemption from the English language requirement and authorizes special consideration related to the civics requirement. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), our esteemed colleague, is the author of this legislation, and he may have put it best when he testified as follows before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims in the last Congress: ``They probably have passed the most important test, Mr. Chairman, and that is risking their lives for the values and beliefs that we revere as Americans and saving American lives.'' The step we hopefully will take today is overdue. In the 104th Congress, this body passed an omnibus immigration reform bill in a form that included provisions designed to expedite naturalization for those who served with special guerilla units in Laos, but these provisions were not incorporated in the final version of the legislation. In the 105th Congress, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) introduced as H.R. 371 language virtually identical to the original House-passed provisions from the previous Congress. In June 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims held a hearing on H.R. 371. The following year, the subcommittee favorably reported an amended version of the bill to the full Committee on the Judiciary. As amended, H.R. 371 addressed concerns about the potential for fraud by delineating steps to be taken in determining eligibility and limiting to 45,000 the number of potential beneficiaries. Although the full Committee on the Judiciary in June 1998 ordered the bill as amended in subcommittee favorably reported, no further action was taken in the 105th Congress. In the 106th Congress, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) reintroduced his bill under the same number, incorporating changes the Committee on the Judiciary supported in 1998. In March of this year, the full Committee on the Judiciary acted again favorably, this time ordering H.R. 371 reported by voice vote. As this history documents, the details of this legislation have been considered thoroughly by the Committee on the Judiciary, and we bring it up on the floor today with improvements my committee approved in both the last Congress and the current Congress. In our most recent markup, I displayed a Pandau ``story cloth'' depicting the escape of Hmong refugees across the Mekong River to a camp in Thailand after their villages were strafed by Communist forces in Laos. Such story cloths were a way of communicating Hmong history by people who knew no written language. This bill will permit a limited number of lawful permanent residents of the United States who served with special guerilla units or irregular forces in support of the U.S. military during the Vietnam war to become citizens. They must have been legally admitted to this country as refugees from Laos, and provision is also made for certain spouses who came as refugees. It is particularly significant that the bill before us focuses on people who are already here in the United States legally and permanently. In view of their commitment to our democracy and the great hardships they endured when they made common cause with us, we act appropriately by extending a hand to them now and helping them become citizens of their adopted land. This is just and humane legislation Members can endorse regardless of political affiliation. Governor Ventura of Minnesota appealed to me on behalf of these freedom fighters in February, and I welcomed the opportunity to assure him and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) that I would do whatever I could to help get H.R. 371 enacted into law. Supporters of this important bill include the American Legion and the Special Forces Association. I urge my colleagues to support enactment of H.R. 371. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 371, the bill under consideration.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 371) to expedite the naturalization of aliens who served with special guerilla units in Laos, as amended.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the April issue of the Phyllis Schlafly Report contains a penetrating analysis of education issues that now confront Congress. I hope my colleagues will give this material the careful attention it deserves. [From the Phyllis Schlafly Report, April 2000] Why the Public Schools Are Being Federalized Congress is about to pass legislation that will federalize every local school district and spell the end of local and state control of America's public school classrooms. Mindful of Ronald Reagan's words, ``You can't control the economy without controlling the people,'' Bill and Hillary Clinton have found the way to control the economy by controlling America's schoolchildren. The plan started with the passage of Bill Clinton's two 1994 laws, the Goals 2000 Act and the School-to-Work Act, and we were moved further in the same direction with his Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Now, with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), H.R. 2/S.2, the Clintons are about to complete the nationalization of the public school classroom. This massive education bill is the eighth successive five- year plan to increase academic achievement by providing ``compensatory education'' grants to schools with high concentrations of low-income children. It is more ambitious and comprehensive than the Clintons' discredited 1994 health care plan. A holdover from Lyndon Johnson's Great Society legislation, the ESEA has already spent more than $116 billion. According to the Federal Government's five-year $29 million longitudinal study concluded in 1997, the ESEA failed to achieve its objectives. Unable to make the argument that ESEA, with its current price tag in excess of $10 billion per year, will raise academic achievement of poor children, the Clintons designed this ``stealth'' legislation with very different objectives. Pretending to ``educate to high standards,'' ESEA mandates that all 50 states agree to implement a one-size-fits-all education plan. (Sec. 1001(a)(1)) How? The bill calls for mandated ``statewide'' minimum competencies for all children.'' That's code language for the disastrous and discredited Outcome Based Education (OBE). (Sec. 1111(B)(4)(A,B)) OBE (also called performance-based education) is measured by ``criterion referenced tests'' that assess students against a low threshold of achievement (formerly associated with the letter grade ``D''), rather than by ``norm referenced tests'' which measure how well students master a body of knowledge in comparison with other students (such as the ACT, SAT, GRE, Iowa Basic, and Stanford Achievement tests). ESEA's purpose is to tie schools to the floor of minimum achievement rather than to the ceiling of educational excellence and possibilities. The oft-repeated phrase ``all children will learn'' really means that all children will be taught only the low level of learning that is actually reached by all children. The term ``minimum competencies'' doesn't sell well to parents and the taxpaying public, so as linguistic bait-and- switch occurs through the bill. ``Standards'' means minimum levels, ``accountability'' means accountability to the U.S. Department's of Education and Labor, ``integrated curriculum'' means integrating of training into the school day, and ``local control'' means control only over implementing the nonacademic job-training system but not over standards, content or testing. Not only does ESEA force OBE and criterion referenced testing on every local school district in the nation, ESEA cements into place the goals of nationalized curriculum, nationalized testing and national teacher certification, which were envisioned in the 1994 Goals 2000 Act. ESEA also continues the radical changes required by the 1994 School-to- Work Act to guide schools away from a knowledge-based system and toward training for Jobs selected by local Workforce boards.(Sec. 1111. Sat Plans) School-to-work is the Clintons vision of controlling the economy. Students will be pigeon-holed into jobs to serve the best interests of the local economy as decided by the bureaucrats, not into careers chosen by the student. ``But,'' Congress proclaims, ``the Goals 2000 and School- to-Work laws are sun setting!'' Nothing could be further from the truth. While those laws are about to expire, all 50 states adopted them and ESEA requires that states certify they have adopted ``challenging content standards and challenging student performance standards * * * with aligned assessments.'' That is bureaucratic jargon for continuing the 1994 Goals 2000/ School-to-Work mandates.(Sec. 1111) ESEA has already moved far in the legislative process because Congress was hoodwinked by the bills doublespeak language and only now is beginning to understand that the Goals 2000 and School-to-Work laws have morphed into ESEA. If ESEA passes in its current form, every public school district will be forced to continue implementation of the revolutionary restructuring required by the 1994 laws. ESEA is not stand-alone legislation but works in tandem with other federal, state and local programs to mesh curriculum, graduation requirements and public funds into state-filed, federally-approved Unified Plans under the Workforce Investment Act. Under the guise of education ``reform,'' all traditional public school curriculum, testing and teaching methods are being replaced with a job training system modeled after failed socialized economies in Europe. ESEA will fulfill Bill and Hillary Clinton''s dream of national economic planning fed by a federalized workforce training system domiciled in the public schools. ESEA is the capstone of their plan to restructure our American system away from free enterprise, academic achievement in schools, and the freedom of individuals to select their future occupations. Clinton''s Plan for Education and the Economy The following graphic, distributed by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (DCFL), explains how School-to-Work is a government plan to interlock public school ``reform'' of curriculum with workforce preparation (job training) and economic development (national economic planning). This official state publication states that the School-to-Work mission is ``to create a seamless system of education and workforce preparation for all learners, tied to the needs of a competitive marketplace.'' School-to-Work means that the mission of the public schools is no longer to educate children to be all they can be, but instead to train students to take entry-level jobs as needed by the global economy. The different motivations of several special interests perfectly mesh in School-to-Work: the Clinton Administration economic gurus (Marc Tucker, Ira Magaziner and Robert Reich) who say they want America to imitate the German school-to-workforce system, the Clinton Administration education activists (particularly the teachers unions and Education Department bureaucrats) who want to control the school system, and the multinational corporations that seek a poorly-educated but well-trained labor force willing to work for low wages to compete with low-paid workers in the Third World. The master plan to federalize education and tie it into the workforce originated with the now infamous ``Dear Hillary'' letter written on November 11, 1992 by Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). It lays out a plan ``to remold the entire American system'' into ``a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone,'' coordinated by ``labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels'' where curriculum and ``job matching'' will be handled by counselors ``accessing the integrated computer- based program.'' Rep. Bob Schaffer (R-CO) correctly analyzed this letter as ``a blueprint for a German model of education that would be forced upon the people of America.'' He said this ``moves the country toward a government-owned centralized education system from kindergarten past college.'' He placed this letter in the Congressional Record on September 25, 1998. It is most easily accessible on Eagle Forum''s website: http// www.eagleforum.org.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1658) to provide a more just and uniform procedure for Federal civil forfeitures, and for other purposes.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my gratitude again to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and his staff and everyone who worked on this bill. We did not mention Jon Dudas and Rick Filkins. I just want to say, George Fishman who is sitting here, he was the single most indispensable element of this bill, and I am grateful to him.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1658.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her very cordial remarks. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Michigan and his staff and make a point. This Committee on the Judiciary in this House of Representatives can work together in a bipartisan fashion to turn out good legislation. This is one example. There are many others. This bill had its genesis in a newspaper article written by Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune several years ago. When I read what was going on under civil asset forfeiture, I thought it was more appropriate for the Soviet Union than the United States, and it has taken 7 years but we are there today and it is a great moment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy). She is certainly sincere. I just am concerned that expectations are so high that passing this sort of legislation is somehow going to fill the hearts and the souls of our young people that now somehow are empty and consumed with violence with sweetness and light. There is much more to the problem of the culture that encourages antisocial conduct, much more profound than simply restricting the availability of the weapons that cause all the problems. I do not mean to demean the fact that we need legislation to narrow the access to these weapons of destruction, but to think that that is going to solve the problem I think misses the mark. There were some 17 Federal laws and some 14 State laws that were violated at Columbine. Adding more laws, I still think it is worth the effort, I do not denigrate that. It is worth the effort. We have to keep the focus on these things. But let us not end our quest for a solution to the wanton destruction of life, especially among our young people thinking if we remove the instruments of death somehow we will remove the incentives for treating life as a thing and as a throwaway item. As I have said before, and I welcome this opportunity to say it again, we have a bill, we want your support, we have had it for many months, and the only contentious part is the gun show part, and the gun show part that we propose is a middle ground between the Dingell amendment and the Lautenberg amendment. Let us get on this and let us confront the Senate with it, which is another galaxy as we all know, but let us confront them with it and say, Here it is, we need your support. If we can do that, as I say, the problem, the immediate problem of getting a decent, common sense response to the high school killings can be solved. I believe we can do it. I hate to be cynical. I hate to think that some people want the issue and not a bill, not a solution. I do not believe that. I refuse to believe that. I will not believe that. But right now we need cooperation and consultation. Let us put politics aside and let us agree that we have a plan and it is going to work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think that is a great idea. I say to my friend, I will join him in the letter or he can join me. But I suggest that he and I finish our job over here and confront the distinguished Members of the other body, as we refer to them deferentially, with an accomplished fact, our gun bill; and I think they will take it, and then we will have put this honorably to rest.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I say to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), that I am with him a hundred percent on this resolution. We are going to support it. It asks for what we think ought to happen. We ought to have a meeting. We ought to discuss these things. We ought to settle them. I would point out parenthetically that paragraph number 2, ``common sense gun safety measure that prevent felons, fugitives and stalkers from obtaining firearms and children from getting access to guns,'' is already the law. The Brady bill, the Brady Law, Title 18, section 922(g), already prohibits fugitives, stalkers, and felons from buying or possessing a gun. And children already cannot buy handguns. I am proposing in my offer a ban on assault weapons being available to youngsters. Now, I have been proposing a gun control bill for many, many months. Last November 4, I sent a copy of it to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and we have been talking about it on and off for, lo, these many months. The proposal that I have offered accepts the trigger lock requirement, in fact, as a stand-alone bill, it passed 311-115; a juvenile Brady that says, if a juvenile commits a disqualifying crime, they will never be eligible for a gun. That passed 395-27. We passed a ban on these large ammunition clips, 10 cartridges or more. That passed by voice vote. And then we had a prohibition on juveniles from possessing assault weapons, which I mentioned earlier. That passed 254- 69. So we have already passed these things. We could have the makings of a decent gun bill. There is one sticking point and that is the so- called ``gun show loophole.'' Now, we are confronted with two versions of a solution to the gun show loophole. We have the solution of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) out here, which is, in my humble opinion, unacceptable because it limits the instant check time to one day. Now, we can get 95 percent of the applicants in one day. But there is 5 percent that require three business days. They are not easily cleared up. They are not easily answered. And those are the difficult ones. Those are the ones that may have criminal records. Those may be the people we do not want to get a gun. And, therefore, we need three business days. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) does not allow that, so I cannot accept that. Now, over here we have the other Democrat gun show provision, and that is by the great Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg. Well, his bill literally defines gun shows out of existence. He has the three business days. That is fine. But he also requires such burdensome provisions on people who are conducting a gun show that it is just unsupportable. It is too much the other way. I propose meeting in the middle, a compromise, that requires every gun sold at a gun show to have an instant check, the purchaser, that requires three business days for the 5 percent that we have trouble getting the instant check on, and creating a class of instant-check registrars who are not licensed gun dealers but, nonetheless, are certified to be able to provide the instant check so the volume can be dealt with. Now, that is a solution that meets the gun show loophole. It tightens that existing law, gives us the trigger locks, gives us a ban on the large ammunition clips, gives us a juvenile Brady, keeps assault weapons from the children. What are we waiting for? Nobody will talk to me. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has written me a letter saying he will not negotiate with me unless and until the Senator calls a meeting of the conferees. Let us confront him with an accomplished fact, a fait accompli. Let us say, here is our proposal. Now, all I need is three Democrats to join and we will have a proposal that they cannot ignore. What do they say? An offer they cannot refuse. Join me and ask the President to help. Give me just three signatures and we are off to the races.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)