Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

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 in the Record on H.R. 1658.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, about 6 years ago I was reading a newspaper and I read an op ed article in the Chicago Tribune explaining a process that goes on in our country, and I must tell the Members, I could not believe it. I thought that over 200 years we had ironed out what due process meant, what equal protection under the law meant. But I found out that there are corners in our legal proceedings into which light needs to be shed. One of them concerns civil asset forfeiture. There are two kinds of forfeiture, criminal asset forfeiture and civil asset forfeiture. What is the difference? The difference is in criminal asset forfeiture you must be indicted and convicted. Once that happens, the government then may seize your property if your property was used, however indirectly, in facilitating the crime for which you have been convicted. You are a criminal, you are convicted, and they seize your property. I have no problem with that. I think that is useful in deterring drug deals and extortionists and terrorists. I have no problem with criminal asset forfeiture. But the other type is civil asset forfeiture. That is a horse of a different color. In civil asset forfeiture, the government, the police, the gendarmes, can seize your property upon the weakest, most flimsy, diaphenous charge, probable cause. Probable cause will let you execute a search warrant or maybe frisk somebody, but no, they use probable cause as the basis to seize your property. I do not just mean your roller skates, they can take your business, they can take your home, they can take your farm, they can take your airplane. They take anything and everything premised on the weakest of criminal charges, probable cause. What is also unbelievable is that unless you take action in court, you cannot get your property back. They do not have to convict you, they do not have to even charge you with a crime, but they have your property because they allege probable cause. How do you get your business back, your home back? You go to court, you hire a lawyer, you post a bond, and then you have to prove within 10 days, you have 10 days to do all this, you have to prove that your property was not involved in a crime. In other words, you prove a negative. I do not know how you do that. I have been a lawyer since 1950, and I do not know how you prove that something did not happen. But nonetheless, that is the burden now. Under our jurisprudence, the burden of proof should be with the government. If you are guilty of anything, then prove it. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. So what we are asking is to turn justice right side up, to switch the burden of proof from the poor victim, who has been deprived of his property and not convicted of anything, to the government, who has seized this property. Now, may I suggest there are some incentives for some police organizations not to do this, because they share in the proceeds of the seized property. It is like the speed trap along the rural highway where the sheriff waits for us, takes us to a magistrate, and his salary is paid out of the fines he levies against us. We do not have a very great chance at equal justice. That is the situation here. Civil asset forfeiture as allowed in our country today is a throwback to the old Soviet Union, where justice is the justice of the government and the citizen did not have a chance. So I suggest we remedy this, and that is what we are trying to do. The bill before us makes eight changes. First, the burden of proof goes to the government, where it belongs. Secondly, the standard is clear and convincing. The reason it is not a mere, simple preponderance is that this is quasi-criminal. They are punishing you when they have taken charge of your assets and of your property. The next thing it does, it permits the judge to release the property pending the disposition in case a hardship exists and you are out of business or you have no place to live. The third thing is the court can, in an appropriate case, appoint counsel. That is important if you are broke, if they have taken your property. You need help, you cannot afford a lawyer. The reason some organizations resist appointing counsel is because if you cannot get a lawyer, you cannot file a claim, so the forfeiture stands. You have a disincentive, you are discouraged from filing a claim because you cannot pay for a lawyer. We also eliminate the bond, and I am happy to see that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) eliminates the bond, too. Our bill provides an innocent owner defense which is uniform across the country. If you own something and somebody else performed a crime in it or with it, and you are perfectly innocent and that can be established, that is a defense. You can sue the government under my bill if they destroy your property, and you can get interest if they have held your cash, and you can have 30 days to file your claim, not 10 or 20. Lastly, let me just say this. This bill puts civil liberties and due process back in our criminal justice system. I am so delighted at the sponsors of this bill, both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. I am also delighted at the organizations that have endorsed it: The American Bar Association, the National Rifle Association, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Association of Realtors, the Credit Union National Association, the American Bankers Association, National Association of Home Builders, and on and on; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. There is the widest possible spectrum of support for this reformation of our civil asset forfeiture laws. I beg Members to listen carefully and join me in this essential reform. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, Father's Day brought lots of memories and warm thoughts to all of us. One very special person I know named Philip H. Corboy had a bittersweet Fathers Day which was beautifully acknowledged by Steve Neal of the Chicago Sun-Times on Friday, June 18th. Phil and I went all through school together, from grammer and high school through Law school, and have remained close friends ever since. Steve Neal is a highly respected political analyst and journalist who shares my admiration and respect for Phil Corboy. I suggest my colleagues read Mr. Neal's column about this extraordinary man. Joy of Being a Father Summed up in Eulogy He has made a career out of rising to the challenge. Philip H. Corboy, one of the nation's more accomplished trial lawyers, has effectively represented seriously injured people for a half century. His law firm has won hundreds of settlements or verdicts worth more than $1 million each. He once negotiated a $25 million settlement for plaintiffs in a case involving the crash of a DC-10. Corboy is former chairman of the American Bar Association's litigation unit and a former president of the Chicago Bar Association. He is among President Clinton's staunchest political allies and is the former general counsel of the Illinois Democratic Party. But for all his achievements, the snowy-haired Corboy takes more pride in the accomplishments of his children. He was dealt a most devastating blow in 1976 when his 12-year-old son Robert was killed in an automobile accident. Then last winter, tragedy struck again. Circuit Judge Joan Marie Corboy, the lawyer's only daughter, died in another accident. There is nothing more painful or difficult for any parent to endure. But Corboy responded to this challenge with a deeply moving tribute to his daughter. On this Father's Day weekend, Corboy's eulogy carries special significance and reminds us that parenthood is the greatest gift. ``She was outspoken, intelligent and fun,'' Corboy told more than 1,500 people at Joan Marie's memorial service in Northwestern University's law school auditorium. ``As a young girl, she held her own in a house full of boys. The truth of the matter is, she ruled the roost ``Joan was not one to mince words. Whenever I had the opportunity, and it was often, I would tell her that a lawyer who appeared before her had told me what a good judge she was, how fair, how smart, how judicious. Ever the practicalist, she would reply, `Well, Dad, if he--and it was most times as he--thought I was an inept horse's rear, do you think he would have told you that?' ``Once when she was a prosecutor, a judge convened his call by asking Joan, `Are you ready, sweetie?' To which Joan replied, `Only if you are, Judgie.' ``Joan was true to herself and she was full of self- confidence. Some time after Joan and Jim married, she was asked why she kept her father's name. To which she replied, `I didn't keep my father's name, I kept my name.''' In dealing with the most haunting question of why she died, Corboy said, ``I gently and reverently suggest that tragic accidents are not God's plan. There is no intentional taking of young people from their husband and children, their parents and siblings.'' Corboy then talked about the meaning of his daughter's life. ``What has she taught us in 46 years? That's an easy one. She taught us to respect others, and she taught us how to love. Let me remind you, my sons, that many millions of people have never had a sister. Many millions of fathers and mothers have never had a daughter . . . many millions of people have never had children. . . . We have been fortunate in having the loving, beautiful, smart, strong Joan Marie Corboy with us for the better part of our lives.'' He concluded: ``Do not think of Joan Marie Corboy as a memory. Think of her spirit and carry her spirit and her love of life in your hearts forever.'' In his loss, Corboy has something in common with famed Kansas editor William Allen White, whose only daughter, Mary Katherine, was killed in a 1921 horseback riding accident. Like Joan Corboy, Mary White had a passion for life and a democratic spirit. White wrote a wonderful tribute that was widely reprinted. ``I cannot help feeling that her life has reached out and touched other lives through this article, and I hope it has touched them for good,'' White wrote in a letter to an old college friend. ``Mary was a joyous child. We can't think of her for five minutes consecutively without breaking into a laugh,'' White went on. ``And you can't go around weeping yours eyes out and laughing at the same time. We have to laugh if we think of Mary, and we love to think of Mary.'' Joan Corboy will be long remembered for the same reasons. When students once asked how she got her job, she replied, ``I'm a judge because my father has a lot of clout.'' But she also was highly qualified and had special grace.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. My colleagues, we have reached the bottom line, and there is only one question that remains. Do we go forward, or do we go backwards? Nobody gets everything they want in a bill, especially one as contentious as this bill. But if we can pass a bill, we can get it to conference, where the real bill will be written, and we will have a chance to get those things that are near and dear to all our hearts. But if we stop right now, we will not solve anything. So the question is, are we really serious about doing something about juvenile crime, or would we rather posture; would we rather demonize our opponents and question their motives? Is that too much fun? Or can we keep this process alive and get it into conference where we will all have a voice, and we will try to shape a bill that suits the needs of America? This is only the first step. It is not the end game. So I ask my colleagues to please not cut the lifeline to this process that we are embarked in, this contentious process. Everybody here has been voting their district, their community, not voting party line, and we should not vote party line. There is no party line, although the Republican leadership supports this bill. The substitute of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) would undo all of the things we did yesterday. Some we may think are bad, but some are good. One of the things the gentleman does is denies the increased penalty on adults who illegally give a gun to a juvenile. That is a step backwards. I suggest we support this bill, we keep the process alive, because we want to do something about juvenile violence. And maybe someday we can elevate our thoughts from things like guns and get into the realm of ideas that have horrible consequences and are filling our children's souls with hate and death and violence. That is the real enemy, not the things. But there are too many guns, too many guns available to kids, and those people who responsibly use guns are entitled to their constitutional right. Balance is what we are looking for, protecting constitutional rights, protecting kids. The gentlewoman from New York last night, and she is a gentlewoman, made a very compelling and moving speech about why she came here. We all came here for the same thing. And I suggest we stop playing politics and we start playing children and start playing juvenile violence and start thinking more deeply about these things and trying to come to grips with solutions. One thing we can do is pass a bill today. Then it goes to conference, and then we will see if we cannot, through some inspiration, come out with a bill that advances the cause of tranquility and safety and families and kids in this country. Vote for the bill; vote against the Conyers substitute, which undoes everything we did in the last 2 days, and let us move into conference and see if we cannot continue this process.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the Democratic leader's marvelous words and emotional, and rightly so, presentation; and I could not agree with him more. We have a very serious problem. But, oh, my God, it goes so far beyond guns. Yesterday we talked about the poison that is being fed to our children through videos, through the games, through the movies, through television. And our response to that? A resolution of the sense of Congress. So if we really want to get into this problem, let us get into all facets of it. Now, let us talk about guns. Much as some do not like it, or much as some are very uncomfortable with it, there is a Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights to the Constitution and that Second Amendment says, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Okay. I believe in the Second Amendment and I believe people have the right to keep and bear arms. On the other hand, there are serious problems with the proliferation of weapons. There are, in my judgment, too many guns too easily accessible to kids, and we have to do something about it. It is a shame we cannot do something about it together rather than in a partisan way. Now, I support H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act, which will close the loophole in current law that permits dangerous criminals to buy guns at gun shows without mandatory background checks. There has been a lot of discussion in the Senate and the House about how to deal with gun shows. There are approximately 4,400 gun shows annually in the United States, and many of the people who buy guns at those shows do so without going through a background check. Only federally licensed firearm dealers are required to run checks on prospective buyers at gun shows. While there are many licensed gun dealers selling their guns at gun shows, there are just as many unlicensed guns and they do not have to run background checks. So H.R. 2122 changes that. Any and all gun transfers at gun shows will have to undergo a background check. Some believe that gun shows should be completely shut down, and they have used their version of mandatory background checks as a disguise for closing them down. Well, I think that is wrong. If they want to close gun shows down, propose it. If they want mandatory background checks all the time under every circumstance, then propose that. But do it with definitions and realistic regulations, as we have done in H.R. 2122. This proposal on gun shows is straightforward. It will work in the real world. It achieves everything that is necessary to ensure that mandatory background checks are performed by responsible people at gun shows, and it does so without driving them out of business or interfering with private sales and family transactions. H.R. 2122 requires a background check for every buyer at a gun show. It also requires gun show organizers, licensed dealers and instant check registrants, those are individuals authorized to conduct instant background checks at gun shows, to keep records that can be used by Federal law enforcement officials in criminal investigations. Criticisms of this bill by the administration suggest it does not close the gun show loophole. Those criticisms are entirely unfounded. Let me explain the definition of ``gun show.'' H.R. 2122 would define a gun show as, quote, ``an event which is sponsored to foster the collecting, competitive use, sporting use or any other legal use of firearms, and 50 or more guns are offered for sale, and there are not less than 10 vendors selling guns.'' This definition of gun shows reflects the real world we live in. The administration opposes the 10 vendor requirement, arguing that gun transactions at smaller gatherings would not be subject to background checks. We are not aware and the administration has not offered any evidence to the contrary that any of the 4,400 gun shows last year had fewer than 10 vendors. To the contrary,we know full well the average gun show has many vendors that often fill the entire exhibition halls and convention centers. Let me discuss the definition of a ``gun show vendor.'' The administration opposes the requirement in H.R. 2122 that a vendor is someone who sells firearms at a gun show from a fixed location. This fixed location condition is necessary, because gun show organizers are subject to Federal criminal prosecution if they do not register every vendor selling firearms at their gun shows. These organizers cannot know someone is merely attending a gun show and spontaneously offers to sell a firearm to another person. This happens. Some people attend gun shows and bring guns they want to sell if they can find a buyer at the right price. It would be unfair to hold organizers criminally liable for something they cannot control. It will only serve to discourage organizers from conducting gun shows which may be the hidden agenda of some. Every firearm transaction at every gun show, regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer, a vendor or just an attendee and regardless of whether the transfer occurs within the building housing the gun show or in the surrounding parking lot requires a background check. Now, this bill, this amendment, provides a middle way between the Dingell amendment and the Lautenberg or the McCarthy amendment. It is a middle way. It is a balance, to balance the rights of legitimate gun owners and balance the rights of the vulnerable public. And so I hope that Members will consider it in that light as the middle way and as a compromise and acceptable.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would prohibit the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. I am very pleased that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) have agreed to cosponsor my amendment. A large capacity ammunition feeding device is defined in current law, that is 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(31), as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after September 13, 1994, that has a capacity of or can readily be restored or converted to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition. We have all seen them before. They are deadly enhancements to any semiautomatic firearm because they permit the shooter to fire many rounds before reloading. Current law prohibits the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, such as clips and other types of magazines. But current law also provides a major exception. It permits the possession and transfer of any such device lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That is September 13, 1994. The world is awash in high-capacity ammo clips manufactured before the effective date of the 1994 Act, and such devices have been approved for importation into the United States if importers submit evidence establishing that the devices were manufactured on or before September 13, 1994. Our proposal would amend the definition of a ``large capacity ammunition feeding device'' to delete the language limiting the definition to devices manufactured after September 13, 1994. In addition, our amendment would add a provision making it unlawful for any person to import a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Thus, all devices with the capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition would be subject to the restriction of the law. However, the proposal would retain the existing grandfather exception in the law for devices lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of the 1994 Act. My guess is there are plenty of large capacity clips in this country today and they are legal and will remain legal to possess and transfer. However, if over a period of time these large capacity clips break or wear out, gun owners can simply replace them with smaller capacity clips. It will never be necessary to throw a gun away for lack of a clip that will work in the gun. We no longer live in a society where mass murder of the kind committed at Columbine High School is unthinkable. Unfortunately, the increasing frequency of mass shootings with weapons that can only be described as high-tech killing machines compels us to act now for the public good. I urge support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is an unfortunate fact that it often takes a tragedy such as happened recently in Colorado to get our attention to help us focus on a festering problem. In the light of the recent rash of school shootings and the continued prevalence of youth violence in America, I think it is crucial that Congress address some of the cultural issues that influence the behavior of America's young people, factors that may actually be causing kids to find a gun and commit a violent act. The fact is new gun laws and tighter control of the juvenile justice system are not by themselves a cure for the epidemic of youth violence. Although gun legislation has its utility, the real problem is what is going on in our kids' minds and hearts and souls. The young assailants in Colorado violated 15 Federal gun and explosive laws and 7 State laws. So passing a few more laws and piling them on does not seem to me to get at the heart of the problem. In order to be truly responsive to the issues of youth violence, Congress must address the cultural influences that cause young people to become violent. We need to get at the issues of the heart. Part of the problem is that children have been overexposed to violence and, this, coupled with a spiritual vacuum leaves many youngsters desensitized to violence and unable to fully appreciate the consequences of their sometimes brutal actions. As popular entertainment becomes more violent and more sexually explicit and as it depicts more and more disrespect for life, and the rights and well-being of others, some of our children are starting to believe this behavior is normal and acceptable. They do not seem to understand that acts of violence have real life tragic consequences. We know as a result of several hundred studies, there is a link between media violence and violent behavior in our country, particularly among young people. Both the American Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatrics have warned against exposing children to violent entertainment. One 1996 AMA study concluded that the link between media violence and real life violence has been proven by science time and time again. Another American Medical Association study concluded that exposure to violence in entertainment increases aggressive behavior and contributes to America's sense that they live in a mean society. Much of the make- believe violence that kids are exposed to today is presented not as horror with devastating human consequences but simply as entertainment. This is enormously harmful to young people whose values and conscience are still being developed. Well, what can we do about this? Are we impotent? Are we paralyzed? It is not easy, but I believe my amendment, which includes five specific proposals addressing this cultural breakdown, is a beginning and gets at some of the worst influences on our children. The first and most important section of my amendment creates a new Federal statute to protect minors from explicit sexual and explicit violent material. The First Amendment is not absolute and does not protect obscenity. That has been the law for 40 years. There is an exception to the First Amendment, and it is obscenity. Furthermore, under current law, it is constitutionally permissible to adopt an obscenity standard which restricts the rights of minors to obtain certain sexually-related materials that are not considered obscene for adults. In other words, there is a double standard and it is a tougher standard for minors than for adults, and that is the constitutional law. Currently, many States do this through harmful to minor statutes that prohibit the sale of sexually explicit material to minors that would not necessarily be considered obscene for adults. Thus, in most States with harmful to minor statutes adults can buy certain pornographic magazines but minors cannot. Right now, there is no Federal law that prohibits the sale of material that is considered too explicit for minors but not for adults. My amendment would change that by creating a Federal law that would prohibit the sale of certain explicit sexual and explicit violent material to minors under the age of 17. My amendment covers violent material because I believe if the Constitution permits us to restrict the type of sexual material kids can purchase, then it makes sense that we can also prohibit the distribution of material to minors that is graphically violent and glorifies this violence to a level that is harmful. I believe certain extremely violent movies, video games and music can have just as much or more of a detrimental effect on the development of kids than some explicit sexual material that many States currently try to protect them from. In other words, at their worst, violence and pornography are equivalent evils, especially where minor children are concerned. This new obscenity for minors statute does not restrict the rights of adults or parents to view certain sexual or violent material. It does not prohibit anyone from producing such items and does not provide an unworkable standard. Rather, it empowers parents to make decisions about what type of material is appropriate for their children. With enactment of this legislation, parents, not merchants, many of whom are responsible, but there will always be some who without the threat of law will pursue profit over decency and sell harmful materials to minors, will decide whether their kids can see explicit sexual or violent material. Some, of course, have questioned the constitutionality of this proposal. It is clear that this proposal is going to be challenged in the courts should it become law. However, I submit that those who assert that the statute is patently unconstitutional are engaging in knee-jerk analysis and have not thoroughly studied the law in this area. This statute, this amendment, was carefully drafted to comply with the Supreme Court's precedent. First, a detailed definition of sexual and violent material is included to address the constitutional concern of vagueness. The definition of sexual material was taken almost verbatim from a New York statute that was upheld by the Supreme Court in a case known as Ginsberg versus New York. The definition of violent material is new, but I believe it is sufficiently precise that if someone challenges the bill on vagueness grounds it will survive the challenge. Secondly, the statute incorporates the standard three-prong test validated by the Supreme Court and used to determine if the sexual or violent material as defined by the statute does or does not qualify for First Amendment protection. I am confident the Court will uphold this test. Third, someone may argue to the courts that violent material can never be obscene. The Supreme Court has never held directly that extremely violent material may not, for that reason only, be banned. I submit that extreme violence, properly defined, can be obscene. If sexual images may go sufficiently beyond community standards for candor and offensiveness and hence be unprotected, there is no reason why the same should not be true of violence. I understand some people may disagree with the Court's decision to carve out an exception to the First Amendment freedom of speech for obscenity, but if one believes the Supreme Court is justified in maintaining a First Amendment exception for obscenely sexual material, then what are the policy arguments that justify this exception that do not also apply to violent material? There are no theories of the First Amendment that justify an exception for sexual obscenity that can't reasonably be extended to justify an exception for violent obscenity. It is also important to remember that this amendment would not declare any violent materials as obscene for adults only; only for minors under the age of 17. The Supreme Court has recognized there is a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors. This interest extends to shielding minors from the influence of literature that is not obscene by adult standards. Under my proposed amendment it would still be legal to produce and distribute any explicitly violent material but some of it would not be permitted to be sold to minors. I think this new provision is exceedingly important. It says that we are on the side of parents and not the purveyors of harmful material to our children. I realize the big money of the entertainment industry is on the other side of my argument, but I believe the parents of America are on my side. This legislation is not an attack on the First Amendment, despite what has been charged by many of my colleagues. Rather, it is simply saying that some material is beyond the pale and should not be sold to minors. We are not trying to ban anything or censor anyone. We are just saying one cannot sell some of this horrible stuff to kids. If my colleagues do not believe that parents should have more control over their kids' access to these harmful materials, then by all means vote against my amendment. However, if they believe we should do something to slow the flood of toxic waste into the minds of our children, then please do vote for my amendment. There are four other parts to this amendment that will make a difference in addressing the culture of violence, and I would like to take a few moments to explain them. I have included as a second section a provision whereby Congress, through merely a sense of Congress resolution, asks retail establishments that sell music to allow parents to review, in their store, the lyrics accompanying the sound recordings they offer for sale. This is a simple way for parents to read the lyrics accompanying the CDs they are considering buying for their kids. It is my hope that retailers can take this responsible step on their own and allow parents to review in their store a copy of the lyrics. We are not asking them to give away copies of lyrics. We are merely asking them to give the parents a right to look at them so they can determine for themselves whether the lyrics are appropriate for their own children. Many CDs contain foul language. While others contain vulgar and graphic lyrics describing and glamourizing murder, gang violence, suicide and sex, many lyrics are hateful, racist or misogynistic. Although there is a voluntary labeling system within the recording industry that calls for placement of a sticker on CDs that contain explicit language, there is still no way prior to purchase for the parents to review the lyrics in the store. Hopefully this section will result in establishment of a right to review in the stores. The third section of this amendment essentially mirrors part of an amendment sponsored by Senator Brownback that was included in the juvenile justice bill passed by the Senate. This section requires the National Institutes of Health to conduct the study of the effects of violent video games and music on child development and youth violence. The NIH is directed to address in the study whether and to what extent video games and music affect the emotional and psychological development of juveniles and whether violence and video games and music contributes to juvenile delinquency and youth violence. While numerous studies, one counts it at over 300, have been conducted regarding the impact of violence in television and movies, there have been very few studies done on the impact of music and video games on young people. The popularity of video games is rapidly increasing. One study, conducted by Strategy Records Research, found that 64 percent of young people play video games on a regular basis, and many are nothing more than a contest to see which competitor can kill the most efficiently. The graphics are startling. Some advertisements for these games make pitches like ``Psychiatrists say it is important to feel something when you kill.'' This game is ``more fun than shooting your neighbor's cat.'' ``Kill your friends guilt free.'' Determining what impact video games like this might have on the decisions and behavior of young people is clearly in the public interest. By some estimates, the average teen listens to music around 4 hours a day. Between 7th and 12th grade, the average teen is going to listen to around 10,000 hours of music. That is more time than they will spend in school. Last month, Bill Bennett commented on the possible effects of music lyrics on child development by first quoting Socrates who wrote, ``Musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace.'' Mr. Bennett then stated that rhythm and harmony are still fastening themselves on to children's souls today. However, much of the music they listen to is imparting mournfulness, darkness, despair, and a sense of death. This is something many parents fear, and we ought to study if some modern music does indeed impart a sense of death upon America's youth. The fourth section of this amendment is very similar to a Senate amendment providing a limited antitrust exemption to the entertainment industry to enable the entertainment industry to work collectively to develop and implement voluntary programming guidelines that alleviate the negative impact of television programming, movies, Internet content, and music lyrics on the development of children. Nothing in this amendment curtails freedom of expression in any way. It gives, rather, the entertainment industry the freedom to enter into a voluntary code of conduct. The fifth section of the amendment, promoting grassroots solutions to youth violence, authorizes the Attorney General to award $5 million annually for 5 years to the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise for the purpose of funding direct demonstration operations and program development grants to community organizations in nine cities across the country. During the 105th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on a number of inner city programs that have succeeded in reducing youth crime and violence. One of the programs showcased was the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, based in Washington, D.C. Since 1981, this organization has successfully dealt with gang violence, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, and fatherless children. One of the most remarkable successes occurred in 1997, not far from the Capitol, where this organization helped broker a truce between warring gangs that had turned the Benning Terrace neighborhood into a combat zone. That truce has lasted to this day, and Benning Terrace has been transformed into a neighborhood where people can again walk their streets in safety. The Benning Terrace truce showcased what has made the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise approach to inner city violence so successful. Faced with an intractable problem, they stepped in, tapped local groups that understood the problem, and helped rival gang members recognize their mutual interests. This provision is an attempt to replicate this approach in nine violence-plagued cities across the Nation. If Congress is going to spend funds on social programs, it is important for us to try to direct Federal funds to community renewal organizations in our cities that actually have succeeded in reducing violence and putting kids on the right track. The National Center does this, as evidenced by their transformation of the Benning Terrace housing project, and helped prevent countless young persons from engaging in the life-style of violence. I know Congress does not have all the answers to the terrible problem of youth violence in America. Some of these proposals I have discussed are modest. But we ought to do what we can. Study after study has shown that exposure to violence adversely affects the development of children and leaves some of them more disposed to commit acts of violence. Even the most caring and responsible parents cannot prevent these influences from reaching their kids. Parents need our help. Let us stand with them. Nothing we do in this life is more important than how we raise our children. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller). (Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I hate to keep doing this to the gentleman from Hollywood, but people keep wandering up and wanting a little time. Would the gentleman endure one more unanimous consent request for 2 more minutes on each side?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for a very civil and I think enlightening debate, and some of the other, not all, but some of the other participants. I would like to read from Ginsberg v. New York, a Supreme Court case, 390 U.S. 629: ``A legislature could properly conclude that parents and others who have primary responsibility for children's well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility.'' I would like to tell my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) that ``Shakespeare in Love'' has redeeming artistic quality. It does not fit in this definition, although there is a gratuitous sex scene in it which, if your children saw it, they might think it is normal and acceptable, and I guess maybe the gentlewoman might think it is too. I do not. But the movie could be shown without any problem because if you read the bill, if you read the definition, it would have to be utterly without any redeeming social value. Now, for 40 years Congress has been wrestling with this problem, 40. Do Members know what it has come up with? Nothing. Nothing. We posture, we pass resolutions, viewing with alarm, but the entertainment industry gets away literally with murder. All we are doing is saying that obscenity for 40 years has not been protected by the First Amendment. We are saying some of this violence is as egregious and horrible and vulgar and harmful as sexual obscenity. Why confine the proscription just to sexual obscenity? Why not to mutilation? Why not to sadomasochism? Why not to flagellation? Why not to rape? Those are four specific categories, and only four, that we say ought not to be protected by the First Amendment. If that is doing violence to the Constitution, I have never read that document. So let us do something, not do nothing. It is my opinion that what happened in Littleton, Colorado, and what happened in Conyers, Georgia, cannot be solved by one more gun law. There were 15 Federal laws having to do with guns and ammunition that were violated by these two assailants in Colorado, and seven State laws. Is our answer to pile a couple of more laws on? No. Let us examine what it is in the psyches of these young people that made them want to kill, the culture of death. There is something missing. We have to look at it. Anybody that does thinks rotten movies, rotten television, rotten video games are not poisoning, toxically poisoning our kids' minds and making some kids think that conduct is acceptable just is not paying attention. I cannot match the Political Action Committees of the entertainment industry, but I will tell the Members, there are a lot of parents who need help. My friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) said it is up to the parents. If Members can watch their four kids all the time every day, at night and at school, and know what they are seeing and know what they are reading, they have solved a wonderful problem and should tell me how they do it. This is an effort to solve the problem. I hear nothing from the other side but ridicule. Please support the Hyde amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). (Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) in support of this trash.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).