John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a discharge petition today, number 3. I am urging all of my colleagues to join in signing it on both sides of the aisle. The discharge petition provides for essentially an open rule. It allows full opportunity for open debate, and it allows full opportunity for amendment. It permits the minority to do what they feel is necessary, but it also assures that my colleagues on the Majority side will have full opportunity to participate. There is no funny rule here, no cooking of the process. It is a full, open and fair process, both with regard to the amendment process and with regard to the actual handling of time and other parts of the legislation. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides to join in signing this discharge petition on the patients' bill of rights. It is almost the first of July. The important part of the session is almost behind us, and all that we really are going to have time on from now on is to address budget appropriation and spending matters. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do something that the American people want. Sign the discharge petition and support the patients' bill of rights.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage at a deplorable and despicable act which disgraces the honor of our country--the burning of the United States flag. Behind the Speaker hangs our flag. It is the most beautiful of all flags, with colors of red, white, and blue, carrying on its face the great heraldic story of 50 states descended from the original 13 colonies. I love it. I revere it. And I have proudly served it in war and peace. However, today I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 33, the flag amendment, which for the first time in over 200 years would amend our Bill of Rights. Madam Speaker, throughout our history, millions of Americans have served under this flag during wartime; some have sacrificed their lives for what this flag stands for: our unity, our freedom, our tradition, and the glory of our country. I have proudly served under our glorious flag in the Army of the United States during wartime, as a private citizen, and as an elected public official. And like many of my colleagues, I treasure this flag and fully understand the deep emotions it invokes. But while our flag may symbolize all that is great about our country, I swore an oath to uphold the great document which defines our country. The Constitution of the United States is not as visible as is our wonderful flag, and oftentimes we forget the glory and majesty of this magnificent document--our most fundamental law and rule of order; the document which defines our rights, liberties; and the structure of our government. Written in a few short weeks and months in 1787, it created a more perfect framework for government and unity and defined the rights of the people in this great republic. The principles spelled out in this document define how an American is different from a citizen of any other nation in the world. And it is because of my firm belief in these principles--the same principles I swore an oath to uphold--that I must oppose this amendment. Because if this amendment is adopted, it will be the first time in the entire history of the United States that we have cut back on our liberties as Americans as defined in the Bill of Rights. Prior to the time the Supreme Court spoke on this matter, and defined acts of physical desecration to the flag under certain conditions as acts of free speech protected by the Constitution, I would have happily supported legislation which would protect the flag. While I have reservations about the propriety of these decisions, the Supreme Court is, under our great Constitution, empowered to define Constitutional rights and to assure the protection of all the rights of free citizens in the United States. Today, we are forced to make a difficult decision. There is regrettably enormous political pressure for us to constrain rights set forth in the Constitution to protect the symbol of this nation. This vote is not a litmus test of one's patriotism. What we are choosing today is between the symbol of our country and the soul of our country. When I vote today, I will vote to support and defend the Constitution in all its majesty and glory, recognizing that to defile or dishonor the flag is a great wrong; but recognizing that the defense of the Constitution, and the rights guaranteed under it, is the ultimate responsibility of every American. I urge my colleagues to honor our flag by honoring a greater treasure to Americans, our Constitution. Vote down this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I believe I am the offeror of the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DINGELL. Who has the right to close?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about closing loopholes. Let us address it. The person who buys a gun at a gun show or anywhere else has to fill out this form. Failure to fill it out truthfully constitutes a felony. Purchase of a gun with a falsified 4473 form constitutes a felony. We are covering all sales at gun shows with the penalties of this. Mrs. Reno has said, NIC has been a tremendous success. Simply stated, denials and arrests translate into lives saved and less crime. The hard fact of the matter is it is working now. It will work better. By the time the effective date of this act is present, we will find that gun shows will be able to do all the things that are necessary. There is no reason to burden a law-abiding citizen with more than 24 hours delay. To go further is simply to assure that people will go around gun shows and will achieve gun purchases and ownership in other ways. I urge my colleagues to make the responsible vote. Let us close the loophole. Let us see to it that we cover all sales at gun shows, and let us pass a decent bill that the people can support.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to know that those of us who sponsor this amendment are not interested in increasing crime, we are interested in bringing it to a halt. This is a form, 4473. In it, the individual who files it has to prove through his statements that he is eligible in all particulars and has not disqualified himself from the purchase of a firearm. That is filed, and if one files it falsely, that is a felony. And if one picks up a gun after having filed this falsely, that is a second felony. Now, the instant check system is working, and it is instant, not a long check. It is instant. It is supposed to be instant. Mr. Chairman, we are talking here about a precious right. We have been talking about the first amendment, and now we are talking about the second amendment. I do not divide the Bill of Rights. But I call on my colleagues to understand that in 24 hours, there should be sufficient time, because by the time this legislation is in effect, the Attorney General will have merged the State and the Federal system so that she can get full information immediately. Mr. Chairman, 24 hours is quite enough. Now, gun shows are not Saturnalias of criminals who are bent on destroying the lives and the well-being of innocent citizens. They are a group of innocent citizens who are doing something that goes back as far as Plymouth Rock. They are getting together to sell and trade and engage in commerce, and they are strictly regulated. We are closing the gun show loophole by making everybody who participates in those sales subject to the law. They must file the document, and they must be submitted to the instant check. I do not know how much more we can ask for in terms of seeing to it that we have effectively dealt with the problems of crime. To go beyond this is simply to harass innocent, law-abiding citizens and to hurt people who love to go to gun shows to see their fellow citizens, to talk about guns, to look at firearms, to perhaps purchase a firearm, or more likely to purchase some other kind of sporting accoutrements. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve that time at this moment.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John). (Mr. JOHN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Very well. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield 10 minutes of the 20 minutes I have under the rule to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) and that he be permitted to yield time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the debate on this will be conducted without rancor, without charges of wrongdoing or misbehavior against any Member of this body or also against citizens who might have different feelings. I would observe that the amendment does several things. It, first of all, defines what constitutes a sale at a gun show in a manner consistent with existing contract law. Second of all, it directs the FBI to prioritize background checks at gun shows and to complete them within 24 hours. Third, it deters the theft of firearms that are shipped through the mail by making it possible for dealers to deal at gun shows face to face. Last, it increases the penalty for those who use guns with a large- capacity magazine in the commission of crimes. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, as well as one of the original sponsors and a Floor-Manager of H.R. 1400, the Bond Price Competition Improvement Act of 1999, I rise to clarify a matter involving the legislative history of this legislation. My remarks are an extension of remarks that I made during House consideration of H.R. 1400 (June 14, 1999, Congressional Record at H4137). Prior to floor consideration of H.R. 1400, both the bill and the committee report had been processed on a fully cooperative, bipartisan basis that respected the rights of the majority and minority members of the Commerce Committee. For that, I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce. During House consideration of H.R. 1400 on Monday of this week (June 14, 1999, Congressional Record at H4132-4137, 4139-4140), I became aware of the intention of the Majority to insert in the Record as an extension of Chairman Bliley's remarks ``legislative history'' submitted by the Bond Market Association (BMA). When I questioned proceeding in this manner, I was assured by Mr. Bliley that the material was ``not a part of the legislative history at the moment'' and that the minority would be given an opportunity to peruse and approve the BMA remarks before they became legislative history (June 14, 1999, Congressional Record at H4136). However, I was informed by the gentleman from Virginia in a subsequent phone call that he had misspoken: the material had been inserted in the Record without the Minority's review and approval. I have the following comments on that material which is printed on pages H4134-4135 of the Congressional Record for June 14, 1999, immediately following the statement that Chairman Bliley actually delivered to the House: The Bond Market Association's representatives, who played a constructive role in the development of the legislation, have explained that they wanted to address several concerns raised by their lawyers with the Committee report. They felt that it was inaccurate and painted too bleak a picture of the state of bond market transparency. I have no particular quarrel with their goal. I have a large quarrel, as I stated on June 14, with the process. Furthermore, the BMA document itself contains inaccurate statements. Because the Majority did not include in the main body of the Committee report the findings of the SEC's review of price transparency in the markets for debt securities in the U.S., I included a summary thereof in my additional views (House Report No. 106-149 at 12). BMA admits that my summary is correct. The BMA summary that appears in the Record, however, is not correct (H 4134, carry-over paragraph, top 2nd column). For example, contrary to the BMA document's assertion, the entire U.S. Treasury market was not found to be ``highly transparent.'' The markets for ``benchmark'' U.S. Treasury bonds were found to be ``highly transparent,'' while other Treasury and Federal agency bonds were found to provide a ``very good'' level of pricing information. While the differences that give rise to a ``highly transparent'' versus a ``very good'' rating may escape the untrained and uninitiated, the BMA document's failure to accurately reflect the SEC's conclusions begs the question whether this was sloppy draftsmanship or a deliberate attempt to mislead. The text of the SEC report's summary of findings appears at the end of these remarks. The entire report is printed in the September 29, 1998 hearing record, Serial No. 105-130, at pages 7- 18. The March 1998 Treasury-SEC-Federal Reserve Joint Study of The Regulatory System For Government Securities did report on private sector efforts to improve the timely public dissemination and availability of information concerning government securities transactions and quotes. Its conclusion at page 18 was that ``[t]here have been significant advances in transparency for government securities transactions over the past several years, primarily originating from commercial vendors'' (H4134, paragraph 1, 2nd column). Contrary to the impression given by the BMA's document, Nasdaq's Fixed income Pricing System (FIPS) has done little to make the high yield market more transparent. Specifically, FIPS does not make public any actual transaction reports for high yield bonds, although it is true that such transactions are reported to the NASD, mostly at the end of the day. FIPS publishes quotations, which are generally considered too inaccurate to be useful, for just 50 selected bonds, and also publishes transaction summaries giving the high price, low price, and aggregate volume for all registered high yield bonds (H4134, bottom 2nd column, top 3rd column). The BMA document notes testimony claiming vast differences in the level of price transparency between liquid and illiquid equities. However, NASD Bulletin Board stocks are subject to real time last sale reporting, as are many listed equities and listed options which are, in fact, highly illiquid (H4134, paragraph 1, 3rd column). There are nothing like 300,000 to 400,000 corporate bonds, as that term is commonly understood. The SEC has advised us that there are approximately 30,000 to 40,000. The estimate of 300,000 to 400,000 in the BMA document probably includes mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by GNMA which are issued by private corporations but are ``exempt'' securities and not ordinarily understood to be corporate bonds. The BMA document gives a completely wrong impression of the characteristics of the market (H4134, paragraph 2, 3rd column). The close relationship that exists among some corporate bonds (but which falls well short of the ``fungibility'' claimed by the BMA document) is one of the reasons that transaction reporting can be valuable, since the price of one bond may be important information about the value of many others (H4135, carry-over paragraph, top 1st column). The BMA document is correct that the Finance Subcommittee did hear testimony expressing the concerns of some market participants about possible liquidity effects of the immediate disclosure of price and volume information for some transactions. However, SEC Chairman Levitt specifically testified at the Finance Subcommittee's March 18, 1999, hearing on this bill that he did not believe that transparency harmed liquidity. ``Mr. Oxley. Do you support giving investors bond prices at real time? There's some argument that doing so may affect liquidity.'' ``Mr. Levitt. I think that transparency is good for liquidity. I reject the notion that it is bad for liquidity. I think a market that is open, transparent, available to anyone who wants to access that market is a market that throughout the history of markets has attracted the greatest amount of interest. I believe that, while real time is a goal, it's certainly one that is realizable, and I am supportive of moving in that direction.'' (Serial No. 106-8 at 12). However, the Commission has been sensitive to similar concerns in other contexts and can be relied on to reach an appropriate balance between liquidity concerns and the value of transparency. This was the conclusion of the Committee in its unanimous decision to give the SEC this responsibility. I believe it is echoed in the resounding 333-1 vote of the House in favor of passing H.R. 1400 (H4135, 1st paragraph, 1st column). The BMA document's partial quotation, ``the Commission shall take into consideration . . . private sector systems for the collection and distribution of transaction information on corporate debt securities,'' omits the significant phrase ``among other things.'' I strongly support private sector initiatives and solutions, where appropriate and effective. I believe that the purpose of this phrase in H.R. 1400 is to give the Commission flexibility to assure the effectiveness of transaction reporting by looking at and to the entire landscape, both private and government. It is not a mandate that there be competition beyond that already required under section 11A of the Exchange Act which requires actions that ``foster efficiency, enhance competition, increase the information available to brokers, dealers, and investors, facilitate the offsetting of investors' orders, and contribute to best execution of such orders'' (H4135, 2nd paragraph, 1st column).

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment, and I rise in support of the first amendment. Tomorrow I will be rising in defense of the second amendment. At the rate this Congress is going, by the Fourth of July, we will probably have successfully trampled upon the entirety of the Bill of Rights. I do love my good friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the author of the amendment. And I want to pay him my great respect and affection, he is a wonderful gentleman and a valuable Member of this body, and also to other Members on both sides of the aisle. I am satisfied that they are doing what they believe is right, and I believe that these are sincere and well-intentioned efforts. But I believe that the amendment is flawed and, in all probability, unconstitutional. We know the difficulty of trying to define exactly what materials may be offensive or harmful or dangerous. In any event, I do not think it is the business of the Congress to let the courts do our jobs for us. There is a difference between assigning blame and assuming responsibility. Assigning blame is not going to bring back the children who were senselessly and tragically taken from us in Colorado and Georgia. But in assuming responsibility, we might proceed toward better legislation and prevent another Littleton in the future. Unfortunately, too much of the juvenile justice legislation is about blame and too little about responsibility. What I would like to see, however, is legislation that does not attack the Bill of Rights but instead deals with the root causes of juvenile crime, including the reduction in poverty, improvement of education and mental health and the development of job opportunities for decent wages. I would like to see legislation that will attack the problem that our juvenile court judge back home talks about, where he has to release kids to the street who are functionally insane and a threat to the society. I believe that that would be something which we could do that would be really important. We are in the unusual position on the juvenile justice bill of having a legislative process which usually works with the Senate stepping in after the House acts to calm the passions of this body. Today the House appears eager to join in trouncing the amendments to the Constitution. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to protect the cherished constitutional rights.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill H.R. 1400, the Bond Price Competition Improvement Act of 1999, and urge its adoption by the House. I filed a comprehensive additional set of views which appear at page 11 through 13 of the Committee Report. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first commend my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, for their strong leadership in this legislation. This is an issue that has been boiling around for a long time and the committee has been telling the industry that this is a matter which has to be corrected. In 1993 in the fall, Mr. Markey, then chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, warned, ``I have little sympathy for those who keep information about quotes, trades, prices, and markups in the dark away from investors. Markets are more efficient, more fair, and more liquid when investors can readily determine how much a security costs.'' At the September 29, 1999, hearing on price competition for bonds, my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) issued a challenge to the SEC and the bond market to get going and clean this market up and promised to introduce legislation in the next Congress. The gentleman from Virginia was true to his word and I commend him for working with those of us on this side of the aisle, the Federal regulators, and the bond industry to fashion this targeted and bipartisan bill that is cosponsored by a large numbers of Members on the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, including myself. Mr. Speaker, in this bill we tell the markets to stop treating investors like mushrooms. We require that the investing public no longer be kept in the dark, away from the world of prompt, accurate, and reliable transaction information; in other words, keeping them away from the sunlight. And we require them to include the last sale reported. Bond markets are an important function in the U.S. economy. Their complexity will raise more difficult challenges to crafting transparent solutions. This is why we have charged the SEC, the Federal securities regulator, with the responsibility for overseeing this initiative. The private market has raised concerns that this effort will hurt market liquidity. We are aware of those concerns, but I must confess that personally I have small regard for the concerns and some doubts about those who have raised them. They also were raised in conjunction with earlier initiatives to facilitate transparency in the market for government securities. These markets were totally unharmed, and investors were significantly benefited. They remain the most liquid and efficient in the world. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I commend the ongoing private sector and NASD responses to the challenge. I believe that the bond markets and the investors both will reap significant benefits from the actions we take today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of brief comments that I think will be helpful to the Record. The first is to again express my great affection and respect for the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and for the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials. Mr. Speaker, I have not seen these ``additional remarks'' which are being used to constitute legislative history. Could my two good friends enlighten me as to what they are, where they come from, and what they say?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am comforted to hear that. Am I to assume that they are not part of the legislative history or they are a part of the legislative history?

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