Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and myself. Our amendment makes several technical and conforming changes to Title IX of H.R. 333. Currently Title IX contains the provisions of H.R. 1161 which passed the House three times in the 106th Congress but did not make it to the President. That legislation was based upon recommendations of the Clinton administration. It had broad bipartisan support, and was sought by the financial services industry and the regulatory community. I am very pleased we have brought this bill back to the floor so quickly and successfully. The majority leader and the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), both deserve high praise for their work on this legislation. Unfortunately, the bill before the House today does not make changes to these provisions necessitated by the later enactment of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 sponsored by our good friend, Mr. Ewing. Without the changes in this amendment, similar kinds of financial contracts and market participants could be treated differently under the banking laws and the bankruptcy laws, where I come from. Mr. Chairman, this does not make any sense. To my knowledge, this amendment is noncontroversial and has the support of the Treasury Department, the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, and the financial services industry. I am unaware of any opposition to the substance of this amendment. We look forward to continuing to work with the administration and our colleagues in conference to address the remaining issues that were not included in this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good bill and enjoys broad support. I also want to thank my ranking minority member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), for his assistance in developing this amendment which is so important to the smooth operation of our financial markets. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment and a good bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support both. Mr. Chairman, I am including for the Record some material explaining the provisions of title IX and the changes made by this amendment to provide needed technical background. This is a good amendment and a good bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to support both. Section-by-Section Analysis of Title IX of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001 (H.R. 333) i. introduction Title IX of H.R. 333 is based on the work of an interagency working group under the auspices of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets following a review of current statutory provisions governing the treatment of qualified financial contracts and similar financial contracts upon the insolvency of a counterparty. ii. purpose Title IX amends the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), as amended by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), the payment system risk reduction and meeting provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA), and the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA). These amendments address the treatment of certain financial transactions following the insolvency of a party to such transactions. The amendments are designed to clarify and improve the consistency between the applicable statutes and to minimize the risk of a disruption within or between financial markets upon the insolvency of a market participant. iii. background Since its adoption in 1978, the Bankruptcy Code has been amended several times to afford different treatment for certain financial transactions upon the bankruptcy of a debtor, as compared with the treatment of other commercial contracts and transactions. These amendments were designed to further the policy goal of minimizing the systemic risks potentially arising from certain interrelated financial activities and markets. Similar amendments have been made to the FDIA and FDICIA, and both the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) have issued policy statements and letters clarifying general issues in this regard. Systemic risk has been defined as the risk that a disruption--at a firm, in a market segment, to a settlement system, etc--can cause widespread difficulties at other firms, in other market segments or in the financial system as a whole. If participants in certain financial activities are unable to enforce their rights to terminate financial contracts with an insolvent entity in a timely manner, to offset or net payment and other transfer obligations and entitlements arising under such contracts, and to foreclose on collateral securing such contracts, the resulting uncertainty and potential lack of liquidity could increase the risk of an inter-market disruption. Congress has in the past taken steps to ensure that the risk of such systemic events is minimized. For example, both the Bankruptcy Code and the FDIA contain provisions that protect the rights of financial participants to terminate swap agreements, forward contracts, securities contracts, commodity contracts and repurchase agreements following the bankruptcy or insolvency of a counterparty to such contracts or agreements. Furthermore, other provisions prevent transfers made under such circumstances from being avoided as preferences or fraudulent conveyances (except when made with actual intent to defraud and taken in bath faith). Protections also are afforded to ensure that the acceleration, termination, liquidation, netting, setoff and collateral foreclosure provisions of such transactions and master agreements for such transactions are enforceable. In addition, FDICIA was enacted in 1991 to protect the enforceability of close-out netting provisions in ``netting contracts'' between ``financial institutions.'' FDICIA states that the goal of enforcing netting arrangements is to reduce systemic risk within the banking system and financial markets. The orderly resolution of insolvencies involving counterparties to such contracts also is an important element in the reduction of systemic risk. The FDIA allows the receiver for an insolvent insured depository institution the opportunity to review the status of certain contracts to determine whether to terminate or transfer the contracts to new counterparties. These provisions provide the receiver with flexibility in determining the most appropriate resolution for the failed institution and facilitate the reduction of systemic risk by permitting the transfer, rather than termination, of such contracts. iv. summary and section-by-section analysis In general, Title IX is designed to clarify the treatment of certain financial contracts upon the insolvency of a counterparty and to promote the reduction of systemic risk. It furthers the goals of prior amendments to the Bankruptcy Code and the FDIA regarding the treatment of those financial contracts and of the payment system risk reduction provisions in FDICIA. It has four principal purposes: 1. To strengthen the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the FDIA that protect the enforceability of acceleration, termination, liquidation, close-out netting, collateral foreclosure and related provisions of certain financial agreements and transactions. 2. To harmonize the treatment of these financial agreements and transactions under the Bankruptcy Code and the FDIA. 3. To amend the FDIA and FDICIA to clarify that certain rights of the FDIC acting as conservator or receiver for a failed insured depository institution (and in some situations, rights of SIPC and receivers of certain uninsured institutions) cannot be defeated by operation of the terms of

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, last week marked the end of the Honorable Arthur Levitt's tenure as the longest-serving Chairman in the history of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Arthur has been a good friend of mine for quite some time. More importantly, over the past eight years, he has been a leader in preserving the integrity of our capital markets and protecting America's investors. I have worked closely with Arthur during his entire tenure on a number of major initiatives, especially the past few years in my capacity as chairman of the former House Commerce Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials. Chairman Levitt leaves the Commission with an enviable record of accomplishment. He worked tirelessly to achieve his top priority of protecting investors, conducting more than 40 investor town meetings across the country, listening and responding to their concerns. He played an important role in the recent financial services debates. The financial modernization legislation--known as the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act--was enacted after decades of futility. It was, in part, the product of Chairman Levitt's hard work and support. Persuading the nation's stock exchanges to convert to decimal pricing took some prodding from the Commission and Congress, but I am pleased to report that America's investors are already benefiting from the narrower spreads that I envisioned when I introduced the Common Cents Stock Pricing Act of 1997. Chairman Levitt deserves a great deal of credit for helping implement this historic reform. He played an integral role in passage of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act, which modernized the relationship between state and federal securities regulators and eliminated costly and duplicative state regulation of national securities offerings. More recently, his work on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, helped us pass historic legislation to provide legal certainty to the trillion-dollar derivatives industry. Finally, the SEC, under Mr. Levitt's direction, has taken important steps in creating a regulatory framework that embraces new technology and promotes competition. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say that Arthur Levitt is a man of great integrity who has served his nation admirably. He is the quintessential public servant. The American people are better off for his tenure.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Resolution and the creation of a new Committee on Financial Services, which incorporates the jurisdiction over the nations securities laws and the regulation of the business of insurance with the jurisdiction of the former Committee on Banking and Financial Services. With the enactment of the landmark Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in the 106th Congress, consumers enjoy the promise of greater competition in the financial services industry, leading to the development of innovative new products, services, and giving the institutions offering those services the ability to provide them at lower costs and with greater convenience for the consumer. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act created a new regulatory framework for companies providing these services. It only makes sense that the House modernize its committees to provide the kind of oversight needed in the modern marketplace. Under the Resolution before us, jurisdiction relating to securities and exchanges is transferred in its entirety from the former Committee on Commerce to the new Committee on Financial Services, including securities dealing, underwriting, and market making. Matters relating to the Securities and Exchange Commission, including accounting standards, investor protection, equities exchanges, broker-dealers, investment companies, and investment advisors also are included under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services. Similarly, jurisdiction over the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has its root in the Securities Act of 1934 and would also fall under the new Committee's jurisdiction over securities and exchanges. Regulation of stock market quote data also would fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services, as would legislation to regulate its publication and sale as part of computerized databases. Jurisdiction over matters relating to insurance generally also is transferred to the new Committee on Financial Services, including matters relating to the business of insurance, the solvency of insurers and institutions underwriting or selling insurance, the protection of insurance policyholders, the national treatment of insurance companies, auto insurance, life insurance, and property and casualty insurance. These are matters that are directly related to the regulation of the nation's markets for securities and insurance, and it is my belief and understanding that they will be referred to the Committee on Financial Services in the future.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the subcommittee Chairs and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for their work on this effort. Mr. Speaker, this bill is perhaps the most notable for what is not in the bill than perhaps what is. One of the measures that is not in it contained a Senate provision that, under the guise of spending restrictions, would have changed governing law and abrogated U.S. commitments to open worldwide telecommunications markets, and it was wisely kept out of this bill. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Commerce, the absence of any legislative riders pertaining to our Nation's securities laws was also most appreciated. This is going to have to wait until the next legislative session, when I hope I can work together with the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky, on this issue. There are two significant matters pertaining to this bill that have actually been considered under regular order and passed by the Committee on Commerce and House in overwhelming margins. The first is the Local TV Act that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) had talked about. This measure also includes a provision that I advocated, along with the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), requiring an independent test of interference caused by terrestrial video services sharing the DBS band. It is very important to determine once and for all whether that interference causes problems with satellite television. Finally, the bill includes the provisions of my measure, H.R. 3439, the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act. For all those reasons and more, I strongly support this legislation.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, during this Congress, we have made historic progress in enacting legislation to modernize and improve our financial markets. We enacted Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and finally repealed the outdated restrictions against affiliations among banks, securities firms, and insurance firms, paving the way for new efficiencies and innovations in our marketplace. We enacted E-SIGN, facilitating the growth of electronic commerce in not only the financial marketplace, but indeed the entire U.S. marketplace. And today we are taking a step toward further improving the competitiveness of U.S. markets in the financial arena. H.R. 4541 serves three important functions. It promotes regulatory efficiency, enhances legal certainly in the derivatives market, and stimulates competition. This bill enhances regulatory efficiency in the futures market by streamlining the regulations of the CFTC. I support this prudent approach to deregulation. It enhances legal certainty in the derivatives market by explicitly carving out derivatives transactions from CFTC regulation. I welcome the resulting legal certainty, which is vital to the continued growth of an industry that is so fundamentally important to the financial health of U.S. companies, and, indeed, the global financial marketplace. The legislation also promotes competition both domestically and internationally by lifting a ban on a type of financial product that could serve important functions in our markets and abroad. While current law bans the trading of futures on individual securities and on narrow-based indices in the U.S. overseas markets for these security futures products are rapidly developing. It is important for our markets to be able to compete for this business, because I strongly believe that in a fair competitive environment, our markets will always win. This legislation authorizes the trading of securities futures products on futures exchanges, options exchanges, equity exchanges and, importantly, Alternative Trading Systems. The broad spectrum of competition that this legislation will foster will serve the market well. I would like to thank my colleagues for their good work on this legislation. In particular I thank Chairman Bliley, Chairman Combest, Chairman Leach, Chairman Ewing and Chairman Baker for the leadership they have displayed in moving this bill forward. The bill certainly reflects the hard work these gentlemen have put into it. This is good policy and I urge each of you to support it.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House chamber for the day of Thursday, October 12th.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to speak today in support of the Lincoln Highway Study Act, introduced by my good friend Mr. Regula, dean of the Ohio delegation. Chairman Regula's bill, of which I am a cosponsor, would direct the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a coast-to-coast study of the 3,384-mile Lincoln Highway. As a result of this study, the National Park Service can offer options as to how to preserve the historic nature of the road, the nation's first transcontinental highway. First established in 1913, the Lincoln Highway connects New York City and San Francisco, running through 13 states. The official proclamation detailed the route through Ohio as following the road known as ``Market Route Number Three,'' passing through Canton, Mansfield, Marion, Kenton, Lima, and Van Wert. In the 15 years that followed, significant revisions were made to that original list, adding and eliminating cities and villages from the planned road. Among the cities added was Bucyrus, where the first brick Lincoln Highway pillars were erected to commemorate the project. Four of these original pillars--with their plaques of red, white, and blue--are still standing today. Throughout Ohio, the Lincoln Highway generally follows U.S. Route 30, which bisects my congressional district. Several segments of Route 30 in my district are still two-lane roads, yet regrettably carry heavy volumes of semi traffic. My constituents are unanimous in declaring these two-lane segments the most dangerous stretches of highway they have ever traveled. I am proud, therefore, to have helped secure funding in 1998's BESTEA Act to construct a modern, four-lane Route 30. The new road, which is slated for completion within the decade, will divert this heavy traffic from the original Lincoln Highway, aiding in its restoration and preservation. I salute Chairman Regula and the Ohio Department of Transportation for their work in advancing Route 30 modernization. Madam Speaker, I would also like to recognize two of my constituents who are actively involved in Lincoln Highway preservation. Mr. Michael Buettner of Lima is the president of the Ohio Lincoln Highway League and author of the History and Road Guide of the Lincoln Highway in Ohio. His work in promoting the highway has made him a sought-after tour guide for Lincoln Highway historians. Also, Mr. Craig Harmon is the founder and director of the Lincoln Highway National Museum and Archives in Galion. Two years ago, Craig traveled the entire Lincoln Highway in a bucket truck, taking some 5,000 photographs along the way as a part of his project ``The Lincoln Highway Comes of Age.'' These two gentlemen have compiled a wealth of information with which to assist in the Park Service's study; I am proud of their hard work. I thank Mr. Regula for his leadership on this issue, and urge my colleagues to support the preservation of this important road.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3756) to establish a standard time zone for Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and for other purposes.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3756.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, this bill is simple and straightforward. The legislation establishes a separate time zone for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands by increasing the number of standard time zones in the United States from 8 to 9. This new time zone will be known as the Chamorro time zone and will be required to observe daylight savings time. The gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) deserves praise for his tenacity on this issue. It is a simple measure without controversy, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the coauthor of the legislation.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will just sum up briefly with our congratulations to the author of the legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). As the other speakers have said, the Internet provides a great upside opportunity for education, entertainment and the like, but it certainly has its dark side as well. Those of us who worked on the Child Online Protection Act understand how difficult some of these circumstances can be with children having access to some of this terrible material. While the Child Online Protection Act, which passed virtually unanimously in the 105th Congress, is now undergoing judicial review, whether in fact we are successful or not ultimately in getting that legislation to be considered constitutional the real issue is how do we deal in the meantime with educating our children to the potential dangers of the Internet. That is why this legislation has such importance, has such broad-based support from both sides of the aisle. So that is why it is important that we pass this legislation today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, a number of comments have been made about the process of producing H.R. 5175, the Small Business Liability Relief Act by opponents of the legislation. I find these comments unfair and misleading. The following timeline should help set the record straight. Contrary to the impression that some Members imply in their statements, Minority staff on the Transportation and Commerce Committees have been aware of the basic proposal behind H.R. 5175 for months. First, during the 103d, 104th, 105th, and early 106th Congresses, the Commerce and Transportation Committees held dozens of hearings with hundreds of witnesses outlining the tremendous problems with the badly broken Superfund program. Dozens of hearings outline that Superfund is an unjust litigation nightmare and has a devastating impact on small businesses. The Committees held hearings on a number of Superfund bills during this time which have provisions that would provide significant relief for small businesses. On August 5, 1999, H.R. 1300, a comprehensive bill to reform Superfund, passed the Transportation Committee by a vote of 69-2. The bill contains a de micromis exemption, an exemption for small businesses that provide ordinary garbage, and the de minimis and ability to pay settlement policy--generally, all components of the later, H.R. 5175. The Clinton-Gore Administration opposes the bill even though it now has 149 cosponsors, including 69 Democrats. On October 13, 1999, H.R. 2580 passed in Commerce Committee by a vote of 30 to 21. The bill includes the same legislative language as H.R. 1300 providing a de micromis exemption, an exemption for small businesses that provide ordinary garbage, and the de minimis and ability to pay settlement policy. In early November 1999, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) showed both Majority and Minority staff of the Commerce and Transportation Committee a draft small business liability relief bill which they claimed was the product of two weeks of discussions with the Environmental Protection Agency. The draft clearly had been faxed to NFIB staff from the Office of the Administrator at EPA. NFIB states that this version and earlier versions of the draft bill had been produced at EPA and provided to them through their discussions. NFIB further claims that Administrator Browner was both fully aware of the draft and found the draft bill to be acceptable to EPA. In June through July of this year, Majority staff of the Commerce and Transportation Committees gave the NFIB-EPA draft fill to legislative counsel to put into proper legislative drafting form. This text was provided to Minority staff. Majority and Minority staff met to discuss this and other Superfund issues. On August 18, 2000, EPA sent a letter in response to the request of Representative Dingell about the NFIB-EPA discussion draft bill. EPA noted one problem concerning the prospective application of the de micromis exemption. On September 14, 2000, a bipartisan group of cosponsors introduced H.R. 5175, the Small Business Liability Relief Act which largely reflects the NFIB-EPA 1999 draft bill and addresses the issue raised by EPA in August 2000. The most significant change between the bill and the NFIB-EPA discussion draft was to address the issue raised by EPA in its August 2000 letter. On September 19, 2000, NFIB staff met with EPA and Department of Justice (DOJ) staff to review H.R. 5175. NFIB states that EPA and DOJ staff provided line by line comments on technical concerns within the legislation. These comments were relayed to Commerce and Transportation Majority staff. On September 21, 2000, Majority and Minority staff of the Commerce and Transportation Committees and representatives from EPA and the Department of Justice met to discuss comments on H.R. 5175. On September 24, 2000, a draft with minor revisions was delivered to EPA and Minority staff offices to address a number of the concerns raised at the meetings of September 19 and 21. On September 25, 2000, Majority staff invited EPA and Minority staff to meet or to provide any written comments on the revised bill. Neither EPA nor Minority staff accepted the invitation. On September 26, 2000, H.R. 5175, revised to address certain Minority and Administration concerns, was brought up for a vote. The small business liability relief issue has had extensive process going back years. The basic NFIB-EPA discussion draft bill had been provided to Minority staff as far back as November 1999. Mr. Dingell received responses from EPA to his questions concerning the draft in August 2000. The substantive arguments being made by certain Members against the bill--such as those concerning the burden of proof or the size definition of small businesses--are arguments over language that is in these early drafts. There was more than enough time to provide specific written comments to improve the bill.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for the way you have conducted this debate, and I appreciate my friends on the other side of the aisle. Let me, first of all say, this issue to the Members on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on Commerce is not a new issue. Lord, we have had hundreds of witnesses, scores of hearings, discussions about this. We have had a bipartisan effort on many occasions, many of the provisions that were in H.R. 2580 and H.R. 1300. Bills that passed both the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on Commerce are part and parcel of this small business bill, and I would not be here today if we had not been frustrated by the fact that we are not able to get a comprehensive Superfund reform bill passed. But in the meantime, the small business owners, the people who suffer, the Barbara Williams in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, sued for $56,000 for sending chicken bones to the local dump, to the Keystone Dump. Those are the people that are suffering day after day after day. There is not an individual that was on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or the Committee on Commerce that can stand here and say with any certainty that they did not know what was in this bill or we have not discussed this bill, time and time again in this Congress and any other Congress. I understand when my colleagues do not have an argument on the substance, my colleagues can talk about the process; but this process has been a good one. We have been working with the EPA over the last several weeks in trying to craft a bill; and, in fact, we only got to one issue that was a critical issue, that was a burden-of-proof issue. Apparently, my friends on the other side of the aisle cannot quite understand that we think that the burden of proof ought to be on the Federal Government, not on some innocent, small business man who is trying to make a living who is sending chicken bones to the dump. My friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), talked about an interesting theory that somehow a small business man would mix dioxins with the chicken bones to make some kind of salad to send to the dump. How preposterous is that? In fact, the burden of proof even under his proposal would be on the small businessman to show that he did not do that. It gives us an idea about where we have come in this debate. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation. We have a number of Members on here from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) all responding to small business concerns in their particular congressional districts that have told them they are getting tired of getting ripped off by Superfund, they are getting tired off being ripping off by a program that does not work and costs them money and threatens to put them out of work. I think that is a shame. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to strike a blow for small business. Let me remind the Members, both here and listening and watching on television, this is an NFIB key vote, NFIB key vote. That is, how Members vote on this legislation will be determined by all of the small businesses in your particular districts. I would ask that they pay attention to that and understand this is critical to the small business survival. Let us not make Superfund the enemy of small business. Let us, Congress, step ahead and save the day on Superfund reform as it relates to small business.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5175) to provide relief to small businesses from liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), who has a very interesting and poignant story about the problems of Superfund. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)