Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kucinich amendment. The Kucinich-Ros-Lehtinen amendment would prohibit the federal government from challenging state or local laws that are inconsistent with U.S. treaty obligations. The purpose of the amendment is to protect unconstitutional trade sanctions levied by localities and states against foreign nations. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of economic sanctions enacted by municipalities and states against foreign countries. These laws are in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution, in that they interfere with the federal government's exclusive authority to conduct foreign policy and regulate foreign commerce. A key element of U.S. foreign policy is the ability of the federal government to influence the actions of foreign governments through the use of very powerful tool: the withholding of United States economic engagement. The federal government must have a cohesive and coherent policy in order to bring this power to bear. The future of our economic prosperity in the global market depends on the United States having balanced trade relations with foreign nations. We must confront rogue nations, not as fifty states or countless municipalities, but as a strong, unified nation with a clear foreign policy agenda. The Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment would undercut these goals by promoting state and local infringements on federal foreign policy making.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, along with Mr. Towns, the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, I am introducing H.R. XX the Brownfields Remediation Waste Act of 1999. This Act reflects a bipartisan effort that will do a number of things to improve the Nations' cleanup program and, most important, remove barriers and disincentives that have been problems for Brownfields and voluntary cleanup programs in all States. These problems were not fully understood or thought through when Congress passed the 1984 Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). We should not let broken legislation stand in the way of remediation activities. Overall, the bill will remove barriers and disincentives and tap the expertise of EPA and state programs to tailor effective solutions without the straightjacket that has inhibited actions for 15 years. We have worked on this bill with the input of State agencies and the cleanup contractors, both of whom want to see more remediation activity. The brownfields problems has many sources and many proposals to help bring new life to these areas. Brownfields, loosely defined as abandoned or underutilized former industrial properties where actual or potential environmental contamination hinders redevelopment or prevents it altogether. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') estimates that there may be as many as 450,000 such sites nationwide. This epidemic poses continuing risks to human health and the environment, erodes States and local tax bases, hinders job growth, and allows existing infrastructure to go to waste. Moreover, the reluctance to redevelop brownfields has led developers to undeveloped ``greenfields,'' which do not pose any risk of liability. Development in these areas contributes to suburban sprawl, and eliminates future recreation and agricultural uses. In the view of many, Federal law itself can be a culprit. The fundamental flaw in RCRA that hinders cleanup is that the law was primarily designed to regulate process wastes, not cleanup wastes. As a result, the law requires stringent treatment standards, usually based on combustion, for most wastestreams; establishes lengthy permit requirements; and otherwise presumes that process wastes are continuously generated and disposed of at an ongoing manufacturing facility. RCRA's requirements are awkward, expensive, and hinder and prevent cleanup. EPA has stated: ``. . . EPA has long believed that changes in the application of certain RCRA requirements to remediation waste are appropriate. While the Agency has not endorsed any specific legislative proposal, we continue to believe reform to application of RCRA requirements to remediation waste, especially RCRA land disposal restrictions, minimum technology, and permitting requirement if accomplished appropriately, could significantly accelerate cleanup actions at Superfund, Brownfield, and RCRA Corrective Action sites without sacrificing protection of human health and the environment.''-- Letter from Michael Shapiro, Director, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA to Doug MacMillan, Executive Director, Environmental Technology Council dated January 27, 1997. ``Perhaps the largest expense of RCRA is the enormous cleanup costs associated with the corrective action program. Although the RCRA corrective action cleanups could have been limited to address failures of the RCRA prevention program for as-generated wastes, Congress drafted the statute more broadly to capture old, historic wastes as well. RCRA corrective action and closures, state cleanups, CERCLA actions and voluntary cleanups often involve one-time management of large quantities of wastes. Under RCRA, management of these wastes may trigger obligations to comply with RCRA procedural and substantive requirements. For example, RCRA permits may be required for voluntary cleanups or state cleanups. Obviously this could seriously delay cleanups and dramatically increase their costs. In addition, RCRA substantive standards are designed primarily for wastes generated from ongoing industrial processes and may not fit well in remedial situations. For example, requirements for pretreatment of cleanup wastes may foreclose other cost-effective yet protective cleanup options. . . .''--Don Clay, Assistant Administrator U.S. EPA before the House Committee on Transportation, March 10, 1992. State cleanup agencies have also noted these problems: ``At some voluntary sites, onsite management of contaminated soils triggers the application of RCRA management requirements. While volunteers should use best management practices and comply with RCRA for offsite management of soil, meeting RCRA requirements onsite only serves to increase costs without providing any commensurate benefits to the cleanup.''--Don Schregardus, Director Ohio, EPA, February 14, 1997. ``. . . The objectives for site cleanups versus ongoing hazardous waste management differ markedly. The RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulatory framework is designed to ensure the long-term safe management and disposal of as-generated hazardous wastes (sometimes termed ``Process wastes''). RCRA Subtitle C is a prevention-oriented program containing many detailed procedural (permitting) and substantive requirements (land disposal restrictions and minimum technology requirements). Conversely, the objective of site cleanups is to achieve an effective, environmentally protective solution to existing contaminated sites. For this reason, application of RCRA Subtitle C requirements to wastes that have already been released to the environment (i.e. contaminated media) can, in many cases, increase costs and delay site remediation efforts without significant environmental benefit.''--Catherine Sharp, Environmental Programs Administrator, Waste Management Division, Oklahoma department of Environmental Quality, on behalf of the Association of State and Territorial Waste Management Officials before the House Committee on Commerce Transportation and Hazardous Materials on, July 20, 1995. Indeed, State cleanup agencies have asked to make this legislation a priority and the legislation builds and principles adopted by the National Governors Association. Cleanup contractors have also asked us to pursue this legislation: ``The Hazardous Waste Action Coalition (HWAC) the association of leading engineering, science and construction firms practicing in multimedia environmental management and remediation, strongly encourages [Congress] to make RCRA legislative reform a top priority . . . to [produce] a sound bipartisan approach to removing impediments under RCRA. . . . For example, RCRA's land disposal restriction requirements can completely eliminate many technically practicable remedies from even being considered. HWAC strongly believes that only legislative reform of RCRA [will] remove this and other disincentives to cleanup of RCRA contaminated waste sites.''--Letter from the Hazardous Waste Action Coalition dated January 6, 1998. Clearly the Brownfields Remediation Waste Act of 1999 addresses a real set of problems. The bill is tailored to do a number of things to address these problems. First, the bill provides EPA new authority to tailor regulations for the management of remediation wastes from brownfields, voluntary, State and other site cleanups without applying the often rigid and inappropriate regulations designed for newly generated process waste--thus, allowing EPA to remove barriers to fast and efficient cleanups. Second, the Act shields EPA's recent common- sense regulations concerning remediation wastes from unnecessary and disruptive litigation. Third, the bill will provide needed flexibility for offsite remediation waste management units. Finally, the Act allows State programs, subject to EPA review and approval, to run protective remediation waste programs tailored to their brownfields, voluntary response or other programs. Mr. Towns and I are interested in all bipartisan suggestions for improvement and seek your support.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. Before I get into the thrust of my comments, I think we must all once again be reminded that what this debate is really all about is extending normal trading ties with China for another year. Normal Trade Relations, or NTR, does not grant some special benefit to the Chinese. Rather, it simply grants the Chinese the same trading status that the U.S. has with most of the rest of the world. China is our fourth largest trading partner. We exported $14 billion in goods and services to the Chinese in 1998, which supported over 200,000 high-wage American jobs. Revoking NTR would push tariffs on Chinese goods from four to 40 percent, resulting in an effective tax increase of nearly $300 per American family. I understand and appreciate the concerns opponents of NTR have with the government of the People's Republic of China. I harbor no illusions about the benevolence of the PRC's leadership. However, I firmly believe that engagement with China offers the best hope for democratic reform there. I have to ask what opponents of engagement hope to accomplish by revoking NTR. To my mind, it would be a step backward. Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and promote, rather than stifle, positive change in China.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to salute my good friend Dick Strahm at the close of his 25-year career as head football coach of the University of Findlay Oilers. The Dick Strahm Era at U of F began in 1975, when he arrived from Kansas State to breathe new life into the program. He immediately set out to recruit the best players available, going all out to lure top prospects to Findlay despite significant shortfalls in available scholarship money. His dedication and commitment to the program were apparent from the beginning, as his team went undefeated in 1978 and won the Division II national title in 1979. Coach Strahm's successes carried into the 80s, as the 1985 team compiled U of F's first 10-game winning streak in history. The 90s, though, proved to be his best decade at the helm, as he coached his players to an 83-20-3 overall record, a 27-game winning streak, and three more national championships. During his 24-season tenure with the Oilers, Dick Strahm presided over just two losing seasons, and compiled an overall head coaching record of 183 wins, 64 losses, and five ties. He was named National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics Coach of the Year four times, and NAIA District 22 Coach of the Year 12 times. The Oilers will certainly miss his leadership on the field in the seasons ahead. I join Coach Strahm's current and former players, the University of Findlay family, and the entire city of Findlay in thanking him for his years of service and devotion. Congratulations, Dick, on building a successful program that will bear your legacy for years to come.

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), who has done such a wonderful job in leading us in this effort on privacy.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, let me reiterate to the Members. Under the Oxley amendment, for the first time we are requiring financial services organizations to actually have a privacy policy. It has to be printed, it has to be explained to the customer, the customer has an opportunity to understand exactly what that privacy policy is. It never happened before until this amendment becomes law. Secondly, now that the consumer who is working with this affiliate company understands that policy, he may or may not decide to continue to do business with that company. If he is so concerned that the company he is dealing with is going to be selling that information or leaking that information to other parts of the affiliate, he is going to vote with his feet, he is going to act like an educated consumer, to quote a famous line from Sy Syms. He is going to be an educated consumer, and he is going to go someplace else where his privacy is going to be protected. That is the marketplace working very effectively, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts, not some statute that ties up these financial institutions, costs them millions and millions of dollars which is going to be passed on to the consumer ultimately and is going to be less and less efficient. This is the product that was worked on in a bipartisan way. I ask the Members to support the amendment.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Chairman, I want to talk about what the brave new world of financial services marketplace is going to look like and what it is going to look like realistically as opposed to some of the scare stories my colleagues are going to hear from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). Basically, it means more choice of services and products, varied for the consumer, the joint ventures and, yes, the responsible sharing of consumer information taking place in the market today. The reality is, the integrated products and services today's consumer expects from his or her financial institutions require information sharing, especially among affiliates. After all, in the eyes of the consumer, what are affiliates other than different departments of the same company that they are dealing with. One can bet, for example, that if a consumer in Ohio, for example, has a relationship with bank one and is applying for a preapproved mortgage loan, he expects them to know when he calls that he has a savings account, a checking account, a car loan, and a CD with them. The last thing he wants is more government regulation and more forms to fill out when he is dealing with his own company. The amendment I offer today with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) takes a more realistic, more free market, more consumer friendly approach to the issue of privacy. The amendment, I want to make this very clear, requires mandatory disclosure for the first time of financial institutions' privacy policy in clear and conspicuous language. The amendment provides an opt-out provision, enabling consumers who so choose not to have their confidential financial information disclosed to unaffiliated third parties. It includes a prohibition on the sharing of consumer account numbers to third parties in connection with the marketing of products, thus addressing concerns regarding third-party telemarketing. The amendment requires the financial institution regulators to set and enforce standards for the security of confidential information. An amendment requires the Secretary of Treasury to do a comprehensive study on privacy issues as it relates to affiliate structure. I would point out to the Members this issue of information sharing within affiliates has had no hearing whatsoever, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services or in the Committee on Commerce. This would require a study by the Treasury Department to find out exactly where the pressure points are. Madam Chairman, these are strong, new protections for consumer privacy, unheard of before. It takes a huge step in providing the kind of privacy for consumers and, at the same time, at the same time, allowing the efficiencies of the marketplace to work so effectively. We trust consumers to make those kinds of choices when they are dealing with their financial services company. If they do not like that privacy policy or they think that they are having their information passed on, they can simply change companies and vote with their feet. That is what this amendment does. We trust the consumer. We think this is the best approach to privacy. I would ask support of the Oxley amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and a subcommittee chair.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) who has taken great leadership on this issue and who is the Subcommittee Chair on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) who has been one of the leaders on the Committee on Commerce on the banking provisions, as well as the privacy provisions. (Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman protested too much. When I came to the Committee on Rules yesterday in support of the bipartisan amendment on privacy and I was greeted by my friends on both sides of the aisle saying that we had a positive amendment that was going to deal with the privacy issue, it was supported by broad sectors of both parties, and when I left the Committee on Rules late yesterday afternoon, my assumption was that not only would that amendment be made in order, but the amendment would be cosponsored by Democrats and Republicans alike. When I found out later that evening, last evening, that there had been a failure on the part of my friends on the Democratic side to cosponsor the bill, I was deeply offended. Now I do not get on this floor very often and get partisan, but I am telling my colleagues, around this place your word is your bond, and if you tell me that you are going to cosponsor an amendment with me, I fully expect that you will carry through. And the fact is that because of some political gamesmanship and somebody trying to take partisan advantage of somebody of goodwill, we find ourselves today in a partisan debate over an issue like financial services that has been bipartisan and supported by bipartisan majorities in both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. And I think it is an outrage, an outrage, for people like me who acted in good faith to have the rug pulled out from under me because of some political game playing. Now I want everybody to support the rule. This is a good rule, it is a fair rule, and I suspect that when our amendment is offered on the floor, there are going to be a lot of Democrats who were going to cosponsor that amendment who were going to vote with us on that amendment because they thought it was a good amendment last night and they think it is a good amendment today. So let us support the rule, let us get away from this nonsense of partisanship, pass this rule and pass this historic legislation as well.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1999. This is indeed an historic occasion, something that many of us have worked on for a number of years. As a matter of fact, this is by my count the 10th time in the last 20 years that we have sought to bring our financial laws into the modern world as we enter the 21st century. So here is hoping that number 11 is the charm. Building on the progress we made last year through the help of many people that I see here on the floor, including our good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and others, that we passed this bill by one vote in the House. I suspect this year it will be far different and it will be a large vote, because the time has come for financial services modernization in this Congress and indeed in this country. We have arrived at a point where just about everybody, including those on the opposite side of specific issues on the op-sub issue, for example, agree that the country's financial regulations crafted during the Depression years of the 1930s need to be brought up to date. The Glass-Steagall Act has outlived its useful purpose. It now serves only as the cause of inefficiency in the markets as our markets change dramatically. Madam Chairman, we have had a series of hearings, for example, in my committee about what is going on with the securities industry and how on-line brokerage has now become the most growing part of the securities industry. That shows how things have changed in technology and in markets and in consumer preference. And yet we continue to rely on a 1930 statute known as Glass-Steagall that simply has outlived its usefulness. That means legislation that will provide for fair competition among all players. And it also means not only modernizing the marketplace and treating the consumer as the one who makes those kinds of decisions in the marketplace to provide that consumer with a new array of services and products, some products we probably have not even thought of or that financial service institutions have not even thought of yet today will be offered more and more to the consuming public and they are going to be able to one-stop shop as they go into this financial institution. And ultimately it will not make any difference what it says on the door because they are going to be able to buy a wide variety of products in that area. And, yes, those functions will be regulated by the regulators who know what that is all about. It is called functional regulation. Or as chairman of the SEC Arthur Levitt says, commonsense regulation in our marketplace is to protect the consumer but not to constrict the marketplace so that people do not have the ability to make decisions based on what is in their long-term economic interest. It means legislation that will promote, not jeopardize, the long-term stability of U.S. financial markets and the interests of American taxpayers. Americans are becoming increasingly active participants in our booming securities markets and going on-line and investing, sometimes around the clock, for their families' future, investing for their education, for their children's education, investing for the future that we have tried to encourage. One of the frustrations, I guess, in our country over the years has been that our savings rate has been far too low compared to some of our other competing nations. This will give people the ability to make long-term plans, to work with a financial institution that has the ability for them to buy their banking products, to get their securities, their 401(k), their savings, their insurance needs, all of those, under one roof dealing with professionals that they trust and that they know can provide them with the kind of economic security that they have come to expect. The change already taking place in the marketplace may make it impossible for us to try Glass-Steagall reform a 12th time, and I would implore the Members to understand that this may be our last really good shot at bringing our laws up-to-date with what is happening in the marketplace and what is happening with technology, and all of those forces are now moving us so inextricably in that direction. Because of the leadership of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, because of the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) chairman of the Committee on Commerce, because of participation on the other side of the aisle, it brings us here today. Let us move forward. Let us support H.R. 10. Let us provide the kind of modern financial institutions that all of us have come to expect.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is antilaw enforcement, and I plan to vote no on the amendment.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to acknowledge the one hundredth anniversary of the Wyandot County Courthouse in Upper Sandusky, OH, in this year of its renovation and rededication. Established in February of 1845, Wyandot County used as its first official meeting place the old Council House of the Wyandotte Indians. The sale of land in and around present-day Upper Sandusky provided the funds for the first permanent courthouse, which was used until close to the turn of the century. Construction of the current courthouse started in 1897 and was a completed in June of 1900. At the original dedication of the Courthouse in August of 1900, it was described as a ``magnificent public edifice, combining the classical beauties of Grecian, Doric, and Romanesque architecture'' that was declared ``one of the finest structures of its kind in the State of Ohio.'' With its majestic dome dominating the city's skyline, the Courthouse remains an equally magnificent sight to this day. Perhaps the most noteworthy aspects of the Courthouse, though, are the murals that adorn the courtroom and dome. Sandy Bee of Centerville, OH, took painstaking care to restore the paintings of Mercy, Truth, Justice, and Law that tell the history of the Wyandotte Indians. She also hand-painted new murals for the dome area that depict Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter in the farming community. In addition, pictures taken by Harry E. KInley and used during the celebration of Wyandot County's sesquicentennial now adorn the Courthouse hallways. I salute the Wyandot County Commissioners, Sandy Bee, and other officials, workers, and citizens of Wyandot County whose hard work has made this centennial renovation and rededication a success.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I proudly hold the Roll Call Trophy signifying the Republican victory last evening, 17-1, over the Donkeys. We are very proud of this and our team. We want to thank Martin Sabo, the manager of the Democrats, and all of the participants in this game. The real winner, of course, was charity. We raised over $100,000 for three charities, and we are quite proud of that. That is almost twice as much money as we have ever raised in this game, and we have raised that game to a new level. I want to congratulate MVP Zach Wamp, who hit an inside-the-park home run and was sterling in the field and Steve Largent, who pitched another brilliant game, not walking one batter and has only given up two runs in 14 innings, two runs in two games, against the Democrats, this time even with a little bit of a sore arm. We are very pleased with this. We will have this over on our side of the aisle, Mr. Majority Leader, for everyone to see. Thanks again to all the sponsors and people who participated. This was a wonderful event. It just gets better and better every year.

Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I want to commend my friends from Mississippi and New Jersey for their foresight. Many of us who worked on the Child On-Line Protection Act and voted for it, which means virtually everybody within the sound of my voice who has a vote in this Chamber, as well as those on the floor who have worked on this issue understand the issue. Let me just tell my colleagues what is at stake. The ACLU is sending out information trying to get Members to vote against this legislation, just the same kind of thing they did when they opposed the Child On- Line Protection Act, which passed unanimously in this body just less than a year ago. Let me tell my colleagues about the ACLU and what they are telling us about children's exposure to graphic content. This is from a Communications Daily article where ACLU attorney Ann Beson is arguing against our Child On-Line Protection Act and is quoted as saying that there is, quote, ``no real harm,'' end quote, to children in viewing sexually graphic material, and that it will not, quote, ``turn kids into sexual deviants.'' Since repression turns kids into deviants, that is the kind of opposition we are getting from common- sense legislation and amendments that are put forward by our friends from New Jersey and Mississippi, and why I was proud to join these two gentlemen as a cosponsor. That is the real crux of the issue. Is it too much to ask that those filtering processes be there? I think not. Let us support this amendment.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute an outstanding community leader who has devoted himself to public service throughout his life: Mr. Vern Stover of Mansfield, Ohio. His dedication in volunteering his time to the Boy Scouts of America has led to his being honored with the Heart of Ohio Council's Good Scout Award. The Good Scout Award is presented to civic and community leaders who commit to living by the Scout Oath and the Scout Law, and who demonstrate a longstanding commitment to Scouting. In his 14 years as an active Scouting volunteer, Vern has more than proven his commitment and dedication to the Boy Scouts, serving in numerous capacities on various boards and committees. He is currently the chairman of the Council Advisory Board, and is a member of the Council Executive Board and the Council Long-Range Plan Properties Committee. Vern is also a Past Council Commissioner and Past National Council Representative. Vern is a retired agent of the Federal Bureau of investigation, and currently serves as a common pleas court bailiff. In addition to his extensive work with the Boy Scouts, he also has an active record of community service with SCORE and Rotary. As a fellow former FBI agent, I am honored to recognize my friend Vern for his exemplary record of public service, and to add my congratulations to that of many others as he receives the Good Scout Award.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1400, the Bond Price Competition Improvement Act. Although bond trading may not be the most exciting topic in the world, there are $15 billion of corporate bonds traded each day in the United States. It is our obligation to see that those who are relying on bonds for their retirement and their children's education can buy bonds in a fair and open market. The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials began examining the bond market in the 105th Congress. In September, we heard testimony that two investors buying the same bond at the same time from the same dealer can be given very different prices, prices differing as much as 6 percent, amounting to a full year's worth of interest. In the equity markets there is a mechanism for distributing price information to the public. All one has to do is turn on CNBC and see the ticker at the bottom of the screen which lists the price of stocks traded during the day. No such system currently exists in the bond markets, and that needs to be corrected. H.R. 1400 was reported unanimously by the Committee on Commerce. This bipartisan bill was originally cosponsored by 27 of the 28 members of the subcommittee and enjoys the support of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Association of Securities Dealers. H.R. 1400 directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to use authority it has had since 1975 to adopt rules facilitating transparency in the bond market with certain minimum standards. By enacting this legislation we will guarantee that these important changes take place. We also make clear that information should be provided to the public for their trades. Additionally, the legislation provides some regulatory relief to exchange listed bonds. It also includes a provision indicating that the legislation does not affect the exemption from registration requirements for securities of government-sponsored enterprises. When the committee first raised concerns regarding transparency in the corporate bond markets, market participants responded quickly by developing and implementing a voluntary trade reporting system. The industry has responded positively to transparency challenge in other markets as well. These actions demonstrate a genuine commitment to improving bond market transparency. This commitment should form the basis of a productive partnership between industry and the SEC to improve price transparency. The SEC should consider this progress as it moves forward under this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) has included in the record some additional legislative history of H.R. 1400. I understand this legislative history will amplify the record on private sector initiatives in the bond market. I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman if that is correct.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I would like to indicate that I join the gentleman in that additional legislative history, and I would like to commend the Bond Market Association for their very constructive participation during the consideration of this legislation. The Bond Market Association is developing a voluntary system to display bond prices publicly. This system will improve the availability of bond prices to investors, and, Mr. Speaker, that just began last week, and we expect a great amount of progress in bringing that price information to the public. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for his leadership on this issue. This is his legislation that he introduced. And I thank him for helping to bring meaningful legislation to the floor for the benefit of all Americans. I also commend our good friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the ranking member of our subcommittee; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their assistance on this project. Without their help, we would not be here today.