Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The legislation before us, which I support, has in it a provision banning lobbying by spouses in the office of the individual whose spouse it is. And I am very supportive of that. I think it is something that we should do, but I think it should go a little further than that. And this is a sense of Congress in which we are going to cast a wider net in terms of being careful about who is lobbying. I am concerned that family members other than just spouses, obviously including children, parents, brothers, sisters, direct family members, lobbying can be extremely maybe unfairly influential in terms of what happens in the Congress of the United States. Obviously, if the spouse of a committee chair come to you, and you are on that particular committee, that could have an adverse influence as far as your decisionmaking is concerned. And I think we need to be careful about that. I have done this, though not as a specific prohibition, but as a caution in the form in which we find it. And I also noted a recent poll suggesting that 80 percent of Americans believe it is wrong for lawmakers and their staffs to have contact with family members of other lawmakers who are lobbyists. I believe in openness and transparency. I think it is essential to all that we do. And I believe if somebody has an unfair, unstated advantage in terms of what they are doing, it is something that we in Congress should pay attention to.

Mr. CASTLE. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for the work on the bill and for the acceptance of this amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 388, the rule for consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act. As a former member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I strongly believe we must enact all of the 9/11 Commission's intelligence recommendations, even those that apply to our own congressional committees. In its final report, the 9/11 Commission concluded that: ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. So long as oversight is governed by the current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need.'' The bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report and the subsequent 9/11 Public Disclosure Project recommended three alternatives for reforming congressional oversight of intelligence. These options include: one, establishing a Joint Committee on Intelligence modeled after the old Joint Committee on Atomic Energy; two, establishing House and Senate Committees on Intelligence with authorizing and appropriating authority; or, three, establishes a new Appropriations Subcommittee on Intelligence. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 2001, Congress enacted a large majority of the Commission's recommendations. However, as it turns out, it has been those recommendations that apply directly to the tangled rules and procedures here in the United States Congress that have been left unfinished. Earlier this year the Democratic leadership attempted to apply a Band-Aid to this problem by creating a powerless Intelligence Oversight Panel that has very little control over actual funding decisions. This is clearly not what the 9/11 Commission recommended. In fact, its report plainly states that, ``tinkering with the existing committee structure is not sufficient.'' This week I offered a simple amendment to the bill before us, calling for a sense of Congress that this House should act to implement these crucial 9/11 recommendations, but it was denied under this rule. Mr. Speaker, the American people have insisted that we implement all of these important recommendations, even those that are difficult. We will be doing this country a disservice until we put in place an effective committee structure capable of giving our national intelligence agencies the oversight, support and leadership they need. I urge the defeat of the rule.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank both Mr. George Miller and Mr. McKeon. I am in total agreement with them on this legislation. I also would like to thank the staff for their working on this. I think it is a shame that we have gone through the last few months and all the revelations of the problems in the student loan industry on a whole variety of levels. I am not here to attribute blame to anybody at this point but to suggest we do have a role in getting involved in this and to make a difference. I will submit my prepared statement, but I would like to go just a little beyond that. I think everyone in America, in terms of being competitive, has to do everything we can to educate our young children. Clearly, student loans by the individual students and the families need to be taken into consideration, but so does the cost of college. As we look at the Higher Education Act which Chairman Miller referenced, it is vitally important that we make sure that our colleges are being closely analyzed in terms of keeping those costs down. The Federal Government cannot do it all with respect to grants and loans or whatever it may be. Indeed, we need to close the gap between the cost of college and what people can afford. Hopefully, we can continue to work on this. This is a wonderful first step. I hope everyone is supportive of H.R. 890. I certainly am supportive of it and concur with statements that have been made today. I rise in support of H.R. 890, the Student Loan Sunshine Act, which will return the focus of the financial aid process to serving the needs and interests of students. H.R. 890 is the first step in ensuring that the federal student aid program is kept on a firm foundation for generations to come. As Congress moves towards reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, the reforms in H.R. 890 are steps in the right direction to ensure the financial aid system works for students and colleges alike. In addition to this bill, the Committee has also held one investigative hearing on findings by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo on the relationship between student loan lenders and the financial aid offices in institutions of higher education. Tomorrow the Committee will hold a second in investigative hearing, asking U.S. Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings about alleged lapses in the Department's oversight of the federal student loan programs. Additionally, Mr. Petri and I have sent a letter to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) requesting information from them about the private loan industry. By answering some of these questions and by passing this legislation today, I am hopeful Congress can work to restore confidence in the federal student loan system. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 890, the Student Loan Sunshine Act, to help serve the needs and interests of our students and to restore confidence in our federal loan system.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member from New York for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this amendment. I believe its passage is important to ensure that our local first responders are prepared for major disasters. Over the years, volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel have repeatedly answered the call of duty. In fact, my home State of Delaware, which is served almost entirely by volunteer firefighters, sent 37 ambulances to New York City on September 11. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, as fires spread throughout New Orleans and survivors struggled to find dry land, volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel rose to the occasion and proved to be crucial in the massive rescue operation. Unfortunately, under current law, volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel are not protected from termination or demotion by their employer when they respond to national disasters. As a result, just a few weeks after Hurricane Katrina destroyed the gulf coast, a group of us got together here on Capitol Hill to craft this legislation which will make certain that our volunteer responders are more readily available to assist local authorities in major disasters. This proposal is similar to the job protections given to members of the National Guard who serve their country on the battlefield, and it will go a long way in enhancing our ability to respond to catastrophic events and save lives. Mr. Chairman, last Congress, we collected over 70 bipartisan co- sponsors on this legislation. I appreciate the support of the gentleman from New Jersey and his introduction of this and all the others who have been involved. I urge Members to support this amendment.

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to offer a critical amendment to this legislation before us today. Yesterday, it was revealed that several individuals operating out of the Philadelphia area had plotted to attack key installations in the Northeast, including Fort Dix, New Jersey, and Dover Air Force Base in my home State of Delaware. While the tremendous work of our law enforcement community prevented these attacks from taking place, this case serves as a clear reminder that terrorists are intent on attacking us wherever we are vulnerable. One of our greatest vulnerabilities remains our mass transit systems, which move millions of people every year. In fact, terrorists are increasingly targeting rail and transit systems throughout the world, and the recent bombings in India, London and Madrid are clear evidence of this dangerous trend. While the concept of rail security is relatively new here at home, security officials in Europe and Asia have decades of experience with terrorist attacks, and I have long believed in the importance of leveraging this experience to improve our own system. In 2003, I asked the General Accountability Office to undertake an in-depth study of foreign rail security practices. Over the course of several months, the GAO team visited 13 different foreign rail systems, and its subsequent report identified several innovative measures to secure rail systems, many of which are currently being used in the United States. Most significantly, however, the GAO report identified four important foreign rail security practices that are not currently being used to any great extent in the United States. First, the report found that other nations had improved the vigilance of their security staff by performing daily unannounced events, known as covert testing, to gauge responsiveness to incidents such as suspicious packages or open emergency doors. Similarly, two of the 13 foreign operators interviewed by GAO also reported success using some form of random screening to search passengers and baggage for bombs and other suspicious materials. This practice has been used sporadically in the U.S., including in New York City following the 2005 London bombings, but it has never been implemented for any continuous period of time. The GAO also noted that many foreign governments maintain a national clearinghouse on security technologies and best practices. Such a government-sponsored database would allow rail operators to have one central source of information on the merits of rail security technology, like chemical sensors and surveillance equipment. Finally, while GAO noted that the Department of Transportation has taken steps to encourage rail operators to consider security when renovating or constructing facilities, many foreign operators are still far more advanced when it comes to incorporating aspects of security into infrastructure design. For example, this photograph of the London Underground demonstrates several security upgrades, such as vending machines with sloped tops to reduce the likelihood of a bomb being placed there, clear trash bins and netting throughout the station to prevent objects from being left in recessed areas. As you can see, the London stations are also designed to provide security staff with clear lines of sight to all areas of the station, including underneath benches and ticket machines. The British Government has praised these measures for deterring terrorist attacks, and in one incident, their security cameras recorded IRA terrorists attempting to place an explosive device inside a station. According to London officials, due to infrastructure design improvements, the terrorists were deterred when they could not find a suitable location to hide the device inside the station. While the GAO acknowledged that deploying these four practices in this country may be difficult, in fact random screening may pose many challenges, it is clear that these foreign security techniques deserve greater consideration. Therefore, the amendment I am offering today would take steps to improve rail and transit security by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to study the cost and feasibility of implementing these practices and submit a report making recommendations to the Homeland Security and Transportation Committees within 1 year of enactment. Mr. Chairman, recent attacks on rail and transit throughout the world underscore the importance of acting now to upgrade security here at home. My amendment will make certain that we are knowledgable and consider all available options when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of our rail system. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me just close by thanking those on the other side who have spoken in favor of the amendment and for their support of it. I truly believe that this is a small but a very significant step perhaps in preventing terrorism in mass transit in the United States. It is the reason I hope we all can support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1592, which will provide needed assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies and make changes to Federal law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, bias-motivated crimes against people for no other reason than their perceived or actual race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Hate crimes are alarmingly prevalent and threaten the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. While State and local governments will maintain principal responsibility, an expanded Federal role in investigating and prosecuting serious forms of hate crimes is critical in targeting and preventing hate crime in our Nation. The measure importantly applies only to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge free speech in any way. In fact, it explicitly states: ``Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.'' H.R. 1592 is supported by virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1592.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. While I appreciate the Rules Committee making in order several of the proposed amendments, including an amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia to create a State demonstration program that allows up to eight States to coordinate Head Start with other State-run early childhood development programs, this rule unfortunately limits improving the Head Start Act further by not allowing for debate on several Republican amendments. Although I oppose this rule, I do support the underlying bill, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007 to reauthorize the Head Start program. This legislation improves the Head Start Act by emphasizing that every child, regardless of their economic status, should have the best chance possible to succeed. We all can agree on the need for Head Start and its successes. We must also recognize that Head Start can produce even greater results for children. Students who attend Head Start programs generally start school more prepared than those with similar backgrounds that do not attend Head Start. However, Head Start students continue to enter kindergarten well below national norms in school readiness. By moving to close the school readiness gap, this bill will improve results for almost 1 million Head Start students across almost all of the Nation. Towards the goal of closing the readiness gap, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007 strengthens Head Start's academic focus while maintaining its comprehensive nature. The bill improves the academic focus of the program by establishing new quality standards that ensure enrolled children develop and demonstrate language skills; prereading knowledge, including an interest in and an appreciation of books, reading and writing either alone or with others; premathematics knowledge, such as recognition of numbers and counting; cognitive abilities related to academic achievement; and social development important for environments constructive for child development, early learning and school success. The Improving Head Start Act of 2007 builds upon the reforms of previous reauthorizations of Head Start, as well as the requirements of the landmark No Child Left Behind Act, and the vision of President Bush and Secretary Leavitt. We all want to do what is best for our children, and I truly believe the underlying bill does that.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for his kind words and for yielding. I also obviously thank Mr. Miller and Mr. Kildee for their work on this, and Ms. Woolsey, who has worked on it before with me. And I am pleased to be able to be here. I support the legislation before us today which will reauthorize the Head Start program. And like almost every other Member of this body, I believe strongly in the benefits of this program. I trust that H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act, will improve Head Start by emphasizing that every child, regardless of their economic status, should have the best chance possible to succeed. In 1965, Head Start was created to give economically disadvantaged children access to the same educational, health, nutritional, social and other services that were enjoyed by their more affluent peers. The goal of the program was, as it remains today, to provide children a solid foundation that will prepare them for success in school and later in life. As the centerpiece of the Federal Government's efforts to support quality early childhood education for our Nation's most disadvantaged youth, Head Start has served nearly 20 million low-income children and their families. Currently Head Start serves over 900,000 children every day and has over 1,600 grantees across the United States. In my home State of Delaware, Head Start programs serve over 2,000 children, with over 800 additional 3- and 4-year-olds receiving assistance through State government funding. We all can agree on the need for Head Start and its successes. We must also recognize that Head Start can produce even greater results for children. Students who attend Head Start programs do start school more prepared than those with similar backgrounds who do not attend Head Start. However, Head Start students continue to enter kindergarten well below national norms of school readiness. By moving to close the school readiness gap, this bill will improve results for almost a million Head Start students across the Nation. Toward the goal of closing the readiness gap, the Improving Head Start Act strengthens Head Start's academic focus while maintaining its comprehensive nature that is imperative to its success. The bill improves the academic focus of the program by establishing new quality standards that ensure enrolled children develop and demonstrate language skills; prereading knowledge, including an interest in and appreciation of books, reading and writing; premathematics knowledge, such as recognition of numbers and counting; cognitive abilities related to academic achievement; and social development important for environments constructive for child development, early learning and school success. Research consistently demonstrates a link between the learning potential of children and the level of education and training of classroom teachers. For that reason, we improve the quality of teachers in Head Start classrooms by requiring that in time 50 percent of all Head Start teachers nationwide must have a baccalaureate degree. As I am sure some of my colleagues know, this bill does not include a proposed State demonstration project, which was incorporated into the legislation the House passed in 2003. I believe strongly, however, in the policy goals of increased coordination and integration that were and continue to be at the heart of efforts to remove barriers and prevent collaboration between Head Start and successful State and local early childhood initiatives. I believe the proposal to be offered by Tom Price of Georgia would foster integration among quality early childhood programs, and plan on supporting Mr. Price's amendment. About 40 States, including Delaware, have established some form of early childhood education, because States recognize that these services can make a real difference in preparing children for a successful future. Various local initiatives have also been launched, and today, disadvantaged children and families have access to programs and services from a wide range of sources. Some of these programs rival or exceed the quality of Head Start, while others fall short. Head Start is no longer the only option for early childhood education, and we must ensure that all children are receiving the same quality education. In this new era, Head Start should be working toward integrating service with other school readiness programs not competing against them. Where we previously would have allowed no more than eight States to improve Head Start coordination with State and local efforts, this bill will ensure programs in all 50 States are able to increase collaboration. We are encouraging Head Start grantees to align their academics with State-developed K-12 academic content standards, as well as to have a more active partnership with local school districts that serve the same communities. This will help to facilitate a smooth transition to kindergarten for their students. Finally, we are asking early childhood providers in the State, including Head Start, preschool and child care, to come together to identify ways to integrate school readiness initiatives across the State. As I have said, I believe strongly in the Head Start program, particularly because of how the program helps children later in their lives. Despite these stories, we have also heard many stories of programs in which funds were being diverted away from this purpose. In 2005, the GAO released a report that warned the financial control system in the Federal Head Start early childhood program is flawed and failing to prevent multimillion-dollar financial abuses that cheat poor children, taxpayers and law-abiding Head Start operators. The GAO made some helpful recommendations on how we can strengthen the oversight structure to prevent abuses and protect good grantees. They recommended that increased competition in the program could help weed out poorly performing grantees and ensure high-quality services are available to children and families. In response to the GAO's recommendations of how to eliminate financial mismanagement, we are increasing the competitive nature of the current program. The competition requirements in the Improving Head Start Act will help to alleviate these problems, but, more importantly, will drive program improvement across the board. Program improvements will ultimately help thousands of children nationwide, which should always be our goal. As I said at the outset, Head Start is an important and very popular program. The importance of early childhood education services cannot be overstated. I believe strongly that the reforms sought in H.R. 1429 will go a long way to institute needed reforms in an already successful program. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I thank all those who worked on this, including the staff, and I look forward to the passage of the legislation today.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the wonderful Representative from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, we are about to pursue I think a dozen amendments here. All of us had a chance to work on this, had a chance to look at it. I think some of them are very good amendments. I think some are relatively neutral. I think some are maybe a little detrimental to the bill. I just hope that everybody will listen carefully to the amendments and will not end up being a party vote necessarily and we do what is in the best interests of these children that we have talked about so frequently in the last hour or so. There is real significance to some of these amendments. I think it is very, very important that we understand the context of them. I would just like to also finally say at the end that, in my judgment, if you look at any aspect of Head Start that this underlying legislation basically improves the opportunity for young children who are within the parameters of the Head Start program, and I hope that all of us will be supportive of that.

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the chairman of the committee, Mr. Miller, but I disagree with him on his basic premise here. I do believe that the Governors of this country, which I had the chance to be one, seems eons ago now, but a few years ago, have a tremendous and strong interest in the children of their States and in the education of those children. I also believe that in the time since Head Start was created, that many of these Governors have put together prekindergarten, kindergarten, early childhood programs. I think they are ready to move forward with this. I think in many instances they have been competitive with, if not even ahead of, Head Start. We basically backed off from what the White House proposed originally, which is to give all 50 States the option to do this, to a pilot program of eight States. There are requirements that those eight States match these funds, in fact, put in extra money in order to be able to enter into this program of dealing with the Head Start-type programs. The State demo would be limited to States with a demonstrated investment in early childhood education and established existing preschool system. You can't just jump into this and take the money or whatever. You have to show you are ready for it, and that you are ready to do it, and you are ready to put the money into it. I believe strongly that those States should be afforded the opportunity. I actually think the competition with some of the Head Start providers would be positive in terms of developing the opportunity for young children. I would hope that everybody would stop for a moment and take time for a moment to listen to this amendment and the arguments pro and con before votes are cast on it. I believe Mr. Price has demonstrated through Georgia, as well as other States, that this is something which could be beneficial to the children, which is really what this is all about, hopefully helping those children in poverty so that they could move ahead. I hope everybody will support the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Fiscal Year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Spending bill. A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed a version of this legislation that included billions of dollars in non-emergency spending and numerous provisions relating to troop withdrawal that were not requested by the Administration or our military leaders. The conference agreement before us today endorses these extraneous provisions, and as a result the President has made clear he will veto this bill. As our Nation continues to debate the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq, some of my colleagues have argued that Congress should mandate a hard deadline for the redeployment of U.S. troops. While I believe that Congress has an important role to play in this debate, such crucial decisions should not be made without substantial input from our military and foreign policy leaders. I have disagreed with many aspects of our strategy in Iraq, but I feel strongly that requiring an arbitrary date for troop withdrawal would endanger our soldiers and undermine efforts to maintain stability in the Middle East. Now is the time for Democrats and Republicans to unite around a strategy that funds our troops and supports an effective way forward in Iraq. We cannot afford to waste precious moments arguing over political objectives and pork barrel spending projects, such as those included in this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against this bill and I call upon my colleagues to dispense with the political rhetoric and get to work immediately on passing a bipartisan emergency supplemental spending bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1257, the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, which seeks to ensure that shareholders have a say in their company's executive compensation and disclosures. Let me just say that I agree with both the speakers on the other side so far. There is a problem with CEO and other high-level compensation in the United States. I happen to disagree with the solution which is offered by this legislation. In fact, I would urge that this solution probably will not be a solution. I would like to go through that if I could. In July 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, adopted a package of rules designed to enhance the transparency of proxy compensation disclosure for CEOs, CFOs and the other three highest paid executive officers and directors, the first major reform since 1992. These new disclosure requirements are being implemented for the first time and are a major step forward in promoting transparency and arming shareholders with detailed information on how executives are being paid. Therefore, we are attempting to legislate in this area before there is any evidence to suggest that the current SEC robust disclosure requirements are not working. The bill before us intends to prevent excessive executive compensation. Yet, at a Financial Services Committee hearing on March 8, all six witnesses agreed that a better way to prevent unmerited pay would be to require that publicly traded corporations adopt majority voting policies for the election of board members. At the present time, more than 150 stockholder proposals relating to majority voting have been filed, and more than half of the companies in the S&P 500 have some form of majority voting policy in place. Furthermore, company organization and structure is traditionally governed by State law, while Federal securities laws generally govern the disclosure of information to investors. In my home State of Delaware, corporate laws are already providing shareholders with majority votes. Majority voting enables stockholders to more easily unseat directors they believe have made poor judgments. The law enables stockholders to focus on compensation committee members in particular if they so choose. In addition, compensation for executives of publicly owned companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange is determined by a compensation committee that is composed of totally independent directors. Clearly, the market and States are active in working in this area. H.R. 1257 intends to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation. However, public company equity is overwhelmingly in the hands of intermediaries like retirement plans and mutual funds that manage the economic interests on behalf of others. Therefore, the actual shareholder is already two steps removed from the holders of the true economic interests in the company. In addition, intermediaries often rely on advice, sellers like the Institutional Shareholder Services, ISS, when voting on company proxies. Consultants such as the ISS are often criticized for their particular biases and their lack of transparency in their decision- making. It greatly worries me that this bill could set a precedent of giving activist institutional investors who may have their own political and social agendas unrelated to the financial wealth of the companies more influence. This legislation presents a counterproductive change to an American approach to corporate governance that, while not perfect, has produced better results for stockholders than any other financial system in the world. I have an article written by Secretary Robert Reich about this, in which he, too, opposes the changes that are being proposed here. He indicates, ``House Democrats are now working on legislation to give shareholders the right to have more say over pay.'' And that is a growing consensus, but he says it is wrong. Shareholders won't constrain the growth of CEO pay because most shareholders don't care about it. The vast majority own their shares through mutual funds and pension funds and don't know which companies they are invested in at any given moment. Then he says later, ``Depending on shareholders to rein in CEO pay is like relying on gamblers to rein in the owners of Las Vegas casinos.'' That is my concern with this. While we have identified the problem, the solution which has been identified in this legislation is not the right solution. The SEC recently enacted substantial new disclosure requirements, as I indicated, governing executive compensation to ensure transparent compensation packages, and these requirements should be given time to take effect. Disclosure is a vital component of our financial system, which increases investor confidence, promotes market discipline, encourages fairness in the U.S. markets and enables more informed decision-making by investors. I believe there are many unintended consequences associated with the legislation before us today. Therefore, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposing this legislation.