I would like to paint a little bit of a different picture here. Let us assume instead of Members of Congress, these 435 seats were filled with stockholders of various companies in this country, and I said, look, we have $126 billion worth of expenses to the various corporations, but you will never see it because we will do it without any kind of an entry whatsoever. That is what this is really all about. That is what we are dealing with. We are really not expensing stock options at all. It is, in my judgment, ludicrous to suggest that the bill which is before us actually expenses stock options without any kind of a volatility standard in them. So we are just letting that go on as we did for some time. But what is happening around the United States of America as we speak here today? What is happening is that a lot of people who are a heck of a lot more knowledgeable about corporations, equity and running of corporations than we are, are saying, hey, this is wrong; we need to expense stock options. A significant number of people who have looked at this very carefully have come to the conclusion that we absolutely must do something about it.
On the recordJuly 20, 2004
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the need to expense stock options during a debate on corporate governance.
Share
More from Michael Castle
Jun 15, 2009
We must remain mindful of these trying economic times, and ensure all federal funds for education technology serve a purpose.
Mar 25, 2010
The debate about how to reshape health insurance in order to reduce skyrocketing costs, and increase access, has dominated the attention of Congress for the past year. While there are many areas of agreement, Congress and the American…
Jun 10, 2009
I have an abiding concern what the Federal Government is doing in this area versus what the States are doing.
Jun 2, 2009
I believe debating the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is of importance as these entities have tremendous impact on our housing and finance markets.





