Burgess Owens: “the high school sophomores of America are disgusted with this conversation, I am certain. I am sure they are asking…”

“the high school sophomores of America are disgusted with this conversation, I am certain. I am sure they are asking themselves why the Members of the House of Representatives and the other people who are elected to protect their rights allow this situation to exist for so long; but they are certainly not happy with the majority party standing up to applaud themselves for taking a few significant steps toward greater financial security with respect to the pension funds of the employees. We have taken a few steps. Why not maximum reasonable security for all of the people who have their money in these pension plans? Why not go further than the plan that the majority has? Does it cost the taxpayer any money to do a little more as reflected by the Miller substitute? Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Miller substitute. What would it cost to have immediate disclosure whenever a top executive sells a large amount of stock? Would that cost the taxpayer any money? Would it really cost us any money to have greater checks and balances? Would it cost us any money to have more democracy where the employees have a representative actually watching their funds sitting in a high place where the decisions are being made? The people in Europe and the other industrialized democracies do not think it is such a great problem to have an employee representative sitting on the board. Why not maximum reasonable security? Why not go one step further?”