[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


      INTRODUCTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST LEGISLATURE ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 29, 1995
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, U.S. Representatives Maurice Hinchey, 
Cynthia McKinney, Peter DeFazio, Nydia Velazquez, and myself are 
introducing legislation today, on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, 
which provides a giant step forward to rebuilding public confidence in 
the integrity of the U.S. Congress. Our bill helps make certain that 
all Members of Congress keep our focus on the public interest by 
requiring that Members of Congress put their stock portfolios and other 
financial assets in blind trusts or divest.
  Did you know that numerous State and local governments require that 
public officeholders recuse themselves on voting matters in which they 
have financial interests at stake?
  But not the U.S. Congress.
  Did you know that Federal law since the Civil War bars a government 
official in the executive branch from participating in policy matters 
in which that official has a personal financial interest?
  But not the U.S. Congress.
  Currently, House Rule VIII requires that a Member of Congress not 
vote on matters of personal financial interest to that Member. But in 
truth, the scope of this rule has been dramatically narrowed over time 
to where it is now interpreted to mean that a Member of Congress should 
not vote when the matter is personal to him or her, but may vote on the 
matter if the question affects a Member of Congress as one of a larger 
class, such as stockholders of a company or bondholders of a 
municipality or corporation.
  Even at that, compliance with the provisions of House Rule VIII is 
now at the discretion of each Member of Congress and entirely 
voluntary. In practice, this has created a very lax environment in 
which potential and perceived financial conflicts of interest are 
common and often go undisclosed to voters and the general public. When 
questionable cases do come to light, they serve to heighten general 
public suspicion about the impact of special interest money and 
influence-peddling on congressional decision-making.
  That is why we are introducing our new bill to amend the Ethics in 
Government Act--The Public Interest Legislature Act--to respond to 
growing public distrust arising from many Members of Congress routinely 
voting on bills in which they have
 financial interests. We believe it will go a long way toward 
rebuilding public confidence in the integrity of the U.S. Congress. 
Fundamentally it will reassure all Americans that their elected 
representatives in Congress are working full time on public business 
and not distracted or tempted to cash in on public service in any sense 
of those words.

  Our bill has three main provisions:
  First, to require that Members of Congress--subject to civil and 
criminal penalties for failure to do so--either put their stocks, 
bonds, and other financial assets--excluding their principal homes--in 
excess of $1,000 into blind trusts; or, divest themselves of their 
stocks, bonds, and other financial assets in excess of $1,000--
excluding their principal homes.
  Second, to strengthen the financial disclosure requirements of 
existing law to require more detailed, accurate, and timely reports on 
the financial assets of Members of Congress, their spouses, and their 
principal staff members involved with legislative activities of the 
Congress. At present, the disclosure requirements are of such wide 
ranges and so loose as to make the current disclosure requirements of 
marginal use in informing the public about potential financial 
conflicts of interest; and
  Third, to prohibit Members of Congress from using official expenses 
to pay the costs associated with preparing financial disclosure 
reports.
  This week the Congress is acting upon another part of the Contract 
With America--a proposed constitutional amendment to impose term limits 
on how long a person can serve as a Member of Congress which is 
referred to as the so-called Citizen Legislature Act.
  Like so much of the Contract With America, the proposed Citizen 
Legislature Act is a bogus bill with a misleading title that does 
nothing about the real problem undermining the respect of the American 
people for their Congress--the funneling of enormous sums of special 
interest money into congressional campaigns and legislative lobbying.
  The degree to which big money skews congressional policy making in 
favor of special interests over the public interest may be debatable. 
But there is absolutely no debate that many Americans now perceive that 
many Members of Congress run for office to enrich themselves 
indirectly, if not directly. Unless the Congress takes serious action 
to correct this perception, fewer and fewer Americans will hold on to 
the belief that the Congress is capable of acting for the public 
interest of all Americans and not just privileged economic elites.
  Our bill meets this threat to American democracy by insulating 
Members from allegations and suspicions of personal financial chicanery 
in the conduct of the people's business. As part of the 11-part 
Progressive Caucus Alternative to the Republican Contract With 
America--The Progressive Promise, this legislation represents real 
congressional ethics reform in contrast with self-serving gimmicks like 
term limits that will do nothing to reduce the corrosive influence of 
big money on congressional decision making.


                          ____________________