[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7136-H7137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     AMERICANS SUPPORT TERM LIMITS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, during the last campaign, many of us 
campaigned on the whole issue of term limits, and it is something that 
a lot of the American people have asked for. In fact, all the polling 
information demonstrates that between three-fourths and 85 percent of 
the American people support some form of term limits.
  Earlier in this Congress, we had a vote for the first time in the 
history of this Congress, I think, we had a vote on term limits. 
Unfortunately, we were unable to get the two-thirds majority necessary 
to pass that by.
  We went back to some of our offices, I went back to my office and 
talked to some of the people on my staff and said: What could we do in 
terms of if we can't get a term limits bill passed this year, what 
possibly can we do to take some of the fun out of it?
  We also had heard a lot in our campaigns and we hear at our town 
meetings. I, for example, have had 75 town

[[Page H7137]]

meetings in my district, and another issue that comes up frequently is 
the whole issue of pension reform. We read about some of our retiring 
colleagues or some of the former colleagues that have retired from this 
body, and we hear about six-figure pensions which they will receive for 
the rest of their lives, adjusted for inflation, and, frankly, I think 
that is an outrage that a lot of the American people feel.
  So we came up with a relatively simple bill, it is H.R. 1618, which 
would change the way that pensions for Members of Congress are accrued. 
That bill now has, I think, 57 different cosponsors. I am going to be 
going up to a meeting in the Committee on Rules in just a few minutes 
to see if perhaps we cannot get a modified version of that adopted or 
at least made in order for adoption onto the legislative appropriation 
bill.
  But I want to talk a little bit tonight about legislative or 
congressional pensions and what has happened over the last number of 
years, because I think some of our Members do not quite understand that 
the whole history of congressional pensions is really not that old of a 
history. In fact, until January 1942, there was no pension for any 
Member of Congress. As a matter of fact, in January 1942, the Congress 
for the first time passed pensions for Congress into law, but it was 
repealed 2 months later. It was repealed because of the public outcry.
  Again in 1946, the Congress came back and instituted a pension for 
Members of Congress, and I would like to read for the benefit of 
Members what they said in the preamble to that bill. They said that, 
and I quote, ``It would contribute to the independence of thought and 
action. It would be an inducement for retirement of those of retiring 
age or with other infirmities, and it would bring into the legislative 
service a larger number of younger Members with fresh energy and new 
viewpoints concerning the economic, social and political problems of 
the Nation.''
  That was in 1946. Frankly, what we see today is an awful lot of 
Members who are staying long beyond their years and, frankly, we should 
encourage early retirement.
  So my bill is relatively simple. It says that if Members stay longer 
than 12 years, they cannot continue to accrue additional pension 
benefits. We would limit pension accrual for Members of Congress to 
only 12 years.
  Consider some of the annual pensions that some of our colleagues who 
have retired already are currently receiving, and I want to be 
bipartisan about this: Former Speaker of the House Tom Foley is 
currently getting a pension from the taxpayers of $123,804; Dan 
Rostenkowski, who will soon become a constituent of mine in Rochester, 
MN, will be receiving a pension of $96,462.

  But I want to be bipartisan. Former Minority Leader Bob Michel will 
be receiving a pension of $110,538, and that will be adjusted each year 
for inflation.
  As a percentage of their last years' salaries, Mr. Foley will be 
getting 72 percent of his last year's salary, Mr. Rostenkowski, 73 
percent, and Mr. Michel, 74 percent.
  Now, according to Money magazine, the average private-sector employee 
gets a retirement of about 27 percent of their last year's income.
  The National Taxpayers' Union calculates that the lifetime benefits 
for these retiring Members, for example, two of our Members who are 
retiring this year, one a congresswoman from Colorado, her lifetime 
benefit, if you accrue this over the lifetime of what she is assumed to 
receive, will be $1,182,573. Another of our colleagues, a gentleman 
from Massachusetts who is retiring this year, the total cost of his 
accrued benefits amount to $3,461,869.
  Under the bill that we are introducing, H.R. 1618, and that we have 
introduced and the bill that we would hope to get offered as an 
amendment to the legislative appropriation bill, the maximum amount 
that a new Member of Congress, beginning with the 105th Congress, could 
receive at today's salary would be $27,254. Now, compared to people in 
the private sector, that is still a generous benefit, Mr. Speaker. On 
the other hand, compared to what former Members and current Members of 
Congress are receiving, that certainly is a step in the right 
direction.
  So if we cannot have term limits, I believe that we ought to take 
some of the fun out of staying here for long periods of time and go 
back to what the Congress said in 1946 when they introduced the whole 
notion of pensions for Members of Congress. There is tremendous public 
support for this basic idea. We have had national polling done by the 
Luntz Research Cos., and they concluded that 78 percent consider this a 
good idea or a top priority. Two-thirds would be more likely to reelect 
a Member who voted for this pension reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to perhaps take this issue up again 
tomorrow.

                          ____________________