[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 135 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11283-H11289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONGRESSIONAL PENSION FORFEITURE ACT OF 1996
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4011) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that
if a Member of Congress is convicted of a felony, such Member shall not
be eligible for retirement benefits based on that individual's service
as a Member, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Pension
Forfeiture Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) Members of Congress pledge to uphold the Constitution
and the laws of the United States;
(2) Members of Congress are elected to serve in the public
trust and pledge to uphold the public trust;
(3) a breach of the public trust by a Members of Congress
is a serious offense that should have serious consequences;
and
(4) taxpayers should not pay for the retirement benefits of
Members of Congress who have breached the public trust.
SEC. 3. FORFEITURE.
(a) Civil Service Retirement System.--Section 8332 of title
5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of
following:
``(o)(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this
subchapter, the service of an individual convicted of an
offense described in paragraph (2) shall not, if or to the
extent rendered as a Member (irrespective of when rendered),
be taken into account for purposes of this subchapter. Any
such individual (or other person determined under section
8342(c), if applicable) shall be entitled to be paid so much
of such individual's lump-sum credit as is attributable to
service to which the preceding sentence applies.
``(2)(A) An offense described in this paragraph is any
offense described in subparagraph (B) for which the following
apply:
``(i) The offense is committed by the individual (referred
to in paragraph (1)) while a Member.
``(ii) The conduct on which the offense is based is
directly related to the individual's service as a Member.
``(iii) The offense is committed during the One Hundred
Fifth Congress or later.
``(B) The offenses described in this subparagraph are as
follows:
``(i) An offense within the purview of--
``(I) section 201 of title 18 (bribery of public officials
and witnesses);
``(II) section 203 of title 18 (compensation to Members of
Congress, officers, and others in matters affecting the
Government);
``(III) section 204 of title 18 (practice in United States
Court of Federal Claims or the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit by Members of Congress);
``(IV) section 207 of title 18 (restrictions on former
officers, employees, and elected officials of their executive
and legislative branches);
``(V) section 219 of title 18 (officers and employees
acting as agents of foreign principals);
``(VI) section 286 of title 18 (conspiracy to defraud the
Government with respect to claims);
``(VII) section 287 of title 18 (false, fictitious, or
fraudulent claims);
``(VIII) section 371 of title 18 (conspiracy to commit
offense or to defraud the United States;
``(IX) section 597 of title 18 (expenditures to influence
voting);
``(X) section 599 of title 18 (promise of appointment by
candidate);
``(XI) section 602 of title 18 (solicitation of political
contributions);
``(XII) section 606 of title 18 (intimidation to secure
political contributions);
``(XIII) section 607 of title 18 (place of solicitation);
``(XIV) section 641 of title 18 (public money, property or
records);
``(XV) section 1001 of title 18 (statements or entries
generally);
``(XVI) section 1341 of title 18 (frauds and swindles);
``(XVII) section 1343 of title 18 (fraud by wire, radio, or
television);
``(XVIII) section 1503 of title 18 (influencing or injuring
officer or juror);
``(XIX) section 1951 of title 18 (interference with
commerce by threats or violence);
``(XX) section 1952 of title 18 (interstate and foreign
travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises);
``(XXI) section 1962 of title 18 (prohibited activities);
or
``(XXII) section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(attempt to evade or defeat tax).
``(ii) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United
States in falsely denying the commission of an act which
constitutes an offense within the purview of a statute named
by clause (i).
``(iii) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with
the false denial of another individual as specified by clause
(ii).
``(3) An individual convicted of an offense described in
paragraph (2) shall not, after the date of the conviction, be
eligible to participate in the retirement system under this
subchapter while serving as a Member.
``(4) Except as provided in paragraph (5), the Office shall
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out
this subsection, including provisions under which interest on
any lump-sum payment under the second sentence of paragraph
(1) shall be limited in a manner similar to that specified in
the last sentence of section 8316(b).
``(5) The Executive Director (within the meaning of section
8401(13)) shall prescribe such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection with
respect to the Thrift Savings Plan. Regulations under this
paragraph shall include provisions requiring the return of
all vested amounts.
``(6) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict any
authority under subchapter II or any other provision of law
to deny or withhold benefits authorized by statute.
``(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term `Member'
has the meaning given such term by section 2106,
notwithstanding section 8331(2).''.
(b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--Section 8411 of
title 5, United Stats Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(i)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, the service of an individual convicted of an offense
described in paragraph (2) shall not, if or to the extent
rendered as a Member (irrespective of when rendered), be
taken into account for purposes of this chapter. Any such
individual (or other person determined under section 8424(d),
if applicable) shall be entitled to be paid so much of such
individual's lump-sum credit as is attributable to service to
which the preceding sentence applies.
``(2) An offense described in this paragraph is any offense
described in section 8332(o)(2)(B) for which the following
apply:
``(A) The offense is committed by the individual (referred
to in paragraph (1)) while a Member.
``(B) The conduct on which the offense is based is directly
related to the individual's service as a Member.
``(C) The offense is committed during the One Hundred Fifth
Congress or later.
``(3) An individual convicted of an offense described in
paragraph (2) shall not, after the date of the conviction, be
eligible to participate in the retirement system under this
chapter while serving as a Member.
``(4) Except as provided in paragraph (5), the Office shall
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out
this subsection, including provisions under which interest on
any lump-sum payment under the second sentence of paragraph
(1) shall be limited in a manner similar to that specified in
the last sentence of section 8316(b).
``(5) The Executive Director shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this subsection with respect to the Thrift Savings Plan.
Regulations under this paragraph shall include provisions
requiring the return of all vested amounts.
``(6) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict any
authority under subchapter II of
[[Page H11284]]
chapter 83 or any other provision of law to deny or withhold
benefits authorized by statue.
``(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term `Member'
has the meaning given such term by section 2106,
notwithstanding section 8401(20).''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4011, as indicated, the Congressional Pension
Forfeiture Act of 1996, a piece of legislation introduced by my
colleague, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate], the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], and
others, does provide that if a Member of Congress is convicted of a
felony directly related to that Member's duties, the Member forfeits
retirement benefits based on his or her service as a Member.
During its meeting on September 19, 1996, the Committee on House
Oversight approved two amendments, which are included in the bill. The
first amendment identifies the specific felonies which will result in
the forfeiture of the pension. The second amendment clarifies that
vested Thrift Savings Plan contributions, both the Member's
contributions and the Federal employer's matching amounts, will be
returned to the individual.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the explanation of the
gentleman from California, Chairman Thomas, of the bill in committee
and here again on the floor. While I do not take specific issue with
his characterization, I would point out that there's been a great deal
of political fervor in this election year on the subject of
congressional pensions. Yet here we are, in the waning days of this
Congress, taking final action on a bill on which the committee has held
no hearings and has not filed a committee report.
Under the circumstances, we should regard with suspicion any
legislation which is moved this late in the legislative year,
especially without the usual legislative tools of analysis that we have
come to expect from bills that have undergone thorough committee
consideration.
The Committee on House Oversight gave this bill very cursory
consideration on Thursday, September 19. It adopted one written
amendment and one amendment in principle, which was later converted to
legislative language and has been incorporated in the bill which is at
the desk.
The subject of congressional pensions, and their use as criminal
penalties, is worthy of serious policy consideration, and this bill, in
particular, merits serious consideration.
Unfortunately, our committee held not a single hearing on this
legislation. We never heard from its sponsor, we never heard from its
cosponsors, and we never heard from its opponents. Committee members
discussed the bill for less than 30 minutes, including the complete
consideration of two amendments that altered the provisions of the bill
significantly. As my colleagues know, the bill is presented today
without any committee report.
No matter what the merits of this bill--and it is true that the bill
was approved unanimously by those present and voting--the House
deserves better than this. We deserve more information about this
important subject than the majority has provided. There are a number of
potential defects to this bill that I would like to point out, and I
hope that the Senate can remedy them, or a conference committee can
remedy them, or as is more likely the case, we can examine them more
fully in the 105th Congress--in the manner that this legislation should
be examined.
The concerns about this legislation might well be answered adequately
by testimony from the sponsor of the bill, or in testimony from other
expert witnesses.
For example, the equivalent Senate bill would impose these forfeiture
penalties on senior Government officers of the executive and judicial
branches. But this bill makes no mention of executive or judicial
officers. Why the omission? That appears to be a real shortcoming of
this legislation.
In addition, the Justice Department testified to the Senate that
enactment of this type of forfeiture legislation could adversely affect
the Justice Department's investigations of malfeasance in office, and
the Department's ability to gain the cooperation of witnesses. This
kind of testimony is significant in the formulation of public policy,
and really needs to be assessed seriously. Unfortunately, we held no
hearings and did not deliberate on that key issue.
The Justice Department reportedly had some constitutional concerns
with the Senate equivalent legislation, but again, the House will not
have the benefit of such information.
Having said all that, I will reluctantly support the bill before us
today. Despite its shortcomings, this bill offers a promising concept
that the public accepts wholeheartedly--that Members who commit
criminal acts in carrying out the public trust should forfeit a benefit
of that office. It has undergone considerable change since it was
introduced, and our committee made changes which, I believe, strengthen
the bill considerably.
We adopted an amendment offered by Representative Vern Ehlers which
ties the penalties to felonies which are based on a Member's official
acts--essentially conduct that would constitute malfeasance in office.
I agree with this provision. At my direction, the Congressional
Research Service researched a number of State statutes bearing some
resemblance to H.R. 4011. But of the States surveyed, all confined such
statutes to public acts--illegal acts that would reflect a breach of
faith with the public.
I believe that is a viewpoint appropriate to this legislation. The
penalties involved in forfeiting pension benefits would be in addition
to any criminal penalties imposed in a particular case. It seems
fitting that in eliminating the benefits earned by a Member during his
or her service as a Member, those penalties should be tied to official
acts as a Member.
We also adopted an important amendment proposed by Representative
Steny Hoyer which clarifies the treatment of the Thrift Savings Account
under this legislation. Representative Hoyer pointed out accurately
that Thrift Savings Plan contributions are property held in trust by
the Government. The committee agreed that although a convicted Member
should no longer participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, the Member's
TSP contribution, including the Federal contributions made to the
retirement fund, should be treated in the same manner as contributions
to the retirement fund--that is, they should be disbursed in a lump
sum.
In summary, H.R. 4011 is a good starting point in the formulation of
public policy on this topic. But it is only a start, and I believe this
legislation should be substantially improved before it is signed into
law. I reluctantly ask my colleagues to support it, with the hope that
full and thorough consideration of this legislation will be
accomplished in the Senate, in conference, or in the 105th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the bill is fairly self-evident; that is, if you commit
a felony in the line of duty, you lose your pension. All of the
amendments that were offered in committee were accepted by the
committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Washington [Mr. Tate], the primary sponsor of the bill.
Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
First for all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Chairman Thomas
for his efforts not only on this particular piece of legislation, but
throughout the 2 years that I have been here. The committee has been a
real leader on reforming the House of Representatives, and the
gentleman should be commended.
Also, I would like to thank my cosponsors, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], and
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], who headed up the reform
task force.
This piece of legislation has been not only endorsed by the Committee
on House Oversight, but the Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against
Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union, and over 70 Members of the
House of Representatives, both Republicans and Democrats.
{time} 1530
On April 9, 1996, a former Member of the great House of
Representatives was convicted of two counts of mail fraud and sent to
jail for 17 months. I was at one of my town meetings a few days
[[Page H11285]]
later when a gentleman stood up and said, ``Mr. Tate, can you explain
to me why I work hard, I pay my taxes, I play by the rules, I have
broken no laws, and my tax dollars are going to subsidize someone who
broke the public trust, is going to jail and going to collect $96,000 a
year?''
There is no good answer to that, except this legislation. And that is
why we need the Congressional Pension Forfeiture Act. That is what has
prompted us. Starting with the first day of the next Congress, any
congressional felon will forfeit their taxpayer-funded congressional
pension. In 1994, lawmakers turned lawbreakers collected $667,000 in
taxpayer-funded pension benefits.
Every Member is expected to uphold the public trust. That is what is
expected to uphold the public trust. That is what is expected by the
great people of the Ninth District of Washington. They strongly support
this legislation. They work hard to put food on the table, to provide
clothes for their kids, to provide for their education and health care
for their family. What they cannot understand, as I go door to door,
is, why is this not the law already? They are shocked. They are
surprised. They cannot believe that this is not already the law.
We have a lot of tormented taxpayers out there that are working
harder and harder and becoming more disillusioned with their
government. This will lead us on the path to restoring integrity back
to this Congress.
Someone sentenced for breaking the trust of this great country as a
Member of Congress breaches the trust of the people, breaches their
oath of office and their moral responsibility as an elected official.
This bill is about restoring integrity to this great institution.
In 1904 there was the first recorded congressional conviction of a
felony, and there have been 37 since that time. Ninety years. This
legislation is long overdue. This Congress has been committed to
reform, and today we are changing the way this Congress does business.
I commend the chairman for his efforts on this legislation.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I think this a good example of why committee legislating is far
preferable to task force approaches to passing good bills in this
institution. I think H.R. 4011 is a good starting point in the
formulation of public policy on this topic, but it is only a start, and
I believe this legislation should be substantially improved before it
is signed into law.
I reluctantly ask my colleagues to support it in this form, with the
hope that full and thorough consideration of this legislation will be
accomplished either in the Senate, in conference committee, or
preferably in the 105th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the gentleman from
California, Chairman Thomas, for moving on this legislation in a very
expeditious fashion so we could get this bill to the House floor before
this Congress concludes its business.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is a pretty important day for
me because it is really the culmination of efforts that I began two
Congresses ago, the 102d Congress, back in 1991, when I was one of a
rogue band, then known as the Gang of Seven, seven Republican freshmen
who helped expose the House Bank and Post Office scandals that brought
great disgrace and disrepute on this venerable House.
I attempted back then, under the old regime, the old Democratic party
leadership of the House, on two occasions to offer legislation very
similar to the bill before the House today that would have eliminated
taxpayer-funded pensions. That is right, taxpayers' hard earned tax
dollars going to Members of Congress to pay their pension benefits even
though they had been convicted of committing a felony crime while
serving in elective office. I cannot think of a greater breach of the
public trust than to commit a felony crime while holding high elective
office.
So, again, this is, for me anyway, a day of great satisfaction. It is
the culmination of 4 years of efforts. It is also a continuation of the
congressional reforms we have initiated in this Congress, the first
Republican Congress in 40 years.
In 1994 the voters called for a change in business as usual in
Washington, including greater accountability by public officials. And a
very important step in the overhaul of the Congress is kicking Members
of Congress convicted of crimes, felony crimes, while serving in public
office off of the public dole.
So I am delighted to join with the gentleman from Washington, Mr.
Tate, who has shown tremendous leadership on this issue since arriving
in the House, and our other colleagues in bringing this bill to the
floor.
As I mentioned, I have been advocating for this type of legislation
since the 102d Congress, when I was then a Member and, some said, the
ring leader of the gang of seven that led the call for House action
against those who had overdrafts at the House bank. And, again, at that
time, the House leadership, the House Democratic Party leadership,
would not even give my pension forfeiture legislation a hearing, much
less allow this legislation to come to the floor.
So I think it is very important to make that kind of comparison,
particularly when I hear many of my Democratic colleagues come down
into this well and rail against the Speaker of the House for alleged
ethical abuses. They seize the moral high ground and go on and on and
on, but I do not think that they are quite willing to acknowledge what
occurred just a few years ago on their watch.
So I am looking for those same Members, hoping that they will come to
the floor now, today, and speak of this legislation and prove that they
really are willing to reform the Congress in a bipartisan way.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is the people, the public, they need to
see Congress keeping its own house in order if they are going to trust
us to do their business.
We have only a short time left before adjournment, and I am pleased
that the House leadership and Chairman Thomas have placed this reform
bill at the top of the agenda. I urge its passage today and hope that
the other body will move expeditiously on this legislation so that we
can send it to the President for his signature before we conclude our
legislative business.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Weller], a cosponsor of the legislation.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California,
Chairman Thomas, so much.
I also want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from California,
Congressman Riggs, and the gentleman from Washington State, Congressman
Randy Tate, for their leadership on an issue which, frankly, just makes
so much sense.
I was back home over the last weekend and was talking with some folks
in local coffee shops, the grain elevators, and the union halls, and I
was talking about this very bill. Their response was, well, it is about
time. It is about time that we told congressional felons that if they
commit a crime while they are in public trust, serving the people and
on the public payroll, that they are going to lose something which many
people hold dear, and that is their pension.
The folks back home said it is about time that we cancel the pensions
of congressional felons. Because in representing the Chicago region,
and I represent the most diverse district in Illinois, I represent the
city of Chicago and the south suburbs and rural communities 100 miles
west, nothing outraged the people of the Chicago area more than when
they learned that Dan Rostenkowski is collecting almost $100,000 a year
while his feet are propped up on the prison cell bed.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is about time that we pass this legislation
to cancel the pensions of congressional felons. And, clearly, no one
better exemplifies the need to do this than the most well-known
congressional felon, Dan Rostenkowski of Chicago.
This is an important reform and just one of many reforms that this
Congress has passed. In fact, I am proud that on our very first day we
did something that previous Congresses refused to do, and that is, we
said if we are going to make the laws, we should obey the laws. And we
did that on day one.
We also passed the first lobbying disclosure and lobbying reform
legislation in 40 years; eliminated free gifts and travel and meals for
Members of the House; provided for term limits for committee chairmen
and the speaker; reduced our committee staff bureaucracy by one-third;
and did something that politicians are not known to do, and that is, we
cut our own budget.
In fact, we cut our own budget by 10 percent, which is a significant
amount, and we cut the White House's budget. They probably were not
quite as thrilled as we were. But if we are going to ask everyone to
live within their
[[Page H11286]]
means, we need to learn to lead by example, and we did this.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is about time. It is about time that we
passed the Dan Rostenkowski Pension Reform Act of 1996. Let us make it
very clear that if a Member violates the public trust, if a Member
commits a felony while serving in Congress, that Member will lose their
taxpayer-financed pension.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman once again.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], a cosponsor of the legislation.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate],
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], for moving this piece of
legislation.
It is kind of interesting as we are here at the end of the year to
take a look at all the legislation that the committee has passed, that
Members like Mr. Tate have passed, and to take a look at the problems
of the past, to remember the House bank scandal, remember the hundreds
of bounced checks, the post office scandal, the stamps for cash,
unauditable House books, a Congress that exempted itself from the laws
that it passed on the rest of the country, days of subsidized haircuts,
days of free gifts and meals from lobbyists.
The gentleman from California, Chairman Thomas, has worked hard for 2
years to change much of that, if not all of it.
Taking a look at our booklet, which is called ``The Index of
Congressional Reform,'' it outlines the changes that this Congress has
made over the last 2 years. On opening day we applied a whole series of
private sector laws to this Congress.
Remember, these were the laws that did not even apply to us before
but were applied to the rest of the country: Age Discrimination and
Employment Act, Americans With Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act,
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, Veterans
Reemployment Act, Federal Labor-Management Relations Act.
We limited congressional terms. We held the first vote ever on
congressional term limits. This Congress gave the next President the
line-item veto. We cut congressional budgets. We reduced committee
staff size. We slashed committee budgets. We limited the terms of
chairmen and the Speaker of the House. We cut taxpayer-financed mass
mailings. We eliminated free personalized calendars. We passed zero
tolerance for gift ban.
And today we add one more to this long, impressive list, where we are
saying here is another law that only makes common sense; that for
somebody who abuses their office, they will lose their Government-
funded pension. It makes sense. It is a commonsense reform.
I congratulate the chairman of the committee and the authors of this
bill for bringing this bill to the floor today. It makes common sense.
They have worked hard at taking this through the committee and building
this bipartisan support.
This goes on, the other items that we passed during Reform Week,
where we denied floor privileges to former Members who are registered
lobbyists. We prohibited the handing out of campaign checks on the
floor of the House.
We worked on campaign finance reform. We had a great bill. We did not
get it passed, but we are going to revisit the issue of campaign
finance reform.
Also, in the rules package for the 105th Congress, we are going to
include the Enumerated Powers Act. What does that mean? It means that
in any piece of legislation that is brought before the House, the
authors will have to outline the constitutional justification.
What this brings is a complete and impressive package of reforms that
inherently change the way business is done in Washington. It says that
if Members abuse their role, their special role in this country, they
will lose the benefits of serving, of having served in this
institution.
{time} 1545
We have changed the way that Washington works. We have got a lot more
work to do. This country is still $5 trillion in debt. But this
Congress, this Congress, led by Republicans, has made significant
progress in moving toward a balanced budget and moving toward the
fundamental and systemic changes that will ensure that we will balance
the budget. I congratulate the gentleman.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] who has been such
a leader in the effort to bring lobbying reform to the floor of this
Congress and overcame great odds to do so, ultimately successfully.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
this bill. I think that this bill is a good bill. It is a bill that is
overdue, and it is one that I think that all of us can be proud of as
Members of this body to support. I think that there is a fundamental
duty that the Members of this body have to serve our constituencies and
to serve the people of this country well.
I also think it is important to note that some of the reforms that
were just discussed, some of which are actual reforms, some of which
were actually not reforms, were in many ways a result of a group of
bipartisan legislators who were working together, people who decided
that the best way for us to make progress on these issues was not to
label these issues as Democratic or Republican issues but rather to
work together to move forward. And frankly, if it had not been for that
bipartisan approach, I do not think that we would have been successful.
I say that in the last session, in the waning days of the session,
when we were trying to pass the Congressional Accountability Act, then-
Representative Dick Swett and the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Chris
Shays, who were the leaders at that time, again, a bipartisan group
working together, were thwarted when then-minority leader Gingrich
basically killed the bill as we were trying to consider it.
So I think we have to keep that in perspective. I think we have to
keep in perspective that it does take a bipartisan approach and that it
does take Members working together. This is a good bill. This is
something that we have to recognize that the American people want.
Having said that, I am troubled because again in the waning days of
this Congress, we are faced with another challenge to this institution.
It is a real challenge. It is a challenge to this institution and the
credibility of this institution and everybody who serves here. That
challenge comes in the form of what I consider to be the failure of the
majority to release the report pertaining to Speaker Gingrich. I am not
an expert on these issues. I am not someone who has a long history in
this body, but I do have enough of a history to know that Speaker
Gingrich has spoken on this issue. Speaker Gingrich has addressed this
issue when then-Speaker Wright had a report developed for him.
Let me use some of Speaker Gingrich's words, if I may. These are
quotes from Representative or Speaker Gingrich in 1989, urging
publication of a report on alleged violations by then-Speaker Jim
Wright. The report was filed by outside counsel.
points of order
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman will state his
point of order.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin is not speaking
to the legislation in front of us, and he knows it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Barrett] wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I certainly do. I am tying
this into the reforms that are going on in this body. The previous
speaker spoke to the many reforms that he thought were necessary. I
acknowledge that there are reforms that are necessary. I also think
that this is very consistent with those reforms and whether we have
reform in this body.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin should confine
his remarks to the subjects contained within this bill. The Chair
sustains the point of order.
[[Page H11287]]
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, a number of Members have spoken
on the issue of reform, as it has come before the body during this
entire Congress. Speakers who preceded the gentleman from Wisconsin
have certainly strayed from the subject of this bill. They have talked
about a range of legislation. To allow the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Barrett] to proceed would only be fair in light of what has
happened in prior discussion of this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Points of order were not made concerning the
statements that were made previously. A point of order was made at this
particular point.
Mr. FAZIO of California. The Chair decided not to intervene until he
was asked to intervene?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the precedents, the Chair does not
take the initiative regarding relevancy of debate. The point of order
was raised by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I address the point of
order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is very
relevant because I think that the issue here is whether Members who
have been accused of committing crimes or have been convicted of
committing crimes can----
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the Chair has ruled.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have the floor to speak on
the point of order. If a Member of this body has been convicted of a
crime----
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the Chair has ruled. How can the gentleman
from Wisconsin speak on the point of order when the Chair has ruled?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is correct.
The Chair has ruled. The gentleman from Wisconsin will confine his
remarks to subjects in this bill.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I hope that no Member of this
body ever commits a felony. I think that that would be a horrible
disservice to the people in this country. But to make sure that Members
do not commit felonies, we cannot cover up reports that have been done
by congressional committees. In order for us to have those reports,
those reports have to be made public. That is my point today. We should
not be covering up reports.
I do not think that there are any felonies that are committed, but
the only way for us to know for sure is to have that report released to
the American people. That is why this point is relevant to this bill. I
do not want to have anybody disgrace this body. I want this body to
know what is in the report that is not being released by the ethics
committee. I think in order for us to do that, we have to have a full
discussion.
Again, in closing, I just want to say a couple of things. This is the
Speaker's own comments, ``I cannot imagine going to the country, tell
them we have got a $1.6 million report and, by the way, there is
nothing in''----
point of order
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin well knows the
Speaker ruled that out of order, yet he continued to read. The comity
of the House is threatened by the gentleman from Wisconsin, yet he
speaks of potential crimes. And he does it by willfully violating the
rules of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Again, my whole point
here is I think that this is a good bill. I support this bill. In fact,
I am a cosponsor of a similar version of this bill. I think that we
should pass this legislation.
My point, in a generic sense, is that we as a body have to make sure
that we police ourselves as well. And to police ourselves as well means
that we have to disclose reports that we have paid for. Why would we
spend $500,000 on a report and not release it to the public? That is my
only point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is sustained. The
gentleman from Wisconsin will confine his remarks to the bill before
the House.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with is a piece of legislation that
deals with the violation of law, that a felony has been committed. I
find it interesting that the gentleman from Wisconsin could not utilize
any examples in talking about a violation of this potential law on our
side of the aisle. Perhaps his problem is we have examples on his side
of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr.
Dickey].
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to confine my remarks to the Tate-
Riggs bill. It has to do with the pensions that are available to
Members of Congress who have been convicted of felonies. I had someone
in Arkansas come up to me and say, let me get this thing straight;
said, you just had a Member of Congress, a very powerful Member of
Congress who was convicted of numerous felonies, and he is getting
$96,000 a year in the process. I said, they said, Jay, just get me
straight now. Explain to me how that is fair.
Well, I want to put this poster up so that that person who said that
to me will know that I am here to do something about it. Dan
Rostenkowski is getting $96,462 a year from a pension after he has
committed felonies related to his service in Congress. There is not a
way in the world that we can stay in this, on this floor and in this
body and allow this to happen and then go home and say, we want to have
your respect.
People are fed up. They are through with that sort of thing. I did
not have an explanation. The only explanation I have is that I am going
to work hard on this bill. I am going to try to make sure that that is
not going to happen again. We have gone through a committee process.
Those of us who got behind this bill have found that we have had to
compromise in a lot of ways. But we are not going to compromise on this
picture right here of $96,462 being given to someone who has admitted,
has admitted in a court of law to the commission of felonies while in
office. This is what we are doing.
We are saying to the people out there in America, we are listening to
what you have to say, and we are not going to listen to our own greed
and our own strategy of trying to gain money from you all while we are
in prison or in jail or having been convicted of a felony while
committing an act in response of being a Representative of the people
of the United States of America.
I am strongly in favor of this bill. I want to urge my colleagues to
please vote for it so that we can, the little people at home and the
people who feel like they do not have representation will know that
someone is up here listening and wants to do right.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who, when we talk about desire for reform and
cleaning up the process, takes a back seat to no one.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I have never been more proud to be part of an
institution as this Congress and to have been part of this 104th
Congress. To think of all that we did, the major reforms in the opening
day, reducing the size of committees to reducing the number of staff,
to eliminating those absurd proxy votings where a chairman would vote
for their Members as if they did not have enough brains to vote for
themselves.
Then to pass the Congressional Accountability Act, a bill that Mr.
Thomas championed to get Congress under all the laws as the rest of the
country and to pass gift ban and lobby disclosure legislation, all in
this 104th Congress. We had years and years and years, the lobby
disclosure bill had not been amended since 1946. It happened under our
watch.
I think on a bipartisan basis, I think all sides can take joy and
gratitude in this. This bill is a logical bill that should be adopted,
but this has been a magnificent Congress in terms of reform. I count my
blessings that we have all been able to share in it.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
[[Page H11288]]
Let me simply summarize by saying this bill has the support of the
minority. We wish it had been brought to the floor earlier so that it
could actually have the opportunity of becoming law. We wish it had
been more comprehensive and covered the other two branches of
government that have sworn personnel who have the same level of public
trust that Members of Congress have. We wish we had had more time for
hearings on the implications of the Justice Department's concerns.
Having said all that, I appreciate the remarks of that in fact many
of the successes we have had on reforms have become law because of a
bipartisan approach. I only regret that this product of the Republican
task force had been brought to the committee earlier so we could have
done a more proper job of covering it. But having said that, Mr.
Speaker, let us move on.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
(Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It is an
excellent piece of legislation. I am a cosponsor of it, and I would
just like to express my support.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] said, the
bill came out of committee unanimously. There are a number of Democrats
who are bipartisan supporters. He indicated the bill is not perfected
because it does not have broad enough scope. I will tell the gentleman,
I looked forward to the legislation he will introduce in the 105th and
would be pleased to be a cosponsor.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 4011, the
Congressional Pension Forfeiture Act.
Under current law, a Member of Congress who is convicted of a felony
is eligible for a full Federal pension. This pension is partially
subsidized by the American taxpayer.
I am very pleased that this Congress has made government reform the
centerpiece of its agenda and is now considering this bill to prohibit
Members of Congress convicted of a felony from receiving the taxpayer
funded portion of their Federal pension. In my opinion, this reform is
long overdue.
In 1975, as a member of the Illinois State Legislature, I
successfully enacted into law a measure denying pay and pensions to
Illinois State legislators convicted of felonies. In 1982, as a
relatively new Member of Congress, I introduced similar Federal
legislation to deny congressional felons their annuity benefits.
Unfortunately, my proposal failed to gain widespread support in
previous Congresses in which I introduced it, but under new leadership,
this Congress is about to enact it.
As lawmakers, Members of Congress have a duty to be law abiders.
Americans should expect a high standard of conduct from its elected
officials and demand nothing less. When an elected Member of Congress
breaches the public trust by showing a blatant disregard for the law,
the integrity of the entire institution is questioned. To compound this
damage by rewarding these felons with a taxpayer funded pension is
unconscionable.
The Congressional Pension Forfeiture Act will ensure that the
American taxpayer only funds the retirement benefits of those public
officials who have earned the public's trust. Enactment of this
legislation is critical if we are to maintain the confidence of the
people we are elected to serve.
Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the majority leader for
his courage, foresight and fortitude to schedule my bill, the
Congressional Pension Forfeiture Act of 1996, for action on the House
floor today. I also want to thank Chairman Bill Thomas for his hard
work and leadership on this issue and Chairman Bill Clinger for his
continued support as I have pursued this historic legislation.
Today, the House will consider H.R. 4011, the Congressional Pension
Forfeiture Act. Congressman Frank Riggs from California and Congressman
Jay Dickey from Arkansas deserve a tremendous amount of credit for
working long and hard with me, to refine this momentous and historic
legislation to deny pension benefits to Members of Congress convicted
of crimes related to their duties of office. Other of my colleagues
like Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the Speaker's Task Force on Reform,
Jerry Weller, J.D. Hayworth, and Zach Wamp deserve my gratitude. H.R.
4011 would not be on the floor of the House today without their
backing.
We have all worked long and hard to get the Congressional Pension
Forfeiture Act to the House floor for a vote today. That is a feat of
which we should be immensely proud. This legislation is long overdue.
The Congressional Pension Forfeiture Act, as amended by the House
Oversight Committee, combines the best elements of the three bills
introduced separately by Mr. Riggs, Dickey, and myself. Beginning on
the first day of the 105th Congress, and Member of Congress convicted
of a felon related to the official duties of office will forfeit his
taxpayer-funded congressional pension. A convicted Member will receive
a lump sum payment of his own contributions and will then be kicked out
of the Civil Service Retirement System, the Federal Employees
Retirement System, and the Thrift Savings Plan.
The American people are fed up with business as usual in Washington,
DC. The last thing that hardworking Americans and their families should
expect is to pay for is a convicted felon's retirement. No family
struggling to pay for groceries, health care, or education should be
handling hard-earned money over to congressional felons.
The Congressional Pension Forfeiture Act has over 70 cosponsors and
bipartisan support. I know an overwhelming majority of Americans
support this common-sense, historic congressional reform legislation.
In fact, it was this strong, popular support that was the impetus for
this common-sense legislation. Earlier this year, a man, with his son
by his side, stood up at one of my town hall meetings and said,
``Congressman, why do I have to hand over my hard-earned money, to an
ex-Congressman who now sits behind bars?'' Many in the crowd could not
believe their ears. Most people think we already have a law that takes
taxpayer-funded pensions away from congressional felons. Unfortunately,
I had to tell that gentleman that congressional convicts do get
taxpayer-funded retirement nest eggs. After so many years and so many
congressional embarrassments, the House finally will address this
important issue today. Needless to say, the Congressional Pension
Forfeiture Act is long overdue.
A former Representative was recently sentenced to 17 months in prison
for crimes he committed against the American people. But while he sits
behind bars, he'll be collecting nearly $100,000 a year from his
taxpayer funded congressional pension. For this House to turn its back
on the American public and let another congressional criminal leave
office with his retirement nest egg intact would be unconscionable. Our
bipartisan, consensus bill ends this taxpayer ripoff.
Every Member of Congress makes a contract with the working men and
women in his district when he takes the Oath of Office--a contract to
uphold the public trust. Last year, 14 lawmakers-turned-lawbreakers
collected $667,000 in taxpayer-subsidized congressional pension
benefits. I want to help hard-working middle class Americans, not
congressional felons. That is why I started this fight for a return to
common sense.
If H.R. 4011 becomes law, after the beginning of the 105th Congress,
Members who are convicted of crimes that are committed while they are
in office will forfeit their congressional pensions. Members who are
found guilty of crimes like taking a bribe, intimidating someone into
making a political campaign contribution, and trading their vote for
money will no longer feed at the public trough. It's that simple.
Breach the trust that voters place in you as a federally elected
official and you lose your taxpayer-subsidized congressional pension.
H.R. 4011 is just plain common sense, and every Member of this body
should vote for it.
By passing this legislation, we are once again standing up for hard-
working American families. This legislation is for all Americans who
have never broken the law and pay taxes out of their hard-earned money.
It is for their sake that we will eliminate this egregious policy
today.
Passage of H.R. 4011 will be the crown jewel of the Congress with the
strongest reform agenda in 40 years. The 104th Congress has done more
to reform this institution than any Congress before us. Congressional
pension reform is what the American people want and it is what we in
the House of Representatives should give them.
I urge all of my colleagues to lend their wholehearted support to the
Congressional Pension Forfeiture Act and again, congratulate Mr. Riggs
and Mr. Dickey on their hard work in bringing this important bill to
the floor.
Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 4011,
the Congressional Pension Forfeiture Act. This Member would like to
thank the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Bill Thomas, the
chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and the distinguished
gentleman from California, Mr. Vic Fazio, the ranking member of the
House Oversight Committee, for bringing this measure to the House
Floor. This Member also extends his appreciation to the gentleman
[[Page H11289]]
from California, Mr. Frank Riggs, and the gentleman from Washington,
Mr. Randy Tate, for their efforts in securing House floor consideration
of this legislation.
As an original cosponsor of H.R. 4011, and as a cosponsor of similar,
earlier legislation, H.R. 2244, this Member is certainly pleased to be
here today supporting legislation which prohibits a Member of Congress,
if convicted of a felony, from collecting accumulated retirement
benefits under either the Civil Service Retirement System or the
Federal Employees' Retirement System. This Member has long believed
that it is intolerable and outrageous that there has been nothing in
Federal law which precluded a Member of Congress from drawing Federal
pensions while sitting in jail. Therefore, this Member strongly
believes this particular reform of congressional pensions is long
overdue.
This Member's only regret is that, because of the constitutional
prohibition against ex post factor laws, it is clear that the
forfeiture of pension benefits cannot be made retroactive. While this
Member will not specifically name the former Members of Congress, who
have recently been convicted of felonies and will not be required to
forfeit their congressional pensions, this Member will go so far as to
ask these former Members of Congress to voluntarily give up their right
to such pensions. It is simply the right thing to do as the American
people deserve and expect better of those they elect to Congress.
Mr. Speaker, despite this regret that the Constitution prevents us
from retroactive application of this legislation, this Member urges all
of his colleagues to support this important measure.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4011, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________