[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.

                          ____________________