[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 12 (Monday, January 22, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H807-H815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                CONGRESSIONAL PENSION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 476) to amend title 5, United States Code, to make 
noncreditable for Federal retirement purposes any Member service 
performed by an individual who is convicted of any of certain offenses 
committed by that individual while serving as a Member of Congress, and 
for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 476

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. LOSS OF PENSIONS ACCRUED DURING SERVICE AS A 
                   MEMBER OF CONGRESS FOR ABUSING THE PUBLIC 
                   TRUST.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--Section 8332 of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(o)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subchapter, the service of an individual finally convicted of 
     an offense described in paragraph (2) shall not be taken into 
     account for purposes of this subchapter, except that this 
     sentence applies only to service rendered as a Member 
     (irrespective of when rendered). 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) Every act or omission of the individual (referred to 
     in paragraph (1)) that is needed to satisfy the elements of 
     the offense occurs while the individual is a Member.
       ``(ii) Every act or omission of the individual that is 
     needed to satisfy the elements of the offense directly 
     relates to the performance of the individual's official 
     duties as a Member.
       ``(iii) The offense is committed after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection.
       ``(B) An offense described in this subparagraph is only the 
     following, and only to the extent that the offense is a 
     felony under title 18:
       ``(i) An offense under section 201 of title 18 (bribery of 
     public officials and witnesses).
       ``(ii) An offense under section 219 of title 18 (officers 
     and employees acting as agents of foreign principals).
       ``(iii) An offense under section 371 of title 18 
     (conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States), 
     to the extent of any conspiracy to commit an act which 
     constitutes--
       ``(I) an offense under clause (i) or (ii); or
       ``(II) an offense under section 207 of title 18 
     (restrictions on former officers, employees, and elected 
     officials of the executive and legislative branches).
       ``(iv) Perjury committed under section 1621 of title 18 in 
     falsely denying the commission of an act which constitutes--
       ``(I) an offense under clause (i) or (ii); or
       ``(II) an offense under clause (iii), to the extent 
     provided in such clause.
       ``(v) Subornation of perjury committed under section 1622 
     of title 18 in connection with the false denial or false 
     testimony of another individual as specified in clause (iv).
       ``(3) An individual convicted of an offense described in 
     paragraph (2) shall not, after the date of the final 
     conviction, be eligible to participate in the retirement 
     system under this subchapter or chapter 84 while serving as a 
     Member.
       ``(4) The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe 
     any regulations necessary to carry out this subsection. Such 
     regulations shall include--
       ``(A) 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); and
       ``(B) provisions under which the Office may provide for--
       ``(i) the payment, to the spouse or children of any 
     individual referred to in the first sentence of paragraph 
     (1), of any amounts which (but for this clause) would 
     otherwise have been nonpayable by reason of such first 
     sentence, but only to the extent that the application of this 
     clause is considered necessary given the totality of the 
     circumstances; and
       ``(ii) an appropriate adjustment in the amount of any lump-
     sum payment under the second sentence of paragraph (1) to 
     reflect the application of clause (i).
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `Member' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 2106, notwithstanding section 8331(2); and
       ``(B) the term `child' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 8341.''.
       (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--Section 8411 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(l)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     chapter, the service of an individual finally convicted of an 
     offense described in paragraph (2) shall not be taken into 
     account for purposes of this chapter, except that this 
     sentence applies only to service rendered as a Member 
     (irrespective of when rendered). 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) Every act or omission of the individual (referred to 
     in paragraph (1)) that is needed to satisfy the elements of 
     the offense occurs while the individual is a Member.
       ``(B) Every act or omission of the individual that is 
     needed to satisfy the elements of the offense directly 
     relates to the performance of the individual's official 
     duties as a Member.
       ``(C) The offense is committed after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection.
       ``(3) An individual convicted of an offense described in 
     paragraph (2) shall not, after the date of the final 
     conviction, be eligible to participate in the retirement 
     system under this chapter while serving as a Member.
       ``(4) The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe 
     any regulations necessary to carry out this subsection. Such 
     regulations shall include--
       ``(A) 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); and
       ``(B) provisions under which the Office may provide for--
       ``(i) the payment, to the spouse or children of any 
     individual referred to in the first sentence of paragraph 
     (1), of any amounts which (but for this clause) would 
     otherwise have been nonpayable by reason of such first 
     sentence, but only to the extent that the application of this 
     clause is considered necessary given the totality of the 
     circumstances; and
       ``(ii) an appropriate adjustment in the amount of any lump-
     sum payment under the second sentence of paragraph (1) to 
     reflect the application of clause (i).
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `Member' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 2106, notwithstanding section 8401(20); and
       ``(B) the term `child' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 8341.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today was introduced by my 
distinguished colleague, Representative Nancy Boyda from Kansas. It 
represents part of a continuing effort by the Democratic leadership to 
clean up the ethics outrage left over by the Abramoff scandal.
  The fundamental concept of this bill is simple. If Members of 
Congress are convicted of engaging in illegal behavior during the 
performance of official duties, then in addition to going to jail, 
their public pension will be eliminated. The language was included in 
the Republican lobby reform bill last year. The only difference is one 
enhancement responsive to Senate concerns. We have added language to 
deny pension benefits to Members who ask others to lie for them, or 
help them cover up their crime.
  Applying this penalty to those convicted of corruption is another 
step toward comprehensive ethics reform and restoring the public trust 
in Congress.

[[Page H808]]

  It goes without saying that no one should ever violate their oath of 
office. No one in this body should ever engage in criminal conduct. 
Such conduct distorts the people's business and leads to the 
formulation of bad public policy. It breaks the social contract that 
Americans have with one another, and with their elected leaders. Such 
conduct demoralizes the Nation, and it damages the reputation of this 
great institution.
  The bill before us represents one step toward discouraging illegal 
and unethical abuses of our office. As a consequence of enacting this 
bill, Members hopefully will think twice before stepping over the line.
  The Boyda pension forfeiture bill denies a congressional pension to 
any Member of Congress who is convicted of certain felonies and who has 
exhausted all appeals. It does not apply to a Member's own 
contributions to the retirement system.
  The covered felonies include: Bribery of public officials and 
witnesses; acting as foreign agent; conspiracy to commit the above 
offenses, or conspiracy to violate the postemployment restrictions; 
perjury by falsely denying any of the above-listed crimes; and 
subornation of perjury by getting someone else to lie or cover up for 
you.
  Every act constituting any of the above felonies: Must have occurred 
while the Member is in office; must directly relate to a Members's 
official duties; and must take place after the date of enactment.
  Any element of a crime leading to a final conviction can occur at any 
time after enactment. So passage of this initiative, Mr. Speaker, puts 
every current and future Member on notice that there will be an 
additional price to pay for criminal behavior while holding an office 
of public trust.
  Now does this bill go too far or not far enough? I have heard it 
argued both ways. Some say that more crimes should be included. Others 
ask: ``Why should a criminal's spouse or child be eligible for the 
criminal's forgone pension?'' Some argue that prosecutors should be 
empowered to use pension forfeiture as a negotiating tool. Others argue 
that judges should be able to adjust pension forfeiture to fit the 
crime, and there are many more such questions and thoughts.
  I will tell you now that this policy is an important step, but it is 
only a first step. It is a way to lay down the law. It is a way to tell 
the public that we reject criminal behavior while in office. It is a 
way to tell the American people that we are serious about addressing 
illegal and unethical behavior by our colleagues. And it is a way to 
get this pension forfeiture penalty enacted. No, it is not perfect, but 
it moves us in the right direction.
  You will hear arguments that it doesn't go far enough, that 
previously convicted Members should not presently be allowed pensions. 
And while I am not unsympathetic with the underlying sentiment, we are 
prohibited, as legislators, from passing ex post facto laws, which 
criminalize or penalize past behavior, which is again a violation of 
the Constitution.
  You will hear arguments that more types of criminal behavior should 
be covered. One of my colleagues indicated last Friday that more types 
of criminal behavior should be covered. Up until this point, pension 
forfeiture has only applied to treason and espionage and related 
offenses. So this is a big step. We are extending pension forfeiture to 
cover those offenses that lie at the heart of violations of the public 
trust and relate to the performance of official congressional duties. 
We are not applying this to others in the executive branch, so this is 
without precedent.
  You will hear arguments that an innocent spouse or child should be 
punished along with the criminal. On balance, I don't think that is 
good policy. It may satisfy one's desire for revenge, but if you 
believe in individual responsibility, then you don't punish an innocent 
person for another's bad behavior just because they are related by 
marriage or parentage. I think we need to take a look at this principle 
in other situations as well, but today we are looking at it in the 
context of criminal behavior by Members of Congress.
  The American people are rightly outraged by elected officials' 
criminal acts, but the American people are also humane and 
understanding. Although the first response to this outrage is likely to 
be ``throw the bum in jail,'' most Americans will not countenance 
throwing the child of a criminal into the street, or anyone's child.
  Assuming family members are innocent of any wrongdoing, this bill 
gives the Office of Personnel Management the discretion to respond to 
hardships placed on the family and caused by the Member's criminal 
wrongdoing. If OPM decides to do so, it will come out of any amounts 
contributed directly by the Member, and to which he or she is still 
entitled. That is fair and just, in my opinion. OPM could still impose 
full pension forfeiture, or something less if the totality of the 
circumstances warrants a different outcome.
  There are lots of other arguments we can have about the merits of 
this initiative and whether it goes too far or not far enough. Some may 
even question whether it even goes in the right direction. All of these 
are legitimate policy concerns, which can be pursued by the interested 
Members with the committees of jurisdiction through future legislation. 
But the bill before us today, however imperfect you may judge it, is an 
immediate response to the American people's demand that we change the 
way we do business here in Washington.
  There are many other initiatives we will be taking to reverse the 
last decade of criminal and ethical decline. We will do them, and we 
will be a better and more responsive government for having done so. But 
this is step one. The American people are sending an unequivocal 
message to all Representatives and Senators: If you lie, cheat or 
collude with others to cover up your criminal abuse of public office, 
you will not only go to jail, but you will sacrifice something that the 
American people provided you, and that is trust, which the American 
people can take away from you if you violate that trust. Dishonor that 
trust, and you break your contract with the American people, and the 
consequences are clear.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Can the Chair tell me if this bill was reported out of 
committee?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill before us has not been reported by 
the committees to which it was referred.
  Mr. SHADEGG. So it has not been reported out of committee?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Can the chairman tell me if this bill was subject to 
amendment in committee?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The phrase ``as amended'' in the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from California signifies that the text 
proposed for passage differs in some respect from the text of the 
introduced bill.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Can the gentleman tell me where and when this bill was 
amended?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is amended in the motion that is placed 
at the desk.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Has the majority 
been provided the text of the bill at this time, or can you tell me 
when it was amended?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is the Chair's understanding that the 
bill is available to Members in the Chamber and copies have been 
provided.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. We just asked for a 
copy of the bill, a Member just did, and was not able to get it. Do we 
have more than one copy?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The official copy is at the desk and the 
Chair understands that there are other copies that have been 
distributed throughout the Chamber.

[[Page H809]]

  Mr. SHADEGG. One further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his further 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, it has been widely reported today that this 
bill has a delayed effective clause which would not make it effective 
until January of 2009. That is different than the introduced bill, 
which had an immediate effective date.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Is that a parliamentary inquiry that he is 
just suggesting here?
  Mr. SHADEGG. Can the Chair clarify whether or not it has been amended 
in that respect?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The content of the bill is a subject for 
Members to discuss during the debate. It is not for the Chair to state.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KIRK. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois will please 
state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the amendment in the final form 
of this bill, my understanding is we are now dealing with a handwritten 
piece of paper on a napkin?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, is at the desk.
  Mr. KIRK. Is anything typed and shared with the minority?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The engrossing Clerk has the official paper 
at the desk.
  Mr. KIRK. Which is handwritten.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may examine the copy at the 
desk for himself.
  Mr. KIRK. I will take that as a ``yes.''


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TERRY. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, as I understand, this suspension rule was 
just amended or written and changed in the last 45 minutes. It is my 
understanding from the votes that we took on the first day of the House 
that the rules were amended. A civility section was added to the rules 
that said that we would be provided 48 hours' notice.
  It is my thought that this last-minute change violates the rules that 
were adopted in the House our first day in session for the 110th 
Congress, and I object to the bill's going forward.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair appreciates the gentleman's 
comments. Unfortunately, the gentleman has not stated a point of order.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, of course this subject matter is very 
important, the Congressional Pension Accountability Act; and I just 
went up to the desk and asked for a copy of the bill that we will be 
debating. And I was told that they did not have a copy. The Speaker has 
said that there are copies available for Members, and I would like to 
know where the copies are and how many copies are available for the 
Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is an engrossing copy at the desk and 
further copies will be made available to Members throughout the 
Chamber.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. When will copies be made available for us?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Currently. The Chair observes their being 
passed out as we speak.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, the ruling from the Chair, in respect to my 
objection, was based on the rules that were adopted by the House, the 
civility section, where we were supposed to be provided 48 hours of 
notice of any legislation brought to the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is unaware of a rule that the 
gentleman describes. A motion to suspend the rules obviates any point 
of order in any event.
  Mr. TERRY. Are you stating that there is no rule saying that the 
majority has to supply 48 hours' notice?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct, and a motion to suspend the 
rules obviates any point of order in any event.
  Mr. TERRY. I thank the gentleman.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, although the rules 
package contained a provision that said the majority would provide 
legislative text to the minority 48 hours before a vote, that is not, 
in fact, a rule; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A motion to suspend the rules, as the 
gentleman knows, obviates any point of order to that effect.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, is there a means by which I can appeal the 
ruling of the Chair in order to allow the Members of the minority the 
time in the civility clause that is 48 hours to see the language of 
this bill which was apparently amended within the last 45 minutes?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman suspend for one moment.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I would very much appreciate an answer to my question, 
Mr. Speaker. I don't think that is asking too much.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I believe the points of order being made are 
debate and comment, not points of order. And I am going to object to 
the continuation of a process that theoretically raises points of order 
which is debate and not a point of order.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I believe I stated a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would say to the gentleman from 
Arizona that the motion to suspend the rules is simply being given its 
ordinary meaning in this process.
  Mr. SHADEGG. So the answer to my question is that there is no 
procedure by which I may object to this bill going forward without the 
48 hours promised in the civility provision of the House rules?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  But to begin with, I would like to yield a moment to the chairwoman 
of the committee and ask, just to try to clarify this, what is the 
effective date of the amendment we are considering?
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question 
raised by the gentleman from Michigan, the effective date is upon 
enactment of the bill.
  Mr. EHLERS. Thank you for clarifying that.
  Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for the question was an honest 
inquiry simply because there has been a lot of confusion about the 
last-minute changes, which is certainly not customary for a bill taken 
up under suspension.
  This bill would deprive Members of Congress from their pensions if 
they are convicted of certain crimes. Similar language was included in 
the ethics and lobbying reform bill passed by the Senate last week.
  This is not a new issue. This is not the first time the House has 
considered the question of whether convicted Members should lose their 
pensions. In 1996, following the conviction of Congressman Dan 
Rostenkowski, a public outcry followed published reports that he would 
be receiving a generous pension even while serving his prison term. In 
response, the House scheduled and voted on H.R. 4011, to take away the 
pensions of Members convicted of offenses listed in the bill. It passed 
390-32 in the House, but was not taken up in the Senate and did not 
become law; and Mr. Rostenkowski received his full pension.

[[Page H810]]

  Incidentally, mail fraud, the crime for which Mr. Rostenkowski was 
convicted, was a listed offense in that bill, H.R. 4011, but is not 
listed in the bill pending before us today. So if there were another 
Rostenkowski event, today this would not affect that behavior.
  The recent convictions of some of our former colleagues, and 
published reports implicating a current Member in bribery schemes, have 
caused this issue to surface again.
  Then, as now, these legislative efforts amount to an attempt to close 
the barn door after the horse has gone. Even if H.R. 4011 had passed in 
1996, it would not have affected anyone engaged in criminal activity 
prior to its passage. In other words, Mr. Rostenkowski still would not 
have been affected by that bill. Whatever we do today will not deprive 
any of our convicted former colleagues of their pensions and won't 
threaten the pension of a Member who might have already engaged in 
criminal activity but has yet to be charged or convicted. The Supreme 
Court has ruled you simply cannot change the criminal penalty for a 
crime after it has been committed and apply it retroactively. This is 
called ex post facto punishment and is clearly prohibited by the 
Constitution, and that is why it is so extremely important to draft 
this bill properly.
  The Congress had originally attempted to do this when it passed the 
Hiss Act in 1954 in response to the perjury conviction of Alger Hiss. 
The law applied to a number of offenses. But this law, though passed 
after his conviction, was written to take away Hiss's pension but was 
struck down by a Federal court, and later the Congress scaled the law 
back because it was unmanageable. This illustrates again the importance 
of careful work on bills of this nature.
  Conviction of an offense listed in the Hiss Act, which is still in 
effect and applies to all government employees, results in total loss 
of the pension. The Hiss Act, as amended in 1961, is now limited to 
crimes against the State that threaten national security: treason, 
espionage, sedition, et cetera.
  Of course, had the Congress enacted the House-passed legislation on 
the subject in 1996, those who have been convicted of listed criminal 
offenses in the interim would not be able to receive pensions and 
today's action would not be necessary.
  In view of all this, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is 
most unfortunate that we are considering this bill under suspension 
with last-minute changes, with limited time for debate, and no 
opportunity to consider alternatives. I believe that it is important to 
look at some alternatives. The courts have raised the issue of 
proportionality, that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. 
This bill does not contain anything relating to that. And it should, 
because under this bill a person who commits a heinous crime and has 5 
years of pension credit suffers a minor penalty compared to a person 
who might commit a minor crime but has 20 years of pension to lose. 
This is not taken care of in this bill, and it should be.
  The issue of spouse pensions, as the Chair of the committee 
mentioned, is dealt with in this bill; but I don't think it is dealt 
with satisfactorily. I think we should give some guidelines to the 
Office of Personnel Management in dealing with that.
  My point on all this, Mr. Speaker, is that this is an important bill. 
It is going to potentially affect each and every Member of the 
Congress. I think it should be done with due deliberation and 
carefulness, and I think it is most unfortunate that this bill has 
become clouded by the hasty effort to get this taken up on suspension 
with last-minute changes not approved previously by the minority.
  I hope this is not an example of what we can expect in the future. 
The issue is certainly more important than naming a post office, which 
is what we normally do on suspension; and I hope that this bill, when 
it does pass, will come back in conference so that we will be able to 
fine tune it in conference with the Senate and produce a good bill that 
is worthy of final passage.
  Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take about 
30 seconds to correct a misrepresentation of the ranking member. He 
spoke of mail fraud, of which Mr. Rostenkowski was convicted, was not 
one of the crimes contained in the House bill that was passed out of 
this House by the Republicans last year. So that is a 
mischaracterization.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. The bill was passed in 1996.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Irrespective of, it was not one of those that 
were, as you had suggested in your opening statement.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as she may 
consume to the author of this bill, the outstanding new Member who 
introduced this bill, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda).
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill 
that will help rebuild the American people's faith in our Congress.
  Last year a Member of this House, Congressman Bob Ney, praised 
legislation that would have stripped the pensions of Members of 
Congress who are convicted of trading votes for bribes. Congressman Ney 
claimed that the bill would hold, and I quote, ``Members of Congress 
and those they work with to the highest standards in order to ensure 
that those who abuse the public trust will be dealt with accordingly.'' 
But that bill never passed, for which Congressman Ney is probably 
grateful. On Friday he was sentenced to serve 30 months in Federal 
prison. His crime: Accepting tens of thousands of dollars in luxury 
vacations, sporting tickets, and meals from Big Money lobbyist Jack 
Abramoff.
  Despite his conviction, Congressman Ney remains eligible to draw a 
congressional pension. And he isn't alone. Over the last 25 years, as 
many as 20 politicians convicted of serious offenses have received 
their congressional pensions. The exact amount of their payments vary, 
but the typical payment is about $47,000 a year. That is greater than 
the average American's total household income, and four times the 
annual earnings of the minimum-wage worker.
  Why should taxpayers fund a comfortable retirement for a crooked 
Congressman? The answer, of course, is that we shouldn't. Corrupt 
politicians deserve prison sentences, not taxpayer-funded pensions.
  Mr. Speaker, this House has already taken an important first step 
toward ending congressional corruption. On our very first day of 
Congress in session, we passed an aggressive ethics package that banned 
Members from accepting meals and gifts from lobbyists, and we enacted 
real earmark reform. But our work isn't done.
  During my campaign I promised my constituents that I would help end 
Big Money's control of Congress, and that promise won't be fulfilled 
until Members who accept Big Money bribes cannot still retire at 
taxpayer expense.
  Today I am proud to introduce H.R. 476, the Pensions Forfeiture Act, 
which would strip the pensions of Members of Congress convicted of 
bribery, conspiracy, espionage, or perjury. I am honored that my three 
fellow Representatives from Kansas, Representative Todd Tiahrt, Jerry 
Moran, and Dennis Moore, are cosponsoring this legislation with me. All 
of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, are answering Kansas's demands 
to sever the link between money and politicians.
  My father told me when I told him about this legislation, he said, 
``Sweetheart, it's about time. Let's get on with it.''
  Unfortunately, we cannot now revoke Congressman Ney's pension. 
Believe me, I wish we could, but the Constitution prohibits us from 
passing such laws after the fact. But we can and we must prevent this 
from happening again.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the 
Pensions Forfeiture Act. I hope that this bill will further deter 
corruption. Perhaps when Congressmen know that their retirement 
benefits are on the line, they will think long and hard before 
committing a Federal crime. But if some future Representative does 
follow in the footsteps of Congressman Ney, at least

[[Page H811]]

Kansas taxpayers and the rest of American taxpayers won't have to foot 
the bill for his retirement home.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to 
the time left for both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McGovern). The gentlewoman from 
California has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Michigan has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kirk 
of Illinois.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the author of this 
legislation, Mrs. Boyda, a question. She has added an amendment to this 
legislation within the last half hour. What was it, and what did you 
intend to do with that amendment?
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I don't believe that it has been amended in the 
last half hour, but we did add subornation of perjury.
  Mr. KIRK. Reclaiming my time. The gentlewoman actually has amended 
the legislation within the last half hour to add a fifth charge of 
subornation of perjury. But this bill falls far short of its potential.
  In 1996, the Congress is on record with the vote of Congresswoman 
Pelosi and Congressman Hastert of supporting legislation with 21 public 
integrity felonies, not the 5 under the legislation before us.
  We are missing a key element in this legislation which falls far 
short of our potential for reform. We know under current law that 
Rostenkowski collects after mail fraud, Traficant collects after 
corruption, Cunningham collects after bribery, and Ney collects after 
conspiracy. But the key story tonight is what is missing in this 
legislation.
  Our House leadership presented a bill which until an hour ago would 
have exempted the 110th Congress from any of these reforms. Now they 
are going to go back with the original intention of the bill with the 
new amendment that the Congresswoman added. But this list of felonies 
fails to include income tax evasion.
  I would ask her, why didn't you add income tax evasion to the list of 
felonies under this bill?
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I believe that the bill is intended as the 
voters have said we need to get something done. The crimes that are 
included in this bill will go right at the heart of the corruption that 
is affecting the Congress.
  Mr. KIRK. Reclaiming my time. I would say that we should not provide 
taxpayer-funded pensions for someone who is convicted of income tax 
evasion.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of seconds, and I 
would like to speak to the speaker who has just spoken. He spoke about 
the amendment to this bill, the subornation of perjury. This is in the 
gentleman's bill that he has introduced, so I don't know why his 
objection to that. The Democrats have added two additional crimes to 
this bill, and one is that; the other is a conspiracy to violate 
postemployment restrictions. We have tried to put in this bill to 
strengthen this bill two additional crimes, and so I am concerned that 
his argument is one that is in his bill that he has introduced.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California, Mrs. Susan Davis.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 476, the Pension Forfeiture Act sponsored by my new colleague and 
good friend Nancy Boyda.
  Usually, Mr. Speaker, I pride myself on seeing two sides of an issue, 
but honestly, I have looked, and I can't find another side on this one.
  I like this bill, because any Member of Congress who has been 
convicted of a criminal offense doesn't deserve to get his or her 
pension. And I like this bill for another reason, too. No matter how 
small the amount, each dollar that now goes to criminal ex-Members can 
be used to fund vital programs at a time when we are challenged with 
record debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I love this institution, and it makes me angry that the 
bad behavior of a few has disgraced Congress and harmed our Nation, 
and, in fact, this is a very important first step. Perhaps in the 
future we can go beyond this. And it frustrates me deeply when members 
of the media and the public say that we are incapable or unwilling to 
reform ourselves. So, let's prove them wrong. Let's prove them wrong 
today. Let's pass H.R. 476.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to grant 2 minutes the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I will help answer the gentlewoman from 
California; in the sense that this is a decent bill, but it could be 
much better if it was brought through a regular order where we were 
allowed to participate and offer improvements by way of amendments. But 
the process has been shut down to us, and that is why we are upset. We 
can make a decent bill better if given the chance. It was brought up on 
suspension with the intended purpose of forbidding us from offering any 
amendments to make it better.
  And I just want to say that Mark Steven Kirk, John Shadegg, and 
myself, we have been very concerned about people who have violated the 
people's trust, accepted bribes, broken the law, and getting their 
pension. That is why all three of us joined together over a year ago 
and offered bills; but yet the bill that has been brought up today 
isn't one of the Republican bills. Is that civility? I doubt it.
  Now, the interesting part is, after working with the Speaker a year 
ago, it was brought up for a vote, and almost all of the Democrat 
leadership and 173 other Members of the Democrat Party voted against 
the bill that they are now saying, well, geez, it is your bill that you 
brought up a long time ago.
  But there is one area I have amendments prepared, because I thought 
when we were going to get here that we would go through regular order. 
And one of them was solicitation of a bribe, which is not part of this.
  Mr. Speaker, can I enter into a colloquy with the author of the bill, 
the gentlewoman from Kansas? My inquiry to her would be, why did you 
not offer solicitation of the bribe when you authored this piece of 
legislation? Solicitation is not in there.
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Let me just say that I have offered a bill that 
I think is historic. I think it is going to make a difference. And I 
would suggest that you can vote for it, or you can vote against it. It 
is a good first step.
  Mr. TERRY. So if you want to solicit bribes, this is not a part. And 
there is a glaring gap here that needs to be filled, and we have not 
been allowed to fill it.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that my colleague 
has said that the bill could be stronger. That is an argument that we 
could make on every bill that comes to this floor, it can be stronger.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield to our majority leader 1 
minute, the Honorable Steny Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. It is tough to be in the minority, isn't it? I feel your 
pain. I want you to know that.
  Of course, that perfect bill of which all of you speak could have 
been passed in 1995 or 1996 or even 1997 or 1998 or 1999 or 2000, or 
even 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and, yes, 2006 when you were in 
charge, and we had no say as to what you passed or what you didn't 
pass. But you didn't pass this bill. You passed this bill through the 
House; it is not law. It is not law. And you had the President, you had 
the Senate, and you had the House.
  There is now a claim that we have heard now for 2 weeks: The energy 
bill could have been better. Yes, but many of you voted for it. You 
indicated, many of you, that the minimum wage bill could have been 
perhaps better by adding some things on, but 82 of you voted for it.
  This bill could be better, but it is timely. It is timely to do the 
right thing.
  Mr. Kirk has a number of suggestions. I think they are pretty good 
suggestions. I don't mind them. He asked about income tax. Now, we all 
pay income taxes. All Americans pay income taxes, or some have 
preference items they avoid, assuming they are doing it legally. But 
that is not part of our duties as a Member of Congress; it is part of 
our duties as a citizen.
  What this bill seeks to say is when you raise your right hand and 
swear that you will serve your constituents faithfully and honestly, 
that you do that; that you don't do it for some outside lobbyist or 
interest group. And that if you do, we are not going to pay your 
pension. That is all this bill says.
  It is late in coming, but it is never too late to do the right thing, 
and I

[[Page H812]]

would hope that every Member of this House when the roll is called on 
this bill will say to their constituents that I am going to take 
pensions away from those who abuse their power and responsibility given 
to them by the American people as Members of this House and undermine 
the faith and trust that the American people have in Members and in 
this House.

                              {time}  1900

  I agree with Mr. Terry, it could be better. We could add things to 
it. Perhaps we will. As a matter of fact, we just added something, as 
you have pointed out, because we thought that not only is lying bad, 
but asking people to lie is bad. It is called a fancy word, subornation 
of perjury. But what it is, is asking your staffer to say, don't tell 
the grand jury I did that. That is essentially what that says. So you 
can't tell your staff to go to the grand jury, when the grand jury 
says, does Member A, B or C take money or lie or do something or take 
money to vote on something, if you ask them to do that, and, after all, 
they work for you, you have control of their salary, you are also going 
to be subject to loss of pension.
  So I agree with those that say this bill is not perfect. They are 
right, but a lot of the bills that we have passed, as a matter of fact 
probably no bill that we have passed has been perfect, but this is a 
good bill. As my friend, the former Congressman from Kentucky would 
say, ``And I tell you that frankly.''
  My expectation is we are going to have almost every Member, I would 
hope 100 percent of the House say to the American people we will not 
allow Members who misuse and fail your trust to get your taxpayers' 
dollars paid to them in pensions. Vote for this bill. It is a good 
bill.
  I want to congratulate Nancy Boyda for her leadership in bringing 
this bill to the floor, and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle, 
in a bipartisan way, vote to say to the American people, we won't take 
your pensions if we do wrong by you, and we won't let others do as 
well.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to make a brief response to the majority leader 
before recognizing my next speaker. The issue is not just the quality 
of the bill. The main issue is the process, and I recall many times 
over the past few years, when we were in the majority, I asked our 
leadership to take up a bill on suspension. They said we can't do it 
unless the minority agrees to it, and I had to wait weeks several times 
for that.
  Now, suddenly, we get a bill tossed out in just a few hours' notice. 
That is not proper procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, I next yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, we just heard how serious this bill is; 
and, indeed, I think it is serious and important.
  Over a year ago, I introduced a similar bill, so did my colleague Mr. 
Kirk, and so did my colleague Mr. Terry. The majority leader has just 
told us that we ought to all vote for this bill because it is so 
important; but once again, we are here in a procedural abuse of mind-
boggling consequences.
  For my colleagues who have not been here, you need to know that in 
the last hour this bill has been amended by the majority. Indeed, in 
the last 24 hours, it has been amended not once but twice. It was 
introduced in one form. This morning they announced two different 
amendments to it, changing both its effective date and the crimes to 
which it applies, and your offices were all told when you arrived here 
today that it had a new effective date and had a new series of crimes 
to which it applies. But guess what, do not rely on your staff because 
this bill is so important the majority has amended it within the last 
few minutes. Now they have added a crime, but changed the effective 
date again.
  This is not the way that serious Congresses legislate. If you believe 
this bill is important, don't ask these Members to vote on it with less 
than an hour's notice. If you would like to look at a copy of the bill, 
many of our Members on the majority asked for a copy moments before 
debate started, and they could not get a copy. Indeed, the amendments 
appear to have either been handwritten or typed within the last few 
minutes.
  This is not the way to legislate. Procedure matters. We have not been 
allowed to see this bill go through committee and to be marked up. It 
did not go to Rules where we could offer amendments, where we could 
offer the effective date we think is right or the list of crimes that 
we believe is right.
  No, the majority has decided that the minority does not matter. Well, 
let's talk about fundamental fairness. In the Contract with America, we 
allowed that side, when they were in the minority, to offer to our 
Contract bills 154 floor amendments. That is on top of taking all of 
those bills to committee, and 48 of those amendments passed.
  This is a procedural outrage, and they ought to be ashamed.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, the speaker who just spoke 
stated that we changed the date. We changed the date of the bill to 
comply with the leadership on the Republican side. So he was 
disingenuous.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  First of all, let me say that I do not think this is the best 
procedure that we could have followed.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry, did she not just 
call me disingenuous? I would like the words taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. HOYER. No. I thought I was recognized. I was speaking.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHADEGG. Point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SHADEGG. You may not besmirch the motives of a Member of the 
body. I believe the lady said that my comments were disingenuous. I 
would like to hear the comments. If she called me disingenuous, I take 
that as an offense.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a point of 
order.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I want her words taken down. Mr. Speaker, I would like 
the lady's words taken down.
  Mr. HOYER. I think we are beyond that point, but let me say I don't 
believe the gentleman is disingenuous. As a matter of fact----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the majority leader suspend.
  The gentleman's request for the words to be taken down has not been 
requested in a timely and an appropriate manner.
  The gentleman from Maryland is now recognized.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has the time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair. Just 
because the Chair wasn't listening to the gentleman doesn't mean he 
wasn't making it in a timely manner.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                  Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to table.
  Mr. TERRY. In all due respect, the Speaker's microphone was not on, 
and we could not hear your ruling.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry. Did you recognize the appeal of the 
ruling of the Chair?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 190, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 43]

                               YEAS--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza

[[Page H813]]


     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Lungren, Daniel E.
       

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Buyer
     Carson
     Costello
     Culberson
     Gutierrez
     Linder
     Lucas
     McDermott
     Moran (VA)
     Norwood
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Rogers (MI)
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Smith (WA)
     Turner
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  1929

  Messrs. BURTON of Indiana, JOHNSON of Illinois and KUHL of New York 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
distinguished majority leader, is recognized.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we could dissipate, first 
of all, any implication that anybody was disingenuous. There are 
obviously disagreements on issues. I know that the gentlelady, the 
Chair of the committee, and Mr. Shadegg have spoken. I think that is a 
good thing.
  I wanted to say to Mr. Shadegg, I certainly did not believe he was 
anything but stating his opinion, and I think that is certainly 
appropriate to do. I want to make that very, very clear, that we do not 
and I do not nor did the chairwoman intend to put anybody's motivation 
in question. We should not do that. Hopefully, we will all try not to 
do that.
  Secondly, let me say that in terms of notice, I had the opportunity 
to talk to Mr. Boehner on Friday. This bill was scheduled, as you know, 
for consideration on Friday.

                              {time}  1930

  There was concern that perhaps people hadn't seen it for sufficient 
time, although this bill, in substance, has, in fact, been passed by 
the House before with your leadership. So Mr. Boehner and I have 
discussed it. Mr. Blunt and I had a colloquy, in which time I said that 
this would be on suspension tonight.
  The bill was amended, the gentleman is correct, within the last few 
hours. The date was changed at the request of Mr. Boehner. I happen to 
agree with Mr. Boehner that the date of 2009, which was in the bill, 
and I know Mrs. Boyda, I talked to Mrs. Boyda about it, she agreed with 
the change as well. The change was made because it was Mr. Boehner's 
feeling, and I think the minority's feeling, that the bill ought to go 
into effect immediately.
  The reason the date was put in as 2009 because that is what the 
Senate bill does under the constitutional provision of the 27th 
amendment, where compensation of a Member may not be changed during the 
course of their term. So it was made effective at the next term.
  But my observation, and I think Mr. Boehner's, I don't know whether 
he is on the floor, were the same; that if that question would be 
raised, let a defendant who is convicted of falling short of his duties 
and responsibilities, or hers, to their constituents and to this 
institution, let them raise that. I agreed with that. So that change 
was made mutually.
  There was an additional subornation of perjury which we think is 
appropriate. But I want to say to Members on both sides, I am an 
institutionalist. I believe in this institution, I believe in the 
Members, and I believe the Members need to have careful and thoughtful 
consideration.
  This bill is straightforward and, as I say, for all intents and 
purposes has been passed. I want to tell everybody, I think we are 
going to roll the vote on this bill because we don't want anybody to 
miss it. There are 11 Members on each side absent because of planes 
that have not flown on schedule because of weather. And it is an equal 
number on each side, so we are going to wait.
  But I hope when this bill comes to a vote that all of us vote for it, 
notwithstanding our differences on process, which ought to be better. 
We are going to strive to make it better.
  I want you to know that I feel strongly. When I said I feel your 
pain, I do. I don't think it is disingenuous pain. I think you are 
accurate on that.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we could conclude the debate on 
this. I think we are all going to agree on this.
  I see my friend Mr. Boehner coming to the podium. But I would hope 
that we could move this bill and give to the American public the 
understanding that we believe this is a very serious matter, and we are 
going to address it, and we are going to address it soon.
  I will be glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding, 
and

[[Page H814]]

make it clear that when there was a suggestion made about changing the 
date from the bill that had been introduced on its way to the floor, I, 
and my staff, believed that it was not in the best interest of the 
House to change this bill in the hour before it was to come to the 
floor. And I appreciate my colleague from Maryland, the majority 
leader's working with us to put the date back to where it was with the 
introduced bill.
  But having said that, I talked last week on the floor about my 
concern about how the House was proceeding. I understand the Six for 
'06 and the need to move the Six for '06 agenda right out of the gate. 
But as I said on the floor last week, I would hope that we would get 
back to regular order.
  Now, we are not on bill number six or bill number seven or, for that 
matter, bill number eight. I think we are on bill number nine. And as I 
reiterated on the floor last week, when we took the majority in 1995, 
there were many of my colleagues on our side of the aisle that said 
that we ought to treat the other side of the aisle the way they treated 
us. I stood my ground for months and months and months suggesting to my 
colleagues that, no, we should treat the minority, the then minority, 
the way we asked to be treated. And I think the real concern here is 
that what we have seen today on the floor over this bill is exactly the 
point we have been trying to make about going back to regular order.
  The committee process in this House does work, and I think the 
gentleman from Maryland clearly understands that, because Members on 
both sides of the aisle can pinpoint flaws and problems and correct 
those. And then there is a Rules Committee that has hearings. There is 
an opportunity for Members to offer amendments, hopefully, to be made 
in order so that the House can work its will.
  And so I would ask my colleague from Maryland, the majority leader, 
to just treat us the way you have been asked to be treated. My 
colleagues on this side of the aisle want to participate. We want to 
work with the majority in the best interest of the American people, and 
we can do that together. But the only way to do that is to go through 
regular order. And I think the gentleman from Maryland understands, and 
I thank him for his time.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. And as we had a 
good discussion on this particular bill last week, but I understand the 
gentleman's position. I don't think it is an unreasonable position. I 
think our perception is that this is a bill that has passed. It is of 
deep interest to the American public, and we wanted to make a statement 
as early as possible. We are not going to affect anybody, obviously, in 
the past, but going forward we wanted the public to be very assured 
what our position was. And that is the purpose of this.
  I know that the fact that it is on suspension means that it is not 
open to amendment. We understand that that may cause some 
consternation, and others will think that that is a procedure under 
which this kind of a bill probably should be concerned, in any event. 
But I appreciate the gentleman's view.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I have asked the other speakers that I have 
to yield their time, and I will just yield myself such time as I may 
consume to quickly wrap it up.
  I appreciate the comments made by the majority leader and minority 
leader. I hope they cleared the air.
  But I just want to add a personal note. I served on a county 
commission some years ago and became the chair of the county 
commission, and there I learned the importance of proper order in doing 
things in regular order. I served as president pro tem of the State 
senate, and that even reinforced it more strongly. Always proceed 
properly, fairly and in order.
  And I think part of the difficulty we have had here today is that the 
members of the current minority sat here for 2 weeks grinding their 
teeth while they watched things come to the floor without having gone 
to committee, without prior debate and discussion. And this was the 
crowning insult, to bring something to the floor under suspension, and 
to make not just one change, we have heard discussion of the date, but 
two changes in the bill between the time it was agreed to and the time 
that it reached the floor.
  We cannot have that. As a minority we will not tolerate that. We 
deserve proper order. We deserve respect. And I assume the majority 
will, from this time henceforth, give us that respect and follow proper 
order, proper procedure, so we can avoid these donnybrooks in the 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, the statement that I made 
earlier about the gentleman from Arizona, it was not my intent to 
question his motives. And I look forward to working with him in the 
coming days and weeks and months ahead. And so I do not intend for him 
to take that personally, and I am sorry for that.
  Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues who are listening and have 
listened to this debate today, please take note. The Democratic 
leadership of this institution plans to clean up the criminal and 
ethical morass it inherited. This bill is a down payment on the new 
ethical climate control system we are building.
  The American people deserve to know that criminal and unethical 
behavior by any of our colleagues will be punished, and that the 
penalties for violating the sacred trust which has been bestowed upon 
us by our voters and the States we represent will be substantive and 
serious and not window dressing.
  We have more to do after this bill passes, so we can continue this 
discussion during the next installment of ethics reform. But I urge my 
colleagues to take this leap with me today and with the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from Kansas who introduced the bill, to begin 
this journey toward a more open and honest government, and toward a 
more ethical direction in this 110th Congress. The American people 
deserve it, and it is up to us, you and I, to deliver it.
  Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 476.
  At the start of the 110th Congress, this chamber passed rules 
governing how we conduct the people's business. We made sure that the 
interest of our constituents would be placed ahead of the special 
interests. Today, we must take the next step to restore the public 
trust in Congress by stripping Congressional pensions from Members who 
commit federal crimes while in office.
  This legislation is a crucial next step. It adds bribery of public 
officials and witnesses, wrongfully acting as agents of foreign 
principals, and conspiracy to commit one of these offenses to the list 
of federal felonies that will call for the forfeiture of a 
Congressional pension. In keeping with the spirit of the new rules 
governing this chamber, a Congressional pension can be stripped when a 
Member violates the new postemployment restriction statutes. 
Furthermore, any member who commits perjury or subornation of perjury 
in denying their involvement in any of these offenses can also lose 
their pension under this legislation.
  We must make sure that those who violate the public trust and their 
office are not allowed to profit at the tax-payers expense. I proudly 
rise in support of this measure and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 476, the ``Congressional Pension Accountability Act,'' which 
amends title 5 of the U.S. Code to make non-creditable for Federal 
retirement purposes any Member service performed by an individual who 
is convicted of any of certain offenses committed by that individual 
while serving as a Member of Congress. With the adoption of this 
legislation, we take another giant step in fulfilling the pledge we 
made to America last November to ``drain the swamp'' and end the 
``culture of corruption'' that pervaded the 109th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, today, this House will consider another critical 
component of ethics reform: congressional pension forfeiture. The bill 
introduced today is similar to the House bill introduced by my 
colleague Representative Boyda on January 17, 2007--with two minor 
changes in response to Senate concerns.
  First, subornation of perjury is added as a disqualifying offense. 
The second change, which extends the effective date of the legislation 
until January 2009, is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the 
27th Amendment. That amendment requires that any law relating to the 
compensation of a Representative or Senator may not take effect until 
there has been an intervening congressional election.
  With these specific changes, the bill:
  Requires that Members convicted of certain Federal felonies related 
to the performance of their official duties forfeit their congressional 
pension rights under the Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal 
Employees Retirement System if the conduct constituting the

[[Page H815]]

felony takes place after enactment and while the Member is in Congress 
and a conviction occurs after January 2, 2009; and
  Applies to bribery of public officials and witnesses; wrongfully 
acting as agents of foreign principals; conspiracy to commit one of the 
offenses listed above; conspiracy to violate the post-employment 
prohibitions; and perjury and subornation of perjury in falsely denying 
committing one of these crimes.
  While I believe it is important to punish those Members who violate 
the law, and in turn the public's trust, I am very pleased that this 
bill, through the Director of Office Personnel Management (OPM), 
provides protection for family members of those Members whose conduct 
warrants forfeiture of their pensions.
  The intent of the bill is not to harm the family members of Members 
who are convicted of certain serious crimes. That is why the bill 
permits the Director of Office of Personnel Management, if it is 
determined to be necessary under the totality of the circumstances, to 
provide benefits to the Member's spouse and children, in which case the 
lump sum payment due the Member based on his or her own contributions 
would be reduced by an appropriate amount.
  While avoiding harm to family members of the convicted Members, this 
critical measure to deny pension benefits to House Members convicted of 
corruption is another step towards comprehensive ethics reform. We 
promised the American people that we would restore a sense of respect 
and dignity to the House of Representatives. This measure is a 
meaningful first step towards restoring public trust in Congress and 
ensuring that taxpayers do not fund the pensions of Members convicted 
of corruption while serving the American people. While we seek to do 
the right thing by punishing perpetrators of serious illegal conduct, 
we also seek to deter Members from such behavior and to assure the 
American people that we serve at their behest and in their interest, 
not our own.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 476 is necessary because under current law a 
Federal elected official found to have betrayed the public trust is 
eligible to receive taxpayer-funded pensions for their service in 
Congress--even if they are convicted of serious abuses of power. The 
American people do not want us to reward those Members who have 
dishonored and disrespected both the law and the public's trust.
  By passing this bill, this Congress is sending a message to the 
American people that we heard their voices loud and clear in November 
2006 that we must win back their trust and act in the best interest of 
the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 476 to clean up the American 
people's House and win back public trust.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
disappointment with the majority's efforts today to attempt to restore 
the public trust in government.
  The Nation's Capital has been hammered by corruption-related 
political scandals in recent years, and it is imperative that we take 
action to respond to these scandals. But H.R 476, the Congressional 
Pension Accountability Act, is little more than a trophy that the 
majority can hold up to claim they restored public trust in the 
Nation's Capital. In a nutshell, the legislation gives Members of 
Congress who are convicted of a public corruption related crime an 
additional slap on the wrist by preventing them from counting their 
time served as a Member of Congress toward their federal retirement.
  This stands in stark contrast to much stronger, bipartisan 
legislation that the Committee on Government Reform marked up last 
February to crack down on public officials convicted of betraying the 
public trust. The Federal Pension Forfeiture Act of 2006, approved by 
unanimous consent by the Committee last year, would have denied federal 
retirement benefits to any Member, congressional employee or political 
appointee in the Executive Branch convicted of a crime related to 
public corruption punishable by more than one year imprisonment for an 
act committed while the individual was employed by the federal 
government.
  Unlike H.R. 476, last year's proposal would have permanently denied a 
pension from an official convicted of a corruption-related crime rather 
than simply limiting time that counted toward the official's 
retirement. Additionally and most importantly, last year's proposal 
covered not only Members of Congress but also political appointees in 
the Executive Branch. After all, federal officials in both branches of 
government equally share the blame for the fact that the public no 
longer trusts public officials.
  It's unclear to me why the majority would want to only address half 
of the issue when we have an opportunity to address the issue in its 
entirety. Unfortunately this is the first opportunity I have had to 
raise this concern since the legislation was taken straight to the 
floor rather than receiving the benefit of committee consideration. 
Regardless of process, I fear that this legislation will do little if 
anything to restore any of the public's trust in the federal 
government.
  Therefore, it is with regret that I will vote in favor of this 
legislation, and I do so only because no other option has been 
presented to the House.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back whatever time that 
I have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McGovern). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) 
that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 476, as 
amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those voting have responded in the affirmative.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________