[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.
____________________