Congressional Pension Accountability Act

Mr. President, last Congress I introduced a rules change proposal to allow points of order to be raised against unauthorized appropriations and policy riders in appropriations bills and conference reports in an effort to reign in wasteful pork barrel spending. Today I am introducing a modified version of that proposal. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort today by Senators Feingold, Coburn, Bayh, Sununu, Graham, Ensign, DeMint, and Kyl.

According to data compiled by the Congressional Research Service, in 1994, there were 4,126 Congressional earmarks added to the annual appropriations bills. In 2005, there were 15,877 earmarks, the largest number yet, that's an increase of nearly 300 percent! The level of funding associated with those earmarks has more than doubled from $23.2 billion in fiscal year 1994 to $47.4 billion in fiscal year 2005.

Our bill, entitled the Pork-Barrel Reduction Act, would establish a new procedure under Rule XVI, modeled in part after the Byrd Rule, which would allow a 60-vote point of order to be raised against specific provisions that contain unauthorized appropriations, including earmarks, as well as unauthorized policy changes in appropriations bills and conference reports. Of importance is that successful points of order would not kill a conference report, but the targeted provisions would be deemed removed from the conference report, and the measure would be sent back for concurrence by the House.

To ensure that Members are given enough time to review appropriations bills, our proposal would also require that conference reports be available at least 48 hours prior to floor consideration. It also prohibits the consideration of a conference report if it includes matter outside the scope of conference.

Additionally, our bill includes the provisions of S. 1495, the Obligation of Funds Transparency Act, which Senator Corburn and I introduced last July, to prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds for appropriations earmarks included only in congressional reports, which are unamendable.

To promote transparency, our bill requires that any earmarks included in a bill be disclosed fully in the bill's accompanying report, along with the name of the Member who requested the earmark and its essential governmental purpose. Additionally, our bill would require recipients of Federal dollars to disclose any amounts that the recipient expends on registered lobbyists.

In summary, this proposed rules change, if adopted, would allow any member to raise a point of order in an effort to extract objectionable unauthorized provisions from the appropriations process. Our goal is to reform the current system by empowering all members with a tool to rid appropriations bills of unauthorized funds, pork barrel projects, and legislative policy riders and to provide greater public disclosure of the legislative process.

I would like to highlight just a few examples of recent earmarks, many of which clearly do not belong in the measures that they were included:

From the Defense Conference Report for FY 2006: $500,000 to teach science to grade-school students in Pennsylvania. $900,000 for ``Memorial Day'' out of the Army Operations and Maintenance account. $4.4 million for a Technology Center in Missouri. $1 million to a Civil War Center in Richmond, Virginia. $850,000 for an education center and public park in Des Moines, Iowa. $2 million for a public park in San Francisco. $500,000 for the Arctic Winter Games, an international athletic competition held this year in Alaska. $1.5 million for an aviation museum in Seattle, $1.35 million for an aviation museum in Hawaii, $1 million for a museum in Pennsylvania, and $3 million for the museum at Fort Belvoir. There's also $1.5 million for restoring the Battleship Texas. Funding for farm conservation. A provision protecting jobs in Hawaii and Alaska. A provision transferring as a direct lump sum payment to the University of Alaska the unobligated and unexpended balances appropriated to the United States-Canada Railroad Commission. And, of course, the ANWR provisions.

From the FY06 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill Conference Report Statement of Managers: $500,000 for the Burpee Museum of Natural History in Illinois. $500,000 for Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation research. $600,000 to study fish passage in Mud Mountain, Washington. $3 million to study the beneficial uses of dredged material for Morehead City, North Carolina. $1.25 million for the Sacred Falls demonstration project in Hawaii. $2 million for the Desert Research Institute, Nevada. $3.5 million for the Iroquois Bio-Energy Consortium Ethanol Project, Indiana. $500,000 for the Washington State Ferries Biodiesel Demonstration Project, WA. $1 million for the Canola-based Automotive Oil R&D, PA. $1 million for the Mt. Wachusett Community College Wind Project, MA. $7 million for the Arctic Energy Office, Alaska.

These Energy and Water projects that I just mentioned are just a few examples of report language earmarks, none of which are subject to an amendment to strike.

From the FY 2002 and 2003 Defense Appropriations Conference Reports: During conference negotiations on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002, unprecedented language was inserted into the final bill to allow the U.S. Air Force to lease 100 Boeing 767 commercial aircraft and convert them to tankers. The total cost to taxpayers, about $30 billion.

However, Congress did not authorize these provisions in the Act, or in any other bill for that matter. In fact, the Senate Armed Services Committee was not even advised of this effort by the Air Force Secretary during consideration of the authorization measure. Moreover, these aircraft were not in the President's budget, the joint chiefs' unfunded priority list, or the pentagon's long range defense budget. Additionally, the purportedly compelling need for these aircraft (which the air force repeatedly cited for having taxpayers pay $6 billion more for leasing these tankers than they would if the air force simply bought them outright) was, and continues to be, wholly unsupported by any serious study or analysis of alternatives.

Nonetheless, legislative language was again included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to modify the previous year's bill language on the Boeing 767 tankers. And, once again, the sweeping changes in procurement policy was made by the Appropriators without the input of the authorizing committee.

Ultimately, it was discovered that the Air Force broke a number of Federal budgetary and leasing rules; that the lease terms were fiscally irresponsible; that this deal would have set a horrible precedent for the procurement of major defense systems; and that folks at the Air Force conspired with Boeing to break the law to make this deal happen in the first instance. Mr. President, with some people, as a result, not only losing their jobs, but also serving time in jail, I think all of my colleagues know what an egregious mistake this turned out to be.

From Supplemental for War on Terror Conference Report (April 2005): A provision directing the Secretary of the Interior to analyze the viability of a sanctuary for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow in Rio Grande Valley, TX.

A provision stating that the $40 million set forth in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 for construction of a Port of Philadelphia marine cargo terminal ``be used solely for the construction by and for a Philadelphia-based company.''

From the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report: The conference report contained provisions which allow a subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned ``Norwegian Cruise Lines'' the exclusive right to operate several large foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic cruise trade. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to a foreign company at the expense of all other cruise ship operators, and creates a de facto monopoly for Norwegian Cruise Lines in the Hawaii cruise trade. Interestingly, this provision stems from another earmark in 1998 that went awry.

The fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense Appropriation Bill granted a legal monopoly for American Classic Voyages to operate as the only U.S. flagged operator among the Hawaiian islands. After receiving the monopoly, American Classic Voyages secured a $1.1 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Maritime Administration's, MARAD, Title XI loan guarantee program for the construction of two passenger vessels known as Project America. Project America's subsequent failure 4 years later resulted in the U.S. Maritime Administration paying out over $187.3 million of the American taxpayers' money to cover the project's loan default, and recovering only $2 million from the sale of some of the construction materials and parts. It is one hull and miscellaneous parts from these never-completed ships which cost the taxpayers nearly $200 million which are now going to be used in a foreign shipyard for building the Norwegian Cruise ships that will operate in Hawaii under this latest special interest provision.

The conference report included an agriculture policy change to make catfish producers eligible for payments under the livestock compensation program, even though hog, poultry, and horse producers are not eligible.

Despite the fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had implemented new organic food standards after lengthy negotiations, language was added to the conference report to permit livestock producers to certify and label meat products as ``organic'' even if the animals had not been fed organic grain. Without any consideration or debate, this last-minute rider was added to override these standards. Interestingly, a few months later, the Congress approved legislation as part of the War supplemental to repeal this provision and restore the prior organic food labeling standards.

Obviously, I could go on and on and on citing examples of unauthorized earmarks and policy riders in appropriations bills. But I think you've got the picture. And I hope that we have finally reached the point that we are going to do something to reform this very broken system of legislating.

Our current economic situation and our vital national security concerns require that now, more than ever, we prioritize our Federal spending. But our appropriations bills do not always put our national priorities first. The process is broken and it needs to be fixed.

In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower reflected on the spending he believed to be excessive. His words then are all the more powerful in today's out of control environment: ``As we peer into society's future,'' he said, ``we--you and I, and our government--must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.''

And yet, if we cannot change, if we will not change, we risk precisely that--becoming the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. I wonder what President Eisenhower would think of this mess. But, then, perhaps others have contemplated the same question. After all, the Defense Appropriations bill we passed in December included a $1.7 million earmark for a memorial on the National Mall that would honor none other than * * * Dwight D. Eisenhower.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Health Care COBRA OffSet Tax Savings (COSTS) Act of 2006. This important legislation is a step forward in helping working families afford quality health care in this country.

Rewarding work is one of the most fundamental core values of our Nation. Our founding fathers built a society on the notion that if you work hard, you will have an opportunity to provide a better future for your children and thus build a stronger, more competitive nation. And, as we've seen throughout our Nation's history, America's workers have not disappointed.

Unfortunately, too many Americans are working hard every day, but are still unable to make ends meet and provide even the most basic needs for their family, such as food, shelter, or health care. The legislation I'm introducing will help address one of these important challenges: affordable, quality health care for working families.

The statistics are undeniable--almost 46 million Americans have no health insurance and more than 1 million of the uninsured are in my home state of New Jersey. But that's just the beginning of the problem. Even families who are fortunate enough to have health insurance, are struggling to pay the premiums, which in New Jersey, have increased at four times the rate of earnings. Since 2000, the employee share of health care premiums in New Jersey increased almost 43 percent or almost $400 a year. When family earnings increase by only 10 percent over the same period, it becomes clear just how challenging it is for our hard working families to get by.

The Health Care COSTS Act does not address the entire problem, but it will help some workers afford to keep their health insurance when they're between jobs. Currently, many workers who receive health coverage through their employer are entitled to keep that coverage for up to 18 months after they leave their jobs. This coverage is known as COBRA coverage. However, many don't take advantage of COBRA coverage because it's simply too expensive. The employee, who has just lost their job, has to pay the full cost of the coverage, making it prohibitively expensive for most families.

The Health Care COSTS Act helps moderate-income families with the cost of COBRA by providing an ``advanceable'' tax credit for half the cost of these health care premiums. The tax credit would go directly to the health plan administrator, thus reducing the workers' monthly premiums by half. This is not a handout, but a helping hand for workers who have contributed to the economic well-being of their community and have earned the opportunity to care for their family while they get back on their feet and find another job.

Clearly, there is much more to do in addressing the health care crisis in this country, but this is an important first step in helping working families afford health care coverage during one of the most difficult and vulnerable times a family might face. I hope this legislation will be a starting point for discussion of the significant challenges families face in affording quality health care in this country.

Mr. President, along with Senator Salazar, I am introducing the Congressional Pension Accountability Act, to deny Federal pensions to members of Congress who are convicted of white collar crimes such as bribery.

I strongly believe that Members of Congress must be held to the highest ethical standards. This year, the Senate is expected to consider legislation to reform our ethics laws. This is in response to a series of scandals that have exposed Washington lobbyists and unfortunately even a Member of Congress who used undue and improper influence to represent special interests in their dealings with the Federal Government.

Last year, the now infamous Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion charges in a plea agreement. The Justice Department is currently investigating his attempts to influence Federal Government policy in both Congress and the Executive Branch.

In the largest bribery case in the Congress since the 1980s, Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham recently resigned from the House of Representatives after pleading guilty in Federal court to receiving $2.4 million in bribes from military contractors and evading more than $1 million in taxes. In a plea agreement, former Representative Cunningham admitted to a pattern of bribery lasting close to five years, with Federal contractors giving him Persian rugs, a Rolls-Royce, antique furniture, paying travel and hotel expenses, use of a yacht and a lavish graduation party for his daughter.

As elected representatives, we must hold ourselves and all those who represent the Federal Government to the highest ethical standards. The principle is a simple one: public servants who abuse the public trust and are convicted of ethics crimes should not collect taxpayer financed pensions.

Under current law, former Representative Cunningham and others convicted of serious ethics abuses will receive a Congressional pension of approximately $40,000 per year--paid for by American taxpayers. Only a conviction for a crime against the United States, such as treason or espionage, will cost a Member of Congress their pension. This law must be changed to ensure that Congress does not reward unethical behavior.

The Congressional Pension Accountability Act will bar Members of Congress from receiving taxpayer-funded retirement benefits after they have been convicted of bribery or other serious ethics offenses.

Together we can significantly improve our government by changing the way business is done in Washington. I believe this legislation will help ensure that our government once again responds to the needs of our people, not special interests.

Mr. President, along with Senator Salazar, I am introducing the Congressional Pension Accountability Act, to deny Federal pensions to members of Congress who are convicted of white collar crimes such as bribery.

I strongly believe that Members of Congress must be held to the highest ethical standards. This year, the Senate is expected to consider legislation to reform our ethics laws. This is in response to a series of scandals that have exposed Washington lobbyists and unfortunately even a Member of Congress who used undue and improper influence to represent special interests in their dealings with the Federal Government.

Last year, the now infamous Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion charges in a plea agreement. The Justice Department is currently investigating his attempts to influence Federal Government policy in both Congress and the Executive Branch.

In the largest bribery case in the Congress since the 1980s, Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham recently resigned from the House of Representatives after pleading guilty in Federal court to receiving $2.4 million in bribes from military contractors and evading more than $1 million in taxes. In a plea agreement, former Representative Cunningham admitted to a pattern of bribery lasting close to five years, with Federal contractors giving him Persian rugs, a Rolls-Royce, antique furniture, paying travel and hotel expenses, use of a yacht and a lavish graduation party for his daughter.

As elected representatives, we must hold ourselves and all those who represent the Federal Government to the highest ethical standards. The principle is a simple one: public servants who abuse the public trust and are convicted of ethics crimes should not collect taxpayer financed pensions.

Under current law, former Representative Cunningham and others convicted of serious ethics abuses will receive a Congressional pension of approximately $40,000 per year--paid for by American taxpayers. Only a conviction for a crime against the United States, such as treason or espionage, will cost a Member of Congress their pension. This law must be changed to ensure that Congress does not reward unethical behavior.

The Congressional Pension Accountability Act will bar Members of Congress from receiving taxpayer-funded retirement benefits after they have been convicted of bribery or other serious ethics offenses.

Together we can significantly improve our government by changing the way business is done in Washington. I believe this legislation will help ensure that our government once again responds to the needs of our people, not special interests.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill which designates the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Tony Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse,'' be printed in the Record.