Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 19:08:27 -0400 Subject: Congress's Princely Pensions Congressional Reform Briefings 8/10/94 [To subscribe to Congressional Reform Briefings send to listproc@essential.org the message: subscribe cong-reform your name] ISSUE OVERVIEW: Members of Congress have voted themselves excessive pensions. Following are the expected initial and lifetime benefits of some retiring members of Congress, according to the National Taxpayers Union. Rep. Hamilton Fish (R-NY) expected initial benefit: $100,266 expected lifetime benefit: $2,210,410 Rep. Don Edwards (D-CA) expected initial benefit: $99,573 expected lifetime benefit: $1,053,759 Rep. William Ford (D-MI) expected initial benefit: $106,951 expected lifetime benefit: $2,507,975 Rep. Bob Michel (R-IL) expected initial benefit: $110,538 expected lifetime benefit: $2,014,456 Rep. Al Swift (D-WA) expected initial benefit: $64,942 expected lifetime benefit: $2,419,041 The average retired worker's Social Security benefit is $8,088 per year in 1994. Members of Congress should not bestow upon themselves such generous pensions while the public debt continues to skyrocket past $4.6 trillion. This is not leadership by example -- it is leadership by hypocrisy. Serving in Congress has become a highly paid career with luxurious perks and opulent pensions, rather than a civic duty to be briefly and effectively rendered. Members of Congress solicit job security from wealthy special interests who can finance campaigns and defeat opponents, while the needs of voters soon are replaced by the wants of corporate lobbies. Representative Howard Coble is sponsoring legislation (H. R. 1524) that would eliminate congressional pensions for members of Congress whose pensions have not yet vested. We suggest that citizens: 1. Call, write, or fax their representatives asking them to co- sponsor H.R. 1524. (the congressional switchboard phone number is 800-768-2221) 2. Call, write, fax, or e-mail their senators to introduce companion legislation to H.R. 1524. (You can send e-mail to your senator by sending a message addressed to senator_@.senate.gov -- for example, Senator Mitchell's address is senator_mitchell@mitchell.senate.gov Following is an article by Jack Anderson and Michael Binstein concerning congressional pensions, and the text of H.R. 1524. Congress's Princely Pensions The splendor of the members-only Senate dining room, with its large chandelier, stained-glass window depicting George Washington and mosaic of Abraham Lincoln, is a surreal setting for igniting a revolt against the congressional pension system. Yet that's the scene that played out when Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) recently handed Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) a document most politicians would guard as a state secret. "Take a look at this," Simpson said. "Here's our conundrum." Kerrey scanned the document, which detailed Simpson's contributions to the congressional pension plan vs. his rate of return in retirement. Both men were shocked. Congressional pensions are such a bonanza that if Simpson retired in 1996 he would be pocketing $66,240 a year, even though he's plowed only about $170,000 into the plan. In three retirement years Simpson would reap more benefits than he paid into the system over 18 years. If Simpson reached his life expectancy, he would collect at least $1.7 million. The "conundrum" for Simpson is the fact that as members of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, he and Kerrey are preaching sacrifice to older people while congressional pensions are galloping out of control. Why not start means-testing on Capitol Hill, where there are 28 millionaires in the Senate and 50 in the House? The two most notorious members of the Keating Five, Sens. Donald Riegle (D-Mich.) and Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.)) are leaving town with golden parachutes. Riegle could rake in some $3.6 million in lifetime benefits, while DeConcini, whose net worth is well over $13 million, stands to collect about $2.4 million in retirement. Scandal also helped drive David Durenberger (R-Minn.) out of the Senate, but he will collect an estimated $2 million in retirement. Sen John Danforth (R-Mo.), whose net worth exceeds $16 million, is slated to collect a $2.1 million pension. "If this is the moment of truth for the American people, it's the moment of truth for all of us," Simpson told our associate Ed Henry. Simpson and Kerrey comprehend something few of their colleagues will find appetizing: congressional entitlements must also be on the cutting block. "You're not going to get people to follow unless we lead," Kerrey, the commission's chairman, told us. "And it's not leadership if we ask everybody else to pony up and we don't." Kerrey remembers, however, that when he introduced a spending cuts amendment earlier this year, he failed to persuade his colleagues to bite the bullet. "We had a pay cut and a pension cut in the amendment and we got a lot of resistance to it," said Kerrey. Simpson's interest was sparked back home. "I knew when I began talking about pensions and entitlements that you have to start talking about your own," he said. "Some guy jumped up at a town hall meeting and said, "What the hell do you get?" Simpson promptly telephoned the secretary of the Senate's office and asked for a projection of his pension. He was "bemused" when the results arrived: "I mean here we are talking about these other (entitlements) and I said, 'What really is curious is to see what each of us will receive under civil service and then realize that everyone else on civil service receives this same kind of heavy, heavy contribution after retirement.'" Shortly after the Simpson-Kerrey pow-wow, however, both men blinked when confronted with an entitlement vote. The Senate voted to accelerate $376 million worth of cost-of-living increases for military retirees despite budget provisions that require Congress to finance such an increase through tax hikes or spending cuts. Gadfly Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.) is one of the few members of Congress willing to rattle the gilded cage. Coble has introduced a bill to reform the congressional plan, but only four colleagues have cosponsored it. "My daddy worked in a store back home for 46 years, and I know what his pension looks like," says Coble. "And then I see these guys up here work for five years and then make far more in their pensions than when they were working full-time." ############################# 103D CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. 1524 To make Members of Congress ineligible to participate in the Federal Employees' Retirement System. ======================= IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 30, 1993 Mr. COBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service ======================= A BILL To make Members of Congress ineligible to participate in the Federal Employees' Retirement System. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. INELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN FERS. (a) IN GENERAL.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, effective as of the date of the enactment of this Act, a Member of Congress shall be ineligible to participate in the Federal Employees' Retirement System. (b) EXCEPTION.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any individual who, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, satisfies the requirements of section 8410 of title 5, United States Code, for being considered eligible for an annuity under subchapter II of chapter 84 of such title. (c) REFUNDS OF CONTRIBUTIONS.-- (1) IN GENERAL.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall prevent appropriate refunds from being made, in accordance with applicable provisions of law, on account of an individual's becoming ineligible to participate in the Federal Employees' Retirement System as a result of the enactment of this Act. (2) SPECIAL RULE.--For purposes of making any refunds in accordance with paragraph (1), a Member who becomes ineligible to participate in the Federal Employees' Retirement System as a result of the enactment of this Act shall be treated in the same way as if separated from service. (d) ANNUITANTS NOT AFFECTED.--Subsection (a) shall not be considered to apply with respect to-- (1) any former Member of Congress who, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, is entitled (or would on proper application be entitled) to an annuity computed, in whole or in part, by reference to section 8415 of title 5, United States Code; or (2) any individual who, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, is entitled (or would on proper application be entitled) to an annuity as a survivor of a former Member of Congress. SEC. 2. DEFINITION. For purposes of this Act, the terms "Member of Congress" and "Member" have the same meaning as the term "Member" under section 8401(20) of title 5, United States Code. ########################## The Congressional Accountability Project is a part of Public Citizen, founded by Ralph Nader. For more information about congressional reform issues, including cutting congressional pensions, pay and perks, campaign finance reform, congressional gift reform, term limits, congressional ethics reforms, strengthening the Federal Elections Commission, and prohibiting the personal use of campaign funds, call (202) 296-2787 or send e-mail to gary@essential.org. [To subscribe to Congressional Reform Briefings send to listproc@essential.org the message: subscribe cong-reform your name] PLEASE POST THIS MESSAGE ON ALL APPROPRIATE NEWSGROUPS, LISTS, AND BULLETIN BOARDS. Gary Ruskin Congressional Accountability Project | Internet: gary@essential.org