Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012--Continued

Floor Speech

Mr. DURBIN. Pending before the Senate is the STOCK Act, and the purpose is one that I support. It is a bill I cosponsored.

The notion behind it is that Members of Congress should not use their public service or information gained in their public service for private benefit. It basically outlaws the type of insider trading and conflict of interest that should be a standard and will be a standard after this is enacted into law.

Amendments have been proposed to this measure, and there is one in particular I heard about earlier and asked for a copy of. This is an amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul. It is an amendment which talks about Members of Congress forfeiting their Federal retirement benefits and the conditions under which they would forfeit their Federal retirement benefits. Understand that these are Members of Congress who have completed enough service in the Congress to qualify for a pension. It is my understanding that is about 6 years. So at a minimum of 6 years of service, Members of Congress receive some pension benefit. Certainly those benefits increase the longer they serve.

This bill would disqualify them from pensions they have been credited and earned as Members of Congress under three conditions:

First, should they decide after they have served in Congress to serve as a registered lobbyist. That in and of itself is breathtaking. To think that if a person should decide after service in Congress to become a registered lobbyist--with or without compensation I might add, for perhaps a nonprofit organization--they would forfeit their Federal pension. That in and of itself is unacceptable and inexplicable, but then it gets worse.

This amendment goes on to say that a Member of Congress, retired, forfeits his Federal pension if he accepts any kind of remuneration, which could be a salary, a consulting fee, even an honorarium for giving a speech, from any company or other private entity that employs a registered lobbyist.

Think about that for a second. If a retired Member of Congress in Illinois should give a speech to a gathering of the management of Caterpillar Tractor Company in Peoria about their experience in Congress and their views on issues in Washington, give a speech and receive any compensation for giving that speech, they would forfeit their Federal pension because Caterpillar has a paid lobbyist in Washington.

Then it gets worse. The third provision says that a retired Member of Congress would forfeit their pension if they accept that remuneration from any company or private entity that does business with the Federal Government. Is using the mail service doing business with the Federal Government? Would most businesses in America, therefore, be doing business with the Federal Government because they use the mail service? If so, if I take compensation from that company, I forfeited my Federal pension?

What is the purpose of this, other than just to basically harass Members of Congress in their retirement?

There are certainly situations where a person could forfeit their pension based on misconduct, for example, or convictions for crime. That is understandable. But this has gone way too far. I hope Members of the Senate will read this amendment--it is very brief, two pages long--and in reading it realize this is something that should not be offered and if offered should be defeated. It does nothing to make this a better place to serve. It raises serious questions about the rights of individuals who have served the Nation in Congress and what they are going to do after they leave the service of the United States.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky and I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source