[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 192 (Thursday, December 17, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13385-S13393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 2895. A bill to restore forest landscapes, protect old growth 
forests, and manage national forests in the eastside forests of the 
State of Oregon, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce critical forest 
legislation for my home State of Oregon.
  For too many decades, Oregon has been at war with itself over the 
fate of one of our most abundant--and most threatened--resources, our 
forests.
  Nowhere has the negative impact of this battle been greater than in 
Oregon's eastside forests.
  Over-logging and disastrous fire suppression policies of the past 
gave way over time to excessive litigation and gridlock.
  With each passing month, our inability to take action, our inability 
to address the needs of Oregon's declining forests means that they are 
growing more at risk of preventable fire and disease.
  With each passing month and each attempted timber sale and threatened 
lawsuit, the relationship between the environmental community and the 
timber industry has grown increasingly bitter.
  Each side in these disputes has thoroughly armed itself politically 
enough to survive, but never enough to succeed.
  The end result is that today, across Oregon's Federal forest 
landscape, we have around 9.5 million acres of choked, at-risk forest 
in desperate need of management, and millions of acres of old growth, 
species habitat, and watersheds face an uncertain future.
  Unless something fundamental changes, that number and that peril will 
grow, not shrink, in coming years.
  Today, good and decent people on both sides of these difficult issues 
have come together with me to craft legislation that will bring peace, 
jobs, and a healthier tomorrow to 8.3 million acres of Federal forest 
in eastern and central Oregon.
  Today, for the first time in memory, timber executives are standing 
shoulder-to-shoulder with leaders of the Oregon environmental community 
to take shared responsibility for saving our endangered forests.
  These folks have been a part of negotiations with my office for over 
8 months, and have made difficult concessions in order to save our 
threatened Eastside forests.
  Today in eastern Oregon we are down to only a small handful of 
surviving mills. Without far greater certainty of supply and an 
immediate increase in merchantable timber, more mills will close.
  If that happens our Eastside forests will pay the price.
  Without mills to process saw logs and other merchantable material 
from forest restoration projects, there will be no restoration of our 
Eastside forests.
  The folks my office worked with to come to an agreement set aside 
their differences and found common ground that will prevent that from 
happening.
  The legislation that we are rolling out today, the Oregon Eastside 
Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009, will 
provide an immediate supply of logs in the short term to jump-start 
restoration efforts and keep our timber mills alive.
  Job One must be saving our remaining forest management infrastructure 
in central and eastern Oregon while preserving our old growth and 
watersheds.
  Over the long term--in 3 years from its passage to be precise--this 
legislation will also provide the long-term certainty required to 
restore each of the six Eastside national forests, protect our most 
sensitive environmental assets, and restore countless jobs to rural 
communities.
  I want to make clear that the road ahead is likely to see some 
challenges. Our coalition will be tested. But I have great faith that 
the decent people who helped to put this bill together will honor the 
components of this agreement and will fight to preserve its many 
elements as we move through the process.
  I also want to point out that none of our efforts will succeed unless 
Oregon Federal forests are also adequately funded to properly manage 
and restore these valuable Federal assets.
  Together, we have entered a partnership that goes beyond the four 
corners of this legislation. Together, as a team, we will fight for the 
funding to put our people back to work and restore the health of our 
forests.
  Together, we have demonstrated something that I think my colleagues 
here in the Senate will appreciate: working together on a difficult 
issue is not only possible, it yields far greater results than working 
apart.
  Later today, and tomorrow, I will be sitting down with key members of 
the Obama administration and the timber industry so that the 
administration can better understand the peril and opportunity in 
Oregon's Eastside forests. This is a united front that has not been 
witnessed by a White House since the onset of the timber wars.
  It is my hope we will learn to work together, we will develop real 
trust, and that we will use these new experiences to tackle the 
difficult issues that await us on the west side of the Cascades.
  I also want to single out a few individuals who have endured 
thousands, of hours of difficult work and negotiations to reach this 
point: John Shelk, president of Ochoco Lumber; Andy Kerr; the American 
Forest Resource Council, represented by Heath Heikkila and Tom Partin, 
who spearheaded negotiations.
  I also want to recognize others that joined me earlier today to 
rollout this legislation Tim Lillebo with Oregon Wild; Tom Insko with 
Boise Cascade;

[[Page S13386]]

Mary Scurlock, with Pacific Rivers Council; Randi Spivak, with the 
National Center for Conservation Science and Policy; Ben Bendick with 
the Nature Conservancy; and Bob Irvin with Defenders of Wildlife.
  I also want to recognize back in the State, their colleagues that 
could not join me earlier today; Rick Brown with Defenders of Wildlife, 
Joseph Vaile of Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Steve Pedry with 
Oregon Wild, and Michael Powelson with the Nature Conservancy, as well 
as the other members and mill owners of AFRC.
  I want to thank my staff, Michele Miranda, Mary Gautreaux, and Josh 
Kardon, who gave their nights and weekends to get us to this point.
  I am proud to introduce this legislation today, and I am going to 
keep working with all the folks in my State who are willing to talk in 
good faith about restoring our eastside forests.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Merkley):
  S. 2899. A bill to amend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
of 2009 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for 
the development of solar energy; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Renewable 
Energy Incentive Act of 2009, which is cosponsored by Senator Jeff 
Merkley.
  This act would extend, expand, and improve existing tax incentives 
and grant programs for renewable energy, especially for solar energy.
  Provisions of this act are widely supported by public power 
utilities, environmental groups, renewable energy companies, renewable 
energy industry associations, and labor unions.
  These include, for example: the American Public Power Association; 
the Solar Energy Industries Association; the Los Angeles Department of 
Water and Power; the Northern California Power Agency; the Southern 
California Public Power Agency; the Large Public Power Council, LPPC; 
solar companies including Brightsource, Solyndra, Tessera Solar, and 
Stirling Energy Systems and many others.
  First, the bill would allow renewable energy companies to claim 
grants from the Treasury department, in lieu of renewable energy tax 
credits, through 2012 instead of 2010.
  Second, it would permit public power utilities to claim these same 
Treasury Grants.
  Third, it expands the solar investment tax credit to include 
manufacturing equipment and solar water heaters for commercial and 
community pools.
  Finally, it establishes a new tax credit for solar companies who 
consolidate and develop disturbed private land instead of developing 
our more pristine public lands.
  The most significant provision in this bill would extend the Treasury 
Grants Program established in the stimulus by two years, allowing 
renewable energy developers to continue claiming these grants.
  Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
established ``payments in lieu of tax credits for specified energy 
property'' in order to support renewable energy development.
  The program allows renewable energy developers to take grants, or 
payments, from the Treasury department instead of claiming tax credits 
in order to help build projects that require a great deal of capital 
upfront.
  The provision has reduced the impact of the financial crisis on 
renewable energy development.
  Before the grants program was established, most renewable energy 
developers had to partner with profitable banks, or ``tax equity 
partners,'' in order to take advantage of renewable energy tax 
incentives.
  These big financial institutions would apply tax credits against 
their large profits, taking a cut for themselves along the way.
  But in 2008, when financial sector profits sank, the $8 billion ``tax 
equity'' market largely evaporated.
  Renewable energy development ground to a halt because developers 
could not find tax equity partners.
  Major players in the space, such as AIG and Lehman Brothers, 
disappeared. The banks that still had profits began demanding a much 
higher cut.
  That's when Congress stepped in.
  The stimulus created the Treasury Grants, which allow developers to 
claim their tax benefits directly, instead of partnering with 
profitable banks.
  The U.S. wind industry installed 1,649 megawatts of new capacity in 
the third quarter of this year alone, a boost from the previous two 
quarters and in excess of 2008 levels. Experts credit the Treasury 
grants program.
  Solar is also getting back on track. For instance, SunEdison used a 
Treasury grant in lieu of tax credits to accelerate construction of an 
18 megawatt photovoltaic array--one of the largest in the U.S.
  The firm's CEO told the press: ``That could not have been done 
without this program.''
  The Treasury program is also allowing renewable energy developers to 
attract significantly more debt backing for projects than would 
otherwise be possible, according to recent statements by the managing 
director of energy investments at J.P. Morgan Capital.
  But the grants program is set to expire in 2010, far before most 
utility scale solar projects will begin construction or financial 
analysts predict tax equity markets will recover.
  If the grant program is not extended, bank profits will again become 
the limiting factor on renewable energy development in the U.S., and 
that makes no sense.
  That is why I propose to extend the program two years.
  This legislation would also level the playing field between public 
power and for-profit companies by allowing public power utilities to 
receive Treasury Grants for renewable energy projects.
  Public power utilities serve 45 million American consumers, but they 
are currently prohibited from receiving grants for their renewable 
energy development.
  The basis for this prohibition is that public power utilities are tax 
exempt, non-profit corporations owned by local governments, who 
therefore have not been able to claim tax credits directly on their 
income tax returns.
  But excluding public power from the grants program does not make 
sense.
  Congress created the Treasury grants program specifically to assist 
firms that lacked the ability to claim the full benefits of renewable 
energy tax incentives.
  If we are going to allow for-profit companies to claim these direct 
grants, why would we exclude our non-profit public power utilities?
  So leveling the playing field for public power is fair.
  This provision is also necessary to protect our local community 
utility companies who want to deploy renewable energy.
  The federal grants make building renewable energy projects cost 
effective for rate payers.
  Because public power utilities lack access to these grants, they are 
now frequently establishing complex financial arrangements with private 
developers in order to build renewable energy projects that qualify for 
federal help.
  This is in direct conflict with public power's historic, proven 
business model as a vertically integrated, non-profit.
  It requires our cities and towns to negotiate unnecessarily complex 
deals with Wall Street.
  Let me give you an example.
  Turlock Irrigation District, TID, a public power utility in my state, 
decided to build a 137 megawatt wind farm in 2007.
  They wanted to build and own.
  But to make it cost effective, Turlock signed a contract to buy the 
power, but a tax equity partner would ``own'' the project and receive 
the benefit of the federal production tax credit.
  The contract was extremely complex and costly, requiring the 
participation of an investment bank to find a tax equity partner, an 
equity group to be the tax equity partner, legal counsel for the equity 
group, experts to provide risk advice and engineering advice to the 
equity group; bond counsel to provide renewable asset specialists; an 
operator to run the plant for the equity group; and an asset manager, 
to advise the equity group on the performance of the operator.
  After 2 years and millions of dollars spent trying to finalize this 
deal,

[[Page S13387]]

Turlock learned that the supposedly profitable equity partner, American 
International Group, AIG, wasn't profitable at all.
  AIG backed out and the entire deal collapsed.
  After much analysis, Turlock Irrigation District decided to own and 
operate the wind farm, giving up on receiving any Federal support.
  Larry Weis, the General Manager, explained in a letter to me:

       The bottom line is that TID made a business decision to 
     forego working with a private developer to develop a project, 
     because the complexity of the deal and the dollars spent to 
     arrange it meant that much of the value of the tax credit 
     would go to the equity partners and not pass through to our 
     consumers. Given the facts and the absence of a comparable 
     incentive for consumer-owned utilities, TID made the best 
     choice it could under the circumstances, even though it means 
     our customers will pay more.

  This legislation is necessary to prevent other public power utilities 
from being forced to make this difficult, unnecessary choice.
  Public power utilities deserve access to renewable energy incentives 
comparable to those awarded to the private sector, and this legislation 
will assure that happens.
  This legislation also expands the solar investment tax credit to 
include manufacturing equipment and solar water heaters for commercial 
and community pools.
  The bill would allow equipment that makes solar panels to qualify for 
the 30 percent solar investment tax credit.
  Solar panel manufacturing is moving offshore, to Germany and Asia, 
where support is considerable.
  This financial incentive could jumpstart solar manufacturing in this 
country, and could lead to thousands of new jobs, such as those being 
created at Solyndra's new factory in Fremont, CA. Or those proposed by 
Applied Materials at their proposed facility near Los Angeles.
  The bill would allow commercial pool solar hot water heaters to 
qualify for the solar tax credit.
  Approximately 189,000 commercial pools nationwide--at hotels/motels, 
health clubs, and schools--use fossil fuel or electricity to heat an 
estimated 27 billion gallons of water.
  If the heating systems were replaced with solar hot water systems, 
there would be 1.23 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions 
avoided annually.
  That is the equivalent of taking 237,000 cars off the road.
  In California, which has 26 percent of all commercial pools in the 
U.S., this provision could significantly reduce pollution.
  Finally, the legislation would establish a new tax credit for the 
purchase, consolidation, and use of multiple, 100 acre or less blocks 
of high solarity, disturbed private lands for solar development.
  Solar developers have focused development proposals on pristine 
public land because it is very difficult, costly, and time intensive to 
consolidate large blocks of disturbed private land from many different 
owners.
  This tax credit will financially reward those firms that are willing 
to go through the trouble of land consolidation, thereby making the 
increased burden of private lands development more appealing.
  Over the last few years, the renewable energy industry has grown 
dramatically.
  Last year the U.S. added more new capacity to produce renewable 
electricity than it did to produce electricity from natural gas.
  A great deal of this growth can be attributed to our renewable energy 
tax policies.
  This legislation, I believe, would continue this growth into the 
future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mrs. McCaskill, and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 2901. A bill to improve the acquisition workforce through the 
establishment of an acquisition workforce fellows program, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, along with Senators McCaskill and 
Bennett, I rise to introduce two bills that would lay a strong 
foundation to improve the Federal acquisition system.
  The first bill, the Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 2009, 
would create a federal acquisition management fellows program to 
develop a new generation of acquisition leaders with government-wide 
perspective, skills, and experience.
  The second bill, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act of 
2009, would institute much-needed organizational clarity to enable the 
Federal Acquisition Institute, FAI, to fulfill its mission of 
facilitating career development and strategic human capital management 
for the federal acquisition workforce.
  The federal acquisition system is under tremendous stress. Between 
fiscal years 2000 and 2008, acquisition spending by the Federal 
Government expanded by 163 percent, from $205 billion to $539 billion. 
The rising costs of military operations, natural disasters, homeland 
security precautions, and other vital programs will drive those 
expenditures to even higher levels in the years ahead.
  This prodigious level of purchasing creates abundant opportunities 
for fraud, waste, and abuse. We have seen far too many outrageous 
failures in government contracting, such as unusable trailers for 
hurricane victims, shoddy construction of schools and clinics in 
Afghanistan, or the installation of showers in Iraq for our troops that 
pose electric-shock hazards. These and other failures demand strong 
steps to protect taxpayer dollars and deliver better acquisition 
outcomes.
  As a long-time advocate for stronger competition, accountability, and 
transparency in government contracting, I recognize and appreciate the 
steps the administration has taken recently to improve Federal 
contracting. Many of these initiatives originated from legislation I 
co-authored with Senator Lieberman during the last Congress.
  But no matter how many laws we pass or OMB guidance documents are 
issued, the effectiveness of our Federal acquisition system depends on 
a vital human component--the acquisition workforce.

  While contract spending has risen dramatically, the number of 
acquisition professionals who help plan, award, and oversee these 
contracts has been stagnant. With roughly half of the current 
acquisition workforce eligible to retire over the next decade, the 
difficulties of strengthening that workforce will become increasingly 
acute. A well-trained and well-resourced acquisition workforce is 
critical to keeping pace with increased Federal spending and much more 
complex procurements of services and goods.
  The two pieces of legislation I am introducing today would help to 
address these important long-term problems that we must solve to make 
our acquisition system healthy again.
  First, the Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 2009 would create 
a centrally-managed Government-wide Acquisition Management Fellows 
Program that combines both a Master's degree-level academic curriculum 
and on-the-job training in multiple federal agencies. By partnering 
with leading universities that have specialized government acquisition 
programs, the government can attract top-caliber students who are 
interested in pursuing both academic advancement and public service.
  Compared to the several existing agency-specific intern programs, 
this government-wide program would provide a unique and much-needed 
skill set that we currently do not have in sufficient number, that is, 
acquisition professionals with multi-agency and multi-disciplinary 
training who can understand and manage government-wide acquisition 
needs and perspectives.
  Considering that interagency acquisition now accounts for 
approximately 40 percent of the entire contract spending and that GAO 
has designated the management of interagency contracting a high-risk 
area since 2005, it is without question that we need to develop future 
acquisition leaders who can understand government-wide needs and 
perspectives.
  Specifically, the program would include the following: one academic 
year of full-time, on-campus training followed by 2 years of on-the-job 
and part-time training toward a Masters or equivalent graduate degree 
in related fields; and a curriculum that would include rotational 
assignments at three or more executive agencies covering, among other 
issues, acquisition planning, cost-estimating, formation and

[[Page S13388]]

post-award administration of ``high risk'' contract types, and 
interagency contracts.
  Upon graduation, participants will have completed all required non-
agency-specific training courses necessary for a basic contracting 
officer warrant.
  In addition, participants would be required to enter into a service 
commitment appropriate in length to ensure the Federal Government 
receives a proper return on its investment. The service commitment 
would be no less than one year for each year in the program, and would 
require reimbursement of funds for those who do not successfully 
complete the program or do not fulfill the minimum service 
requirements.

  It is also important to note that this program would be less 
expensive than its current alternative. Typically, existing agency 
career intern programs like those run by DHS or GSA hire interns at GS-
5, -7, or -9 level, which pays between $33,000 and $66,000, for 
Washington, DC area. These interns also receive benefits and free 
training during this internship period.
  The proposed program would not pay salaries during the training, but 
unlike the other programs, would award a graduate degree. Based on 
market research, this alternative money-saving arrangement would be 
able to attract top-notch candidates with both public and academic 
interests.
  Second, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act of 2009 
would strengthen the Federal Acquisition Institute, FAI, whose key 
responsibilities are to promote career development and strategic human 
capital management for the entire civilian acquisition workforce.
  In part due to the lack of organizational clarity and the 
disproportionate funding compared to its counterpart in the Department 
of Defense, the FAI has remained largely underutilized.
  The proposed legislation would establish a clear line of 
responsibility and accountability for the Institute by requiring that 
the Federal Acquisition Institute, through its Board of Directors, 
directly reports to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy; the 
director of FAI be appointed by the OFPP Administrator and report 
directly to the Associate Administrator for Acquisition Workforce at 
OFPP.
  All existing civilian agency training programs fall under the purview 
of FAI. This would ensure consistent training standards necessary to 
develop uniform core competencies; and the OFPP Administrator would be 
required to report annually to Congressional committees of jurisdiction 
projected budget needs and expense plans of FAI to fulfill its 
statutory mandate.
  With respect to its core government-wide functions, FAI would be 
required to provide and keep current government-wide training standards 
and certification requirements including--ensuring effective agency 
implementation of government-wide training and certification standards; 
analyzing the curriculum to ascertain if all certification competencies 
are covered or if adjustments are necessary; developing career path 
information for certified professionals to encourage retention in 
government positions; and coordinating with the Office of Personnel 
Management for human capital efforts.
  The administration has identified acquisition workforce development 
as a pillar for improving acquisition practices and contract 
performance. While I fully agree with this goal, we need specific and 
concrete action to solve this problem. It is also important to remember 
that it took the better part of two decades for the acquisition 
workforce to reach its current state and that it will likely take a 
similar amount of time to rebuild.
  My legislation would prompt the sustained effort necessary to rebuild 
the acquisition workforce. While this will take time and investment, I 
am confident this is a wise investment that will yield substantial 
returns. Just think about it, if our better-trained acquisition 
professionals can prevent one failed procurement, it can save the 
taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. If they can avoid overpaying 
one percent of our contract spending, it will save the taxpayer more 
than 5 billion each year. The numbers speak for themselves.
  The Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act and the Federal Acquisition 
Institute Improvement Act are critically needed and both enjoy 
bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues to support them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. 
        Gillibrand, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. 
        Harkin, and Mr. Schumer);
  S. 2904. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to require 
emergency contraception to be available at all military health care 
treatment facilities; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen 
Act, which I am introducing today with my friend and colleague, Senator 
Snowe, is a straightforward but vital piece of legislation. It would 
ensure that servicewomen in our military have reliable and timely 
access to emergency contraception when they need it.
  Emergency contraception, or Plan B as it is more commonly known under 
its brand name, is Food and Drug Administration-approved medication 
that prevents pregnancy. It is safe and, if taken shortly after 
pregnancy, highly effective. Since 2006, the FDA has approved it for 
over-the-counter sale. Currently, women 17 years old and older may 
purchase emergency contraception over the counter, while those younger 
require a prescription.
  Emergency contraception is widely available at pharmacies throughout 
the U.S.
  The problem this legislation is meant to address is that there's no 
guarantee that emergency contraception be available to our servicewomen 
in the military. The military health care system includes what is 
called a basic core formulary, which lists the medications that must be 
stocked at all Department of Defense medical facilities, including 
those overseas. Emergency contraception is not currently on the basic 
core formulary.
  Consequently, emergency contraception is not systematically and 
reliably available at all medical military facilities. It is allowed to 
be stocked at such facilities, so it is available in some places. In 
that regard, the bill that Senator Snowe and I are introducing today is 
not a dramatic departure from existing practice.
  But there is no guarantee that a servicewoman will have access to it. 
Immediate accessibility is especially important in the case of 
emergency contraception because it is only effective if taken within a 
short window of time. Once a pregnancy is established, it doesn't work.
  There is no good reason why servicewomen shouldn't have the same 
access to emergency contraception that civilians here in the U.S. have.
  That is just what this legislation would do. It would guarantee that 
all military health care treatment facilities stock emergency 
contraception by placing that medication on the basic core formulary.
  All servicewomen should be able to have access to emergency 
contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The fact that 
more than 2,900 sexual assaults were reported last year in the military 
only heightens the need to ensure emergency contraception is always 
available.
  This is legislation that has been endorsed by a wide range of 
organizations both in Minnesota and nationally.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this commonsense 
legislation. I thank Senator Snowe for joining me in introducing this 
bill, and I thank all my colleagues who have signed on as cosponsors.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a list of supporters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2904

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Compassionate Care for 
     Servicewomen Act''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO MAKE AVAILABLE EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION 
                   AT ALL MILITARY HEALTH CARE TREATMENT 
                   FACILITIES.

       Section 1074g(a) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

[[Page S13389]]

       ``(9)(A) Emergency contraception in drug form shall be 
     included on the basic core formulary of the uniform 
     formulary, notwithstanding any provision of law or regulation 
     requiring that only drugs ordered or prescribed by a 
     physician (or other authorized provider) may be included in 
     the uniform formulary. Emergency contraception in other than 
     drug form may also be included on the basic core formulary, 
     notwithstanding any such provision.
       ``(B) Nothing in subparagraph (A) may be construed to 
     require emergency contraception to be covered under the 
     pharmacy benefits program.
       ``(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (4), prior authorization 
     shall not be required for emergency contraception. Nothing in 
     the preceding sentence may be construed as waiving any 
     provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 301 et seq.) or any other provision of law 
     administered by the Food and Drug Administration, including 
     rules and orders of such Administration in effect at any time 
     under such Act or other provisions of law.
       ``(D) In this paragraph, the term `emergency contraception' 
     means a drug, drug regimen, or device that is--
       ``(i) approved by the Food and Drug Administration to 
     prevent pregnancy; and
       ``(ii) used postcoitally.''.
                                  ____


      Minnesota and National Organizations That Have Endorsed the 
                Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act


                               Minnesota

       NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota
       Minnesota Nurses Association
       Minnesota Medical Association
       Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota
       Minnesota Indian Women's Sexual Assault Coalition
       Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault
       Sexual Violence Center
       Minnesota National Organization for Women
       Pro Choice Resources
       Midwest Health Center for Women
       Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights


                                National

       NARAL Pro-Choice America
       SWAN: Servicewomen's Action Network
       National Council of Women's Organizations (NCWO)
       National Partnership for Women and Families
       Women's Research & Education Institute (WREI)
       American Association of University Women
       National Coalition against Domestic Violence
       American Civil Liberties Union
       American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
       American Association of University Women
       American Society for Reproductive Medicine
       Center for Reproductive Rights
       National Council of Jewish Women
       National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 
     (NFPRHA)
       National Organization for Women
       National Partnership for Women & Families
       Planned Parenthood Federation of America
       Population Connection
       Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
       Reproductive Health Technologies Project
       Speaking Out Against Rape (SOAR)
       National Women's Law Center
       National Research Center for Women and Families
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 2905. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the reduction in the deductible portion of expenses for business meals 
and entertainment; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to 
repeal the current 50 percent tax deduction for business meals and 
entertainment expenses, and to restore the tax deduction to 80 percent 
for all taxpayers. In 1986, the Congress reduced the allowable tax 
deduction for business meals and entertainment from 100 percent to 80 
percent. In 1993, the Congress again reduced the deduction to 50 
percent. Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood 
of small and independent businesses as well as the food service, 
travel, tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United 
States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of 
the 50 percent tax deduction.
  At a time when the nation is getting back on a stronger economic 
footing, the legislation is particularly critical especially for the 
small businesses and self-employed individuals that depend so heavily 
on the business meal to conduct business. Small companies often use 
restaurants as ``conference space'' to conduct meetings or close deals. 
Meals are their best, and sometimes only, marketing tool. Certainly, an 
increase in the meal and entertainment deduction would have a 
significant impact on a small businesses bottom line. In addition, the 
effects on the overall economy would be significant.
  Accompanying my statement is the National Restaurant Association's, 
NRA, State-by-State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of 
increasing the business meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80 
percent. The NRA estimates that an increase to 80 percent would 
increase business meal sales by $6 billion and create an $18 billion 
increase to the overall economy.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a State-by-State chart be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2905

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN BUSINESS MEALS AND 
                   ENTERTAINMENT TAX DEDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 274(n)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and 
     entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended by 
     striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``80 percent''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 274(n) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The heading for section 274(n) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``Only 50 Percent'' and inserting ``Portion''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.
                                  ____


                   ESTIMATED IMPACT OF INCREASING BUSINESS MEAL DEDUCTIBILITY FROM 50% TO 80%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Increase in
                                                           Business Meal      Total Economic    Total Employment
                         State                            Spending 50% to     Impact In the      Impact In the
                                                         80% Deductibility     State   (in      State (number of
                                                            (in millions)       millions)        jobs created)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................                $77               $155             $2,464
Alaska.................................................                 17                 29                401
Arizona................................................                118                235              3,125
Arkansas...............................................                 43                 87              1,451
California.............................................                767              1,797             20,868
Colorado...............................................                114                264              3,328
Connecticut............................................                 71                133              1,624
Delaware...............................................                 19                 35                402
District of Columbia...................................                 31                 43                254
Florida................................................                368                745              9,746
Georgia................................................                193                446              5,642
Hawaii.................................................                 44                 86              1,154
Idaho..................................................                 24                 47                799
Illinois...............................................                256                610              7,207
Indiana................................................                117                241              3,712
Iowa...................................................                 47                 95              1,544
Kansas.................................................                 46                 92              1,314
Kentucky...............................................                 78                158              2,266
Louisiana..............................................                 81                158              2,374
Maine..................................................                 24                 46                709
Maryland...............................................                113                235              2,750
Massachusetts..........................................                161                324              3,884
Michigan...............................................                171                341              5,272
Minnesota..............................................                105                240              3,270

[[Page S13390]]

 
Mississippi............................................                 41                 78              1,340
Missouri...............................................                115                256              3,512
Montana................................................                 20                 39                682
Nebraska...............................................                 31                 64              1,048
Nevada.................................................                 71                127              1,703
New Hampshire..........................................                 29                 53                653
New Jersey.............................................                170                367              4,139
New Mexico.............................................                 37                 66              1,079
New York...............................................                379                751              8,855
North Carolina.........................................                176                371              5,435
North Dakota...........................................                 11                 20                333
Ohio...................................................                217                466              6,978
Oklahoma...............................................                 60                127              2,016
Oregon.................................................                 82                169              2,274
Pennsylvania...........................................                212                478              6,311
Rhode Island...........................................                 24                 45                598
South Carolina.........................................                 87                179              2,689
South Dakota...........................................                 14                 27                458
Tennessee..............................................                121                272              3,531
Texas..................................................                477              1,164             14,109
Utah...................................................                 41                 92              1,375
Vermont................................................                 11                 19                288
Virginia...............................................                157                331              4,155
Washington.............................................                129                279              3,419
West Virginia..........................................                 28                 47                830
Wisconsin..............................................                100                210              3,399
Wyoming................................................                 10                 16                293
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: National Restaurant Association estimates, 2009.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S.J. Res. 23. A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by 
the Federal Election Commission with respect to travel on private 
aircraft by Federal candidates; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the very first bill debated on the floor 
of the Senate after the 2006 elections was S. 1, the Honest Leadership 
and Open Government Act of 2007, HLOGA. About 9 months later, President 
Bush signed that bill into law as Public Law Number 110-81. It was the 
most sweeping ethics reform legislation since Watergate, and it passed 
both houses of Congress by a wide margin--the final votes were 411-8 in 
the House and 83-14 in the Senate.
  The new law contained, among many other provisions, significant 
reforms to the lobbying disclosure laws, a tough new prohibition on 
gifts from lobbyists, improvements to the revolving door rules, and new 
restrictions on privately funded fact-finding trips. It also contained 
new rules on personal, official, and campaign travel on non-commercial 
aircraft, often known as ``corporate jets.'' Prior to HLOGA, members 
who flew on corporate jets, often accompanied by corporate lobbyists, 
were required to reimburse the owner of the aircraft only the amount 
that they would have paid to fly first class between the origin and 
destination of the flight. HLOGA provided that Senators and 
presidential candidates would have to reimburse such travel at the 
charter rate. House members were prohibited from flying on non-
commercial aircraft altogether.
  Because Senators travel in different capacities, HLOGA addressed the 
issue in separate sections. Section 544(c) of the bill amended the 
Senate Rules XXXV and XXXVIII to address official and personal travel 
by Senators. The House had already amended its rules at the very 
beginning of the year. Section 601 dealt with campaign travel for both 
House and Senate candidates by amending the Federal Election Campaign 
Act, ``FECA''.
  Both the House and the Senate have been living under these new rules 
for over two years. No House member has flown on a corporate jet, as 
far as we know. Senators, whether they were traveling in personal, 
official, or campaign capacity, and regardless of who was paying for 
the trip, have flown on them only if they were prepared to pay the 
charter rate for these trips. Presidential candidates in the last 
campaign abided by the new rules as well.
  Because HLOGA made amendments to the FECA on this issue, the FEC 
started a rulemaking shortly after its enactment to implement the new 
provision. But at the end of 2007, just as the agency was poised to put 
new regulations in place, the terms of several recess-appointed 
Commissioners expired. A stalemate ensued that left the agency without 
a quorum to do business until the summer of 2008. Once a full slate of 
Commissioners was in place, the agency deadlocked on issuing final 
regulations. The three new Republican commissioners refused to sign off 
on the rules that the Commission had been prepared to adopt in December 
2007. The deadlock was resolved only a few weeks ago, when a Democratic 
Commissioner reluctantly agreed to go along with modifications that the 
Republicans proposed. See Statement of Chairman Steven T. Walther, 
Campaign Travel Regulations, Nov. 19, 2009. The new rule was published 
in the Federal Register on December 7, 2009. Federal Election 
Commission, Notice 2009-27, Campaign Travel, 74 Fed. Reg. 63951, Dec. 
7, 2009.
  I will put this as simply as I can. The new FEC rule relating to 
travel on non-commercial aircraft is an outrage. Rather than respecting 
the intent of Congress in HLOGA to address all travel on corporate jets 
by members of Congress and presidential candidates, the FEC has carved 
a loophole in the statute for travel by candidates on behalf of someone 
other than their own campaigns. No one in the House or the Senate 
contemplated this exception when the bill was passed. No one discussed 
it. No one considered it. The FEC just made it up. Now we in Congress 
have no choice but to take action to correct it if the FEC refuses to 
do so.
  We cannot let a lawless agency undermine our effort to police 
ourselves, to end a practice that exposed Congress to public criticism 
and even ridicule. Some Senators and House members may have agreed to 
kick the corporate jet habit reluctantly, but they have learned to live 
with it. There is no need for the loophole the FEC has opened. It is 
contrary to the statutory language and to the legislative history. It 
must be closed.
  So today, I will introduce, along with my colleagues from Arizona, 
Connecticut, and New York, Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Schumer, all 
of whom played a key role in the enactment of HLOGA, a resolution of 
disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. This resolution, if 
passed by the House and signed by the President, will send the FEC back 
to the drawing board. After a rebuke of this kind, one can only hope 
that the Commission will craft a regulation that does not so completely 
ignore the letter and spirit of the provision we passed in HLOGA.
  Let me take a minute to explain what the FEC has done and what it 
must do to correct its error. The new regulation takes the position 
that the key fact in determining what rate must be paid for a corporate 
jet flight is not who is flying, but who is paying for the flight. The 
explanation and justification, ``E&J'', adopted by the commission 
states:

       [W]hen a presidential, vice-presidential, or Senate 
     candidate, or a representative of the candidate, is traveling 
     on behalf of another

[[Page S13391]]

     political committee (such as a political party committee or 
     Senate leadership PAC, rather than on behalf of the 
     candidate's own authorized committee, the reimbursement for 
     that travel is the responsibility of the political committee 
     on whose behalf the travel occurs. If the political committee 
     is other than an authorized committee or House candidate's 
     leadership PAC, then the appropriate reimbursement rate for 
     that political committee is set forth in new 11 CFR 
     100.93(c)(3), discussed below. In such cases, the 
     presidential, vice-presidential, or Senate candidate or 
     candidate's representative, is treated the same as any other 
     person traveling on behalf of the political committee.

  74 Fed. Reg. at 63955. That rate for such a trip, under an FEC 
regulation promulgated in 2003, is the first class rate unless 
regularly scheduled commercial air service is not available between the 
origin and the destination of the flight. The E&J also reiterates that 
leadership PACs of Senators and Presidential candidates can continue to 
pay the first class rate, even for the candidates themselves.
  In addition, although House leadership PACs are prohibited from 
taking advantage of this loophole, the E&J makes clear that House 
candidates can do so if they are traveling on behalf of a political 
party committee or a Senate or presidential candidate, even though they 
are otherwise completely prohibited from traveling on a corporate jet. 
The loophole seems to apply to House members even if they are traveling 
on behalf of a corporate PAC.
  In a recent article in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, FEC 
Commissioner Matthew Peterson attempted to explain the FEC's decision. 
He argues that the loophole is compelled by the statutory language, 
which is structured to prohibit an expenditure for any flight by a 
Senate candidate or the candidate's authorized committee unless the 
charter rate is paid for that flight. This interpretation ignores 
specific language in section 601 that requires payment of the charter 
rate by ``the candidate, the authorized committee, or other political 
committee'' and the lack of any language in the statute or the 
legislative history suggesting that Congress meant to leave open a way 
for Senators to travel on corporate jets without paying the charter 
rate.
  Moreover, it ignores the clear intent of the two provisions of HLOGA 
concerning travel on private aircraft--to prohibit all corporate jet 
flights by Senators unless the charter rate is paid. There are 
literally more than a dozen statements by supporters of the bill that 
make this intent clear. The FEC chose to ignore the clear purpose of 
the bill in favor of a strained interpretation of the statutory 
language that flies in the face of that purpose. That is unacceptable. 
The FEC's duty is to implement the statute as Congress intended it. Its 
job is to give guidance to candidates and others who want to follow the 
law, not to provide a roadmap for evading it.
  For the convenience of my colleagues, my staff has collected 
statements from the floor debate on HLOGA that show beyond any doubt 
that the corporate jet provisions were intended to apply to all travel 
on corporate jets by Senators without regard to who is reimbursing the 
jet owner. One Senator said the following:

       I understand that for many Members, these jets are an issue 
     of convenience. They allow us to get home to our 
     constituents, to our families, and to the events that are 
     often necessary for our jobs. But in November, the American 
     people told us very clearly they are tired of the influence 
     special interest wields over the legislative process. The 
     vast majority of Americans can't afford to buy cheap rides on 
     corporate jets. They don't get to sit with us on 3-hour 
     flights and talk about the heating bills they can't pay, or 
     the health care costs that keep rising, or the taxes they 
     can't afford, or their concerns about college tuition. They 
     can't buy our attention, and they shouldn't have to. And the 
     corporation lobbyists shouldn't be able to either. That is 
     why we need to end this corporate jet perk if we are to pass 
     real, meaningful ethics reform.

  Cong. Rec. at S263, Jan. 9, 2007. The speaker of those words, which 
make plain that the intent of the provision was to completely eliminate 
subsidized travel on corporate jets, was then-Senator Barack Obama. 
This strongly suggests that the President of the United States will 
sign the resolution of disapproval once we pass it.
  Notwithstanding my strong feelings about the part of the FEC rule I 
have just discussed, significant portions of the rule are 
unexceptional. The intent of this resolution of disapproval under the 
Congressional Review Act is solely to reverse the FEC's decision to 
open a loophole in the requirements for corporate jet travel by members 
of Congress and their staffs. So we do not intend to disable the FEC 
from putting out a new regulation, only from including a gaping 
loophole in it.
  I note this because the Congressional Review Act only allows Congress 
to disapprove, and therefore make ineffective, an entire regulation. It 
states that the agency may not promulgate a rule that is 
``substantially the same'' as the old one without new congressional 
authorization. I want to be clear that the loophole created by the 
FEC's recent rule is so significant that a rule that is otherwise 
identical to the entire campaign travel regulation, but that does not 
contain the loophole that this resolution is designed to disapprove, 
should not be considered to be ``substantially the same'' as the 
previous rule, even though other portions of that rule may be re-
promulgated unchanged.
  The Congressional Review Act has only once been successfully used to 
overturn an agency regulation. Thus, there is little experience to fall 
back on to determine the consequences for future agency action of a 
successful disapproval resolution. Morton Rosenberg, a long time 
analyst at the Congressional Research Service, includes the following 
useful analysis in his 2008 assessment of the CRA:

       A review of the CRA's statutory scheme and structure, the 
     contemporaneous congressional explanation of the legislative 
     intent with respect to the provisions in question, the 
     lessons learned from the experience of the March 2001 
     disapproval of the OSHA ergonomics rule, and the application 
     of pertinent case law and statutory construction principles 
     suggests that (1) It is doubtful that Congress intended that 
     all disapproved rules would require statutory reauthorization 
     before further agency action could take place. For example, 
     it appears that Congress anticipated further rulemaking, 
     without new authorization, where the statute in question 
     established a deadline for promulgating implementing rules in 
     a particular area. In such instances, the CRA extends the 
     deadline for promulgation for one year from the date of 
     disapproval. (2) A close reading of the statute, together 
     with its contemporaneous congressional explication, arguably 
     provides workable standards for agencies to reform 
     disapproved regulations that are likely to be taken into 
     account by reviewing courts. Those standards would require a 
     reviewing court to assess both the nature of the rulemaking 
     authority vested in the agency that promulgated the 
     disapproved rule and the specificity with which the Congress 
     identified the objectionable portions of a rule during the 
     floor debates on disapproval. An important factor in a 
     judicial assessment may be the CRA's recognition of the 
     continued efficacy of statutory deadlines for promulgating 
     specified rules by extending such deadlines for one year 
     after disapproval.

  Congressional Research Service, Congressional Review of Agency 
Rulemaking: An Update and Assessment of The Congressional Review Act 
after a Decade, RL30116, May 8, 2008, at 30. Rosenberg notes that the 
fact that Congress specifically provided in the CRA for a one year 
extension of any statutory deadline for a rule that has been overturned 
by the CRA shows that Congress did not intend to disable an agency from 
issuing regulations on the same topic. Indeed, a Joint Explanatory 
Statement by the principal sponsors of the CRA in the House and Senate 
states the following:

       The authors intend the debate on any resolution of 
     disapproval to focus on the law that authorized the rule and 
     make the congressional intent clear regarding the agency's 
     options or lack thereof after enactment of a joint resolution 
     of disapproval. It will be the agency's responsibility in the 
     first instance when promulgating the rule to determine the 
     range of discretion afforded under the original law and 
     whether the law authorizes the agency to issue a 
     substantially different rule. Then, the agency must give 
     effect to the resolution of disapproval.

  Joint Explanatory Statement of House and Senate Sponsors, 142 Cong. 
Rec. E 571, at E 577, daily ed. April 19, 1996; 142 Cong. Rec. S 3683, 
at S 3686 daily ed. April 18, 1996. It is the intent of this resolution 
of disapproval to invalidate the loophole that the FEC created in the 
E&J, but not to disable the FEC from issuing a new rule that properly 
implements Congress's intent in passing HLOGA.
  My displeasure with the actions of the FEC over the past 7 years is 
well known. The agency has repeatedly failed to properly implement 
provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, BCRA, leading to its 
regulations being overturned by the courts numerous times. Indeed, 
because of the

[[Page S13392]]

agency's dismal record in the courts, some important BCRA regulations 
are still not in place 7\1/2\ years after BCRA's enactment. But the 
FEC's recent action on corporate jets may be its worst yet. Congress 
passed HLOGA with wide bipartisan support and clear intent. Because of 
the FEC's failure to issue rules promptly, members of Congress have 
been living under the terms of the statute alone with no 
misunderstanding of what it means. And yet, over two years after its 
enactment, the FEC has now created an unnecessary and wholly 
unjustified loophole in the statute. Congress must act to correct this 
egregious mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a collection of 
quotations concerning corporate jet provisions of HLOGA be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Selected Statements Concerning Travel on Corporate Jets From 2007 
                            Debate on HLOGA

     Sen. Reid, 1/4/2007
       Another critical aspect requiring reform is the ability of 
     a Member to travel on a corporate jet and only pay the rate 
     of a first class plane ticket. This bill requires Senators 
     and their employees who use corporate or charter aircraft to 
     pay the fair market value for that travel. While I appreciate 
     that such a change is not popular with some of my colleagues, 
     the time has come to fundamentally change the way we do 
     things in this town. Much of the public views our ability to 
     travel on corporate jets, often accompanied by lobbyists, 
     while only reimbursing the first-class rate, as a huge 
     loophole in the current gift rules. And they are right--it 
     is. I have no doubt that the average American would love to 
     fly around the country on very comfortable corporate-owned 
     aircraft and only be charged the cost of a first-class 
     ticket. It is a pretty good deal we have got going here. We 
     need to face the fact that the time has come to end this 
     Congressional perk. [Cong. Rec. S186]
     Sen. Obama, 1/9/2007
       The second area in which we need to go further is corporate 
     jets. Myself and Senator Feingold introduced a comprehensive 
     ethics bill that, among other things, would close the 
     loopholes that allow for subsidized travel on corporate jets. 
     Today, I am very pleased to see the majority leader has 
     offered an amendment that would serve the same purpose. I 
     fully support him in his effort.
       Let me point out that I fully understand the appeal of 
     corporate jets. Like many of my colleagues, I traveled a good 
     deal recently from Illinois to Washington, from Chicago to 
     downstate, from fundraisers to political events for 
     candidates all across the country. I realize finding a 
     commercial flight that gets you home in time to tuck in the 
     kids at the end of a long day can be extremely difficult. 
     This is simply an unfortunate reality that goes along with 
     our jobs.
       Yet we have to realize these corporate jets don't simply 
     provide a welcome convenience for us; they provide undue 
     access for the lobbyists and corporations that offer them. 
     These companies don't just fly us around out of the goodness 
     of their hearts. Most of the time we have lobbyists riding 
     along with us so they can make their company's case for a 
     particular bill or a particular vote.
       It would be one thing if Congressmen and Senators paid the 
     full rate for these flights, but we don't. We get a 
     discount--a big discount. Right now a flight on a corporate 
     jet usually costs us the equivalent of a first-class ticket 
     on a commercial airplane. But if we paid the real price, the 
     full charter rate would cost us thousands upon thousands of 
     dollars more.
       In a recent USA Today story about use of corporate jets, it 
     was reported that over the course of 3 days in November 2005, 
     BellSouth's jet carried six Senators and their wives to 
     various Republican and Democratic fundraising events in 
     the Southeast. If they had paid the full charter rate, it 
     would have cost the Democratic and Republican campaign 
     committees more than $40,000. But because of the corporate 
     jet perk, it only cost a little more than $8,000.
       There is going to be a lot of talk in the coming days about 
     how important it is to ban free meals and fancy gifts, and I 
     couldn't agree more, but if we are going to go ahead and call 
     a $50 lunch unethical, I can't see why we wouldn't do the 
     same for the $32,000 that BellSouth is offering in the form 
     of airplane discounts. That is why I applaud Senator Reid on 
     his amendment to require Members to pay the full charter rate 
     for the use of corporate jets.
       As I said, I understand that for many Members, these jets 
     are an issue of convenience. They allow us to get home to our 
     constituents, to our families, and to the events that are 
     often necessary for our jobs. But in November, the American 
     people told us very clearly they are tired of the influence 
     special interest wields over the legislative process. The 
     vast majority of Americans can't afford to buy cheap rides on 
     corporate jets. They don't get to sit with us on 3-hour 
     flights and talk about the heating bills they can't pay, or 
     the health care costs that keep rising, or the taxes they 
     can't afford, or their concerns about college tuition. They 
     can't buy our attention, and they shouldn't have to. And the 
     corporation lobbyists shouldn't be able to either. That is 
     why we need to end this corporate jet perk if we are to pass 
     real, meaningful ethics reform. [Cong. Rec. S263-4]
     Sen. Feingold, 1/9/2007
       When I introduced my lobbying reform bill back in July 
     2005, it included a provision addressing the abuse of Members 
     flying on corporate jets. At that time, I have to say, it 
     seemed like a fantasy that we would actually pass such a 
     provision. I heard complaint after complaint about it, that 
     we shouldn't do it.
       Slowly but surely, many people have come around to where 
     the public is: Corporate jet travel is a real abuse. Sure, it 
     is convenient, but it is based on a fiction--that the fair 
     market value of such a trip is just the cost of a first class 
     ticket. And when that fiction is applied to political travel, 
     it creates a loophole in the ban on corporate contributions 
     that we have had in this country for over a century. Any 
     legislation on corporate jets must include campaign trips as 
     well as official travel because one thing is for certain--the 
     lobbyist for the company that provides the jet is likely to 
     be on the flight, whether it is taking you to see a factory 
     back home or a fundraiser for your campaign.
       Our bill does that. It covers all of the possible uses of 
     corporate jets, and amends all of the Senate rules needed to 
     put in place a strong reform, and the Federal election laws 
     as well. From now on, if you want to fly on a corporate jet, 
     you will have to pay the charter rate. And these flights 
     shouldn't be an opportunity for the lobbyist or CEO of the 
     company that owns the jet to have several hours alone with a 
     Senator. Our bill prohibits that as well. This is what the 
     American people have been calling for. There are no loopholes 
     or ambiguities here. Politicians flying on private planes for 
     cheap will be a thing of the past if we can get this 
     provision into the bill. Senator Reid's amendment includes 
     a tough corporate jet provision. I am pleased to support 
     that portion of the amendment. This is a big deal, and I 
     commend the majority leader for taking this step. [Cong. 
     Rec. S267]
     Sen. Lieberman, 1/10/2007
       I am also very pleased that the majority leader has 
     included in this amendment that I referred to an additional 
     amendment, a strong provision on the use of corporate jets. 
     This is a controversial, difficult matter. It is an issue 
     that Senators McCain, Feingold, Obama, and I wanted to pursue 
     last year when we took this up essentially in its predecessor 
     form, but we were unable to do so once cloture was reached on 
     the bill because the amendment was determined to be 
     nongermane.
       Under current law this is the reality. When a Member of 
     Congress or a candidate for Federal office uses a private 
     plane instead of flying on a commercial airline, the ethics 
     rules, as well as the Federal Election Commission rules, 
     require a payment to the owner of the plane equivalent to a 
     first-class commercial ticket. The current rules undervalue 
     flights on noncommercial jets and provide, in effect, a way 
     for corporations and individuals to give benefits to Members 
     beyond the limits provided for in our campaign finance laws. 
     The Reid amendment would eliminate that loophole by requiring 
     that the reimbursement be based on the comparable charter 
     rate for a plane. [Cong. Rec. S320]
     Sen. Sanders, 1/16/2007
       Members of Congress do not need free lunches from 
     lobbyists. Members of Congress do not need free tickets to 
     ball games. And they do not need huge discounts for flights 
     on corporate jets. Congress does need transparency in 
     earmarks and holds, and we do need a new policy regarding the 
     revolving door by which a Member one year is writing a piece 
     of legislation and the next year finds himself or herself 
     working for the company that benefited from the legislation 
     he or she wrote. In other words, we need to pass the 
     strongest ethics reform bill possible. But in passing this 
     legislation, we need to understand this is not the end of our 
     work but, rather, it is just the beginning, and much more 
     needs to be done. [Cong. Rec. S553]
     Sen. Reid, 1/16/2007
       Let me say a word about corporate jets. The State of Nevada 
     is very large areawise. The cities of Las Vegas and Reno are 
     separated by about 450 miles. There is good travel between 
     those two cities. But to get around the rest of the State is 
     not easy. When you travel from Las Vegas to Reno, I again say 
     it is easy. But then let's say you want to go to Elko. By 
     Nevada standards, it is a pretty large city. Going on a 
     commercial airplane, it is very, very, very difficult, and to 
     go to Ely is next to impossible. These two cities, both 
     important in their own right, have required on a number of 
     occasions calling upon people you know who have an airplane 
     to take us up there.
       Under the old rules, you could pay first-class travel. An 
     example of that is Senator Ensign and I, last August, had to 
     go to Ely. It was extremely important. We were working on a 
     piece of legislation that has since passed. We wanted to sit 
     down in person and talk to the people in Ely about what we 
     were doing.
       For us to get there was very difficult. The time factor was 
     significant. To drive up and back is 2 days, 1 day up, 1 day 
     back. It was

[[Page S13393]]

     complicated by the fact that Senator Ensign had a 
     longstanding engagement in Reno. To go from Ely to Reno--it 
     is hard to get there. If you drive very fast, you can make it 
     in 6 hours. So I called a friend of mine, Mike Ensign, 
     Senator Ensign's father. This good man has done very well in 
     the business world. He is a man with limited education but a 
     great mind. He started out working in somewhat menial jobs in 
     the gaming industry. He worked his way up. He became a 
     dealer, a pit boss, a shift boss, and then Mike Ensign moved 
     into the corporate world and became an executive and then 
     ultimately started buying hotel properties himself and has 
     done very well. He is the principal officer and owner of 
     Mandalay Bay, a huge company. It is the second largest hotel-
     casino operator in the country. I called him and I said: 
     Mike, with one of your airplanes, can you fly me and your son 
     to Ely?
       He is a wonderful man, just the greatest guy. He said: 
     Sure, I will be happy to do that. And he did that. He is an 
     example of the type of people we have called upon for these 
     airplanes.
       I tell this story. I have used these airplanes a lot 
     because I live in Nevada and because of other duties I have 
     here. The reason I tell the Mike Ensign story is because Mike 
     Ensign doesn't want anything from me. There isn't a thing in 
     the world I can give this man. He is famous, he is rich, he 
     has a wonderful family. I can't do anything to help Mike 
     Ensign. He did this because he is my friend.
       Most every--I should not say most. For every airplane I fly 
     on, of course I don't have the relationship with them that I 
     have with Mike Ensign, but I want everyone who has allowed me 
     to use their airplanes to know I am not in any way 
     denigrating them. They have done this out of the goodness of 
     their heart. I have never had anyone say: I will give you an 
     airplane ride if you give me something, or, I have a piece of 
     legislation pending, will you help me with that? That has 
     never happened. I want all these people to know that I am 
     certainly not in any way disparaging these good people who 
     have allowed me and others to fly on their airplanes.
       What I am saying, though, is that in this world in which we 
     live, because of all the corruption that has taken place in 
     the last few years here in America, that you not only have to 
     do away with what is wrong but what appears to be wrong. I am 
     confident I have never been influenced by anyone who provided 
     me with the courtesy of a private airplane, but I have come 
     to the realization that this practice presents a major 
     perception problem. It is a major perception problem because 
     the American people have the right to insist that we do what 
     seems right as well as what is right. Does it appear it is 
     OK? For us to fly around in these airplanes doesn't appear to 
     be the right thing, no matter how good-hearted these people 
     are, just like Mike Ensign. So because a perception isn't 
     right, this amendment is pending, and it means Senators 
     should pay the full fare when they fly on someone's 
     private airplane. [Cong. Rec. S548-9]
     Sen. Levin, 1/25/2007
       Strong travel restrictions are also an essential component 
     of this bill. The new rules will ensure that Members 
     traveling on corporate jets would have to reimburse at the 
     charter rate, not as is now the case merely at the level of a 
     first class commercial ticket. [Cong. Rec. S1185]
     Sen. Reid, 6/26/2007
       The American people responded at the polls last November 
     with a clear message that they wanted a new direction, and 
     we, the Democrats, responded by passing the most sweeping 
     ethics and lobbying reform in a generation. We did it with 
     the help of the minority. I do not say that lightly. But 
     let's see what is in this bill. Let's review it for a bit to 
     find out what this bill does.
       It prohibits lobbyists and entities that hire lobbyists 
     from giving gifts to lawmakers and their staffs. It prevents 
     corporations and other entities that hire lobbyists from 
     paying for trips for Members or staffs. And it prohibits 
     lobbyists from participating in or paying for any such trips. 
     It requires Senators to pay fair market value prices for 
     charter flights, which put an end to the abuses of corporate 
     travel.
       Many people in this Chamber flew in corporate jets and paid 
     first-class airfare. That did not corrupt any Members of 
     Congress, but it was corrupting. It didn't look right, and 
     therefore it is important it be stopped. And I hope it 
     stopped. We need legislation to make sure it is stopped. 
     [Cong. Rec. S8400]
     Sen. Klobuchar, 7/31/2007
       This ethics bill, as many outside groups have stated, is 
     the most sweeping ethics reform we have seen since Watergate. 
     It is about banning gifts and free meals. It is about not 
     allowing people to take advantage of corporate jets. It is 
     about bringing transparency to the earmark process. [Cong. 
     Rec. S10401]
     Sen. Obama, 8/2/2007
       In January, I came back with Senator Feingold, and we set a 
     high bar for reform. I am pleased to report that the bill 
     before us today comes very close to what we proposed. By 
     passing this bill, we will ban gifts and meals and end 
     subsidized travel on corporate jets; we will close the 
     revolving door between Pennsylvania Avenue and K Street; and 
     we will make sure the American people can see all the pet 
     projects lawmakers are trying to pass before they are 
     actually voted on. [Cong. Rec. S10692]
     Sen. Levin, 8/2/2007
       Strong travel restrictions are also an essential component 
     of this bill. The new rules will ensure that Members 
     traveling on corporate jets would have to pay for them at the 
     charter rate, not at the current level of a first class 
     commercial ticket, which is but a fraction of the cost. 
     [Cong. Rec. S10703]
     Sen. Feinstein, 8/2/2007
       Section 544 includes a separate provision relating to 
     flights on private jets. This provision requires Senators to 
     pay full market value--defined as charter rates--for flights 
     on private jets, with an exception for jets owned by 
     immediate family members (or non-public corporations in which 
     the Senator or an immediate family member has an ownership 
     interest).
       In general, the changes made by section 544 go into effect 
     60 days after enactment, or the date that the Select 
     Committee on Ethics issues the required guidelines under the 
     rule, whichever is later. Until the new rules take effect, 
     the existing rules for travel will remain in place. In light 
     of the transition to the new rule relating to reimbursement 
     for flights on private jets and the lack of experience in 
     many offices in determining ``charter rates,'' the Select 
     Committee on Ethics may treat reimbursement at current rates 
     as reimbursement at charter rates for a transition period not 
     to exceed 60 days.
       Section 601 amends the Federal Election Campaign Act to 
     require that candidates, other than those running for a seat 
     in the House of Representatives, pay the fair market value of 
     airfare when using non-commercial jets to travel. Fair market 
     value is to be determined by dividing the fair market value 
     of the charter fare of the aircraft, by the number of 
     candidates on the flight. This provision exempts aircraft 
     owned or leased by candidates or candidates' immediate family 
     members (or non-public corporations in which the Senator or 
     his or her immediate family member has an ownership 
     interest). The bill prohibits candidates for the House of 
     Representatives from any campaign use of privately-owned, 
     non-chartered jets.
       Many candidates are not accustomed to determining charter 
     rates. The FEC may, during a transition period of no more 
     than 60 days, deem reimbursement at current rates to be 
     charter rates while committees determine how to calculate 
     charter rates. [Cong. Rec. S10713]

                          ____________________