[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 192 (Thursday, December 17, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13390-S13393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      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]

                          ____________________