Floor Statements

Madam President, I would like to note the many challenges to democracy we are seeing across Africa today. I have long said that promoting and supporting democratic institutions should be a key tenet of our engagement with Africa, as good governance is essential to Africa's stability and its prosperity. Africans are well aware of this, and that is why we have seen spirited democratic movements throughout the continent, even against great odds. It is also why African leaders have committed at the African Union with the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance that they will work to enforce ``the right to participate in free, credible and democratic political processes.''

The previous administration spoke often about its commitment to promote democracy in Africa and throughout the world. The current administration, too, has committed to encourage strong and sustainable democratic governments, though it has rightly acknowledged that democracy is about more than holding elections. In his speech in Ghana, President Obama said:

America will not seek to impose any system of government on

any nation--the essential truth of democracy is that each

nation determines its own destiny. What we will do is

increase assistance for responsible individuals and

institutions, with a focus on supporting good governance--on

parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that

opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which

ensures the equal administration of justice; on civic

participation, so that young people get involved . . .

I agree that we must take a more holistic approach in our efforts to promote and support democracy. Democracy is not just about a single event every few years; it is also about an ongoing process of governance that is accountable and responsive to the needs and will of citizens. And it is about citizens having the space, encouragement, and ability to educate themselves, mobilize, and participate in that process. We must help countries build such institutions and encourage such space, and we must be willing to speak out against erosions of democratic rights and freedoms--and not only once a country reaches a crisis point such as a coup.

While some African countries have made great democratic strides, I am concerned about the fragile state of democracy on the continent, especially within a number of countries set to hold elections over the next 15 months. In particular, I am concerned by the democratic backsliding in several countries that are close U.S. partners and influential regional actors. It is notable that the Director of National Intelligence included a section on ``stalled democratization'' in Africa in his public testimony last month to the Senate Intelligence Committee on annual threat assessments. He stated:

The number of African states holding elections continues to

grow although few have yet to develop strong, enduring

democratic institutions and traditions. In many cases the

`winner-take-all' ethos predominates and risks exacerbating

ethnic, regional, and political divisions.

Elections are only one component of the democratic process, but still they are a significant one. The pre- and post-elections periods in many countries are ones in which democratic space and institutions are most clearly tested and face the greatest strains. They can be the periods in which democracy is at its best, but they can also be the periods in which democracy faces some of its greatest threats. This is the case not only in Africa; this is the case here in the United States, and that is why I have worked tirelessly to limit the power of wealthy interests to unduly influence our elections.

Among those African countries scheduled to hold national elections in 2010 are Ethiopia, Sudan, Togo, Central African Republic, Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Burkina Faso. Guinea, Madagascar, and Niger, three countries that have recently had coups, have also committed to hold elections this year. And in early 2011, Benin, Djibouti, Uganda, Nigeria, and Chad are all scheduled to hold elections.

Of all these elections, Sudan's is already receiving significant attention, and for good reason. That election--the country's first multiparty one in 24 years--has the potential to be a historic step toward political transformation in Sudan if it is credible. However, restrictions on opposition parties and the continued insecurity in Darfur have many doubting whether the conditions even exist for credible elections. Furthermore, increasing violence within southern Sudan is very worrying. In any case, the results of Sudan's election in April will have a great influence on political dynamics within the country and region for years to come and will pave the way for southern Sudan's vote on self-determination, set for January 2011. The international community is rightly keeping a close eye on these elections, and we need to continue supporting efforts to make them credible and be prepared to speak out against any abuses or rigging.

Similarly, we need to keep a close eye on the other African countries holding important elections this year. Let me highlight four countries whose upcoming elections I believe also merit close attention and specific international engagement.

The first is Ethiopia, which is set to hold elections in May. In his testimony, the Director of National Intelligence stated:

In Ethiopia, Prime Minister Meles and his party appear

intent on preventing a repeat of the relatively open 2005

election which produced a strong opposition showing.

Indeed, in Ethiopia, democratic space has been diminishing steadily since 2005. Over the last 2 years, the Ethiopian Parliament has passed several new laws granting broad discretionary powers to the government to arrest opponents. One such law, the Charities and Societies Proclamation, imposes direct government controls over civil society and bars any civil society group receiving more than 10 percent of its funding from international sources to do work related to human rights, gender equality, the rights, of the disabled, children's rights, or conflict resolution. Another law, the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, defines terrorism-related crimes so broadly that they could extend to nonviolent forms of political dissent and protest.

Ethiopia is an important partner of the United States and we share many interests. We currently provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid annually to Ethiopia. That is why I have been so concerned and outspoken about these repressive measures, and that is why I believe we have a stake in ensuring that Ethiopia's democratic process moves forward, not backward. With the elections just 3 months away, several key opposition leaders remain imprisoned, most notably Birtukan Mideksa, the head of the Unity for Democracy and Justice Party. There is no way that elections can be fair, let alone credible, with opposition leaders in jail or unable to campaign freely. At the bare minimum, the international community should push for the release of these political prisoners ahead of the elections. If nothing changes, we should not be afraid to stand with the Ethiopian people and state clearly that an election in name only is an affront to their country's democratic aspirations.

The second country I want to highlight is Burundi. As many people will recall, Burundi was devastated by political violence throughout the 1990s, leaving over 100,000 people dead. Yet the country has made tremendous strides in recent years to recover and rebuild from its civil war. In 2005, it held multiparty national and local elections, a major milestone on its transition to peace. Burundians are set to head to the polls again this year. If these elections are fair, free, and peaceful, they have the potential to be another milestone along the path toward reconciliation, lasting stability, and democratic institutions. This would be good not only for Burundi but also for the whole of Central Africa. Burundians deserve international support and encouragement as they strive for that goal.

Still, many challenges remain. The tensions that fed and were fueled by Burundi's civil war have not entirely gone away. And there is some evidence that the parties continue to use the tools of war to pursue their political goals. According to a report by the International Crisis Group last month, ``opposition parties are facing harassment and intimidation from police and the ruling party's youth wing and appear to be choosing to respond to violence with violence.'' Furthermore, there continue to be reports that the National Intelligence Service is being used by the ruling party to destabilize the opposition. If these trends continue, they could taint Burundi's elections and set back its peace process. The international community, which has played a big role in Burundi's peace process, cannot wait until a month before the election to speak out and engage the parties these issues. We need to do it now.

Burundi's neighbor to the north, Rwanda, is also slated to hold important elections this summer. Rwanda is another country that has come a long way. Since the genocide in 1994, the government and people of Rwanda have made impressive accomplishments in rebuilding the country and improving basic services. It is notable that Rwanda was the top reformer worldwide in the 2010 World Bank's ``Doing Business Report.'' President Kagame has shown commendable and creative leadership in this respect. On the democratic front, however, Rwanda still has a long way to go.

Understandably there are real challenges to fostering democracy some 15 years after the genocide, but it is troubling that there is not more space within Rwanda for criticism and opposition voices. The State Department's 2008 Human Rights Report for Rwanda stated, ``There continued to be limits on freedom of speech and of association, and restrictions on the press increased.'' With elections looming, there are now some reports that opposition party members in Rwanda are facing increasing threats and harassment. The international community should not shy away from pushing for greater democratic space in Rwanda, which is critical for the country's lasting stability. We fail to be true friends to the Rwandan people if we do not stand with them in the fight against renewed abuse of civil and political rights. In the next few months in the runup to the elections, it is a key time for international donors to raise these issues with Kigali.

Finally, I would like to talk about Uganda, which is set to hold elections in February 2011. Uganda, like Rwanda, is a close friend of the United States, and we have worked together on many joint initiatives over recent years. President Museveni deserves credit for his leadership on many issues both within the country and the wider region. However, at the same time, Museveni's legacy has been tainted by his failure to allow democracy to take hold in Uganda. Uganda's most recent elections have been hurt by reports of fraud, intimidation, and politically motivated prosecutions of opposition candidates. The Director of National Intelligence stated in his testimony that Uganda remains essentially a ``one-party state'' and said the government ``is not undertaking democratic reforms in advance of the elections scheduled for 2011.''

Uganda's elections next year could be a defining moment for the country and will have ramifications for the country's long-term stability. The riots in Buganda last September showed that regional and ethnic tensions remain strong in many parts of the country. Therefore, it is important that the United States and other friends of Uganda work with that country's leaders to ensure critical electoral reforms are enacted. In the consolidated appropriations act that passed in December, Congress provided significant assistance for Uganda but also specifically directed the Secretary of State ``to closely monitor preparations for the 2011 elections in Uganda and to actively promote . . . the independence of the election commission; the need for an accurate and verifiable voter registry; the announcement and posting of results at the polling stations; the freedom of movement and assembly and a process free of intimidation; freedom of the media; and the security and protection of candidates.''

Madam President, again these challenges are not unique to Africa. Here in the United States, we too have to work constantly to ensure the integrity of our elections and our democratic processes. But I believe these upcoming elections in a number of African states could have major ramifications for the overall trajectory of democracy on the continent as well as for issues of regional security. I also believe several of these elections could significantly impact U.S. policy and strategic partnerships on the continent. For that reason, I do not believe we can wait until weeks or days before these elections to start focusing on them. We need to start engaging well in advance and helping to pave the way for truly democratic institutions and the consolidation of democracy. This includes aligning with democratic actors that speak out against repressive measures that erode political and civil rights. The Obama administration has done this well in some cases, but we need to do it more consistently and effectively. In the coming months, I hope to work with the administration to ensure we have a clear policy and the resources to that end.

Madam President, although I know the Obama administration strongly supports human rights and adherence to the rule of law around the world, I have been struck by several very public examples where this important issue has gotten short

shrift--most notably in senior State Department meetings with foreign governments. Perhaps the starkest example was the Secretary of State's visit to China last year, where she said that U.S. efforts to advance human rights ``can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.''

Since joining Congress in 1993, I have emphasized that human rights must be at the center of our foreign policy. The Obama administration shares this view, but I remain troubled that in certain instances human rights continue to take a back seat to other competing concerns deemed more pressing. As we seek to address the many crises we face both at home and around the world, we cannot afford to miss--or avoid-- opportunities to raise human rights concerns. I do not believe quiet tradeoffs are necessary or consistent with the principles for which the United States stands. Moreover, whatever the perceived short-term benefit of remaining quiet when human rights are being undermined, there is often a long-term cost to us. Our commitment to and enforcement of international human rights standards is part of our strength--when they are called into question, our own national security is undermined.

Human rights, good governance and the rule of law are important not only in their own right, but also for the positive contributions they can provide to our efforts on counterterrorism, stability, and development. As we continue the fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, a robust human rights agenda that is deeply intertwined with our broader national security goals will help us achieve our counterterrorism objectives. At the same time, our counterterrorism policies and those of our partners must respect basic, fundamental rights in order to be truly effective.

Developing a coherent and effective foreign policy that successfully incorporates trade, security, and human rights concerns is no easy task. But we cannot further perpetuate the current imbalance by remaining silent on critical human rights concerns. Silence speaks volumes and gives a free pass to those who commit such abuses, as well as those who might commit them in the future. We must voice our concerns loudly and consistently as we seek to build global partnerships rooted in policies that incorporate good governance, the rule of law, and human rights alongside our economic and security priorities. By downplaying the former in order to focus on the latter, the administration risks weakening a key pillar of American strength.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about a bill that I introduced a year ago with Senator Sam Brownback to confront Africa's longest running rebel group, the Lord's Resistance Army. This bill was passed unanimously by the Foreign Relations Committee in November and it is now cosponsored by 63 members of this Chamber, a supermajority. According to the Congressional Research Service, no bill specifically on sub-Saharan Africa has had this many cosponsors since at least 1973, which is as far back as our online records go. This demonstrates an unprecedented bipartisan consensus to address an issue that was called ``the world's worst neglected crisis'' just a few years ago.

This historic consensus should not go unnoticed and it must ultimately translate into action.

For two decades, the LRA and its brutal leader Joseph Kony terrorized the people of northern Uganda. They filled their ranks by abducting children--some estimates suggest over 66,000 of them--and forced them to fight as child soldiers. Meanwhile, the people of northern Uganda were forced into displacement camps with little protection from their own government, where they were vulnerable to attacks, disease and starvation. In 2007, I visited those camps and saw first hand the terrible conditions people were forced to endure.

In recent years, the LRA have been pushed out of northern Uganda and fortunately many people have been able to leave those camps. But that has not meant an end to the LRA's terror; it has just shifted to a new theater. Under pressure in 2005 and 2006, the rebels moved into the porous border region of northeastern Congo, southern Sudan and the Central African Republic, where they have recently resumed their attacks and abductions. According to the United Nations, between September 2008 and June 2009, the LRA killed some 1300 civilians, abducted 1400 more, and displaced 300,000 others. That level of violence persists today. The stories are jarring: families locked inside huts and burned alive; people having their lips and ears cut off; people hacked to death with machetes; villages massacred as they gathered for church on Christmas Day.

This continuing violence is senseless and it is horrific. It shocks our collective conscience. That is why Senator Brownback, Senator Inhofe, and I, along with 60 of our colleagues, leading human rights groups, and thousands of young idealistic Americans have come together around this bill. We may not agree on all the specifics of how the United States should go about addressing this issue and what role our government should play, but we all agree the ongoing atrocities committed by the LRA demand more attention, more resources and a more proactive strategy.

Our bill would require the Obama administration to develop such a strategy for how the United States will work more actively with regional governments, the U.N. and others to bring a lasting end to this war. That strategy would need to integrate all elements of U.S. policy--economic, political, intelligence and military--and coordinate our efforts regarding the LRA across the four affected countries. Our bill also authorizes a modest amount of additional funding, $40 million over 3 years, so we can better support peace and reconciliation in northern Uganda and help meet the humanitarian needs of communities outside Uganda that are currently affected by the LRA's violence.

Unfortunately, one Senator has objected to passage of this bill because of the authorization of funds. Now let me be clear: I share concerns about our record deficits and believe we have a responsibility to our children and our grandchildren to control reckless spending. That is why I make a point to include an offset whenever I introduce a bill that authorizes funds. This bill was no different. When it was introduced, it included an offset to reduce excess secondary inventory for the Air Force; inventory that the GAO found wasteful and the Air Force acknowledged it didn't need. Unfortunately though, some objected to this offset and it was removed in committee.

Now, I have offered to stipulate that the bill should use already authorized funds, rather than authorizing new funds. Apparently that's not sufficient. While I am disappointed that the offset was removed from this bill, I do not believe it is sufficient cause to stop this bill from moving forward. We should keep in mind that passing this legislation would not automatically trigger increased spending. This bill authorizes funds, but appropriating them is a different matter. I am more than willing

to work with lead cosponsors of this bill and others, during the appropriations process, to ensure this bill does not increase our overall budget. In fact, I'd like to work with all of my colleagues in general to eliminate wasteful spending.

We need to pass this bill. We have a unique opportunity right now as members of Congress to make a statement that the mass killing of innocent life by the LRA is unacceptable, and that we as a country will not stand by as it continues to happen. By passing this bill, we can charge our government with looking seriously at how we can do more to help bring these atrocities to an end. When we look back at Rwanda in April of 1994, I think each and every one of us wishes we had done more to save lives. The same can be said about the brutal massacres by the RUF in Sierra Leone or by Charles Taylor's army in Liberia. But we need to not only acknowledge those regrets; we need to learn from them.

Mr. President, the LRA's massacres are taking place now. They are on our watch. This time, let us not look back and wish we had done more. I urge all my colleagues to come together to pass this bill.

Mr. President, this is not where I hoped we would be, 8\1/2\ years after the USA PATRIOT Act became law. Congress should not have passed that law in such haste in 2001 and ought to have enacted meaningful reforms to it years ago. That is why I voted against the PATRIOT Act in the first place, and it is why, Congress after Congress, year after year, I have sponsored and cosponsored bills and amendments to enact changes that would protect the rights of innocent Americans while also ensuring that the government has the authorities it needs to protect national security.

So needless to say, it is far from ideal that the three expiring provisions are being extended for 1 year. But my hope is that Congress will take the opportunity presented by the 1-year extension to finally enact the meaningful changes to the PATRIOT Act that I have been advocating for years. It is well past time to place appropriate checks and balances on authorities like national security letters, whose abuse the inspector general has documented repeatedly; ``sneak and peek'' searches, which allow government agents to search Americans' homes without telling them until well after the fact; and section 215 orders, which authorize the government to secretly obtain records about Americans without connections to terrorists or spies.

I will continue to fight for these reforms, just as I did a few months ago in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Our committee took up the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act in October 2009, and Senator Durbin and I pushed for improvements on a variety of issues. Some of those amendments were successful, such as the amendment shortening the presumptive time period for delayed notice of a ``sneak and peek'' search warrant from 30 days to 7 days and the amendment requiring that the Attorney General issue procedures governing the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of records obtained via national security letters, NSLs. There are other provisions in that bill that I strongly support, as well, including new inspector general audits, a sunset for the first time on the NSL authorities, and changes to the NSL and section 215 gag orders to help bring them in line with the first amendment.

But in key ways, that bill fell short, and as a result I voted against it in committee. Most importantly, it did not contain critically important protections for the government's use of section 215 orders and NSLs. Senator Durbin offered amendments that would have required that the government be able to demonstrate some connection-- however tenuous--to terrorism before obtaining an individual's sensitive business records using these authorities. But those amendments were rejected.

This was in some respects mystifying. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed this same standard for section 215 orders unanimously in 2005, and the Senate adopted it by unanimous consent that year, although it was not in the conference report that ultimately became law. The arguments that led the Senate to pass this standard in 2005 still apply. The ``relevance'' standard in current law is still dangerously overbroad and the burden of proof should be on its proponents to explain why a more focused standard, unanimously supported by the Senate in 2005, cannot serve as an effective counterterrorism and national security tool.

I recall during the debate in 2005 that proponents of section 215 argued that these authorities had never been misused. They cannot make that case now. Section 215 has been misused. I cannot elaborate, but I believe that the public deserves some information about this. I and others have also pressed the administration to declassify some basic information about the use of section 215, and it has declined. I hope that the administration will reconsider and that more information will be declassified before this reauthorization process is completed. I do appreciate that the administration has offered to provide information about this to Members of the Senate beyond those of us who serve on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. But that is just a start. We must find a way to have an open and

honest debate about the nature of these government powers, while still protecting national security secrets, and under current conditions that simply isn't possible.

Congress and the American people do, however, have a great deal of information about how the national security letter authorities have been abused by the FBI. In a series of incredibly detailed audits-- audits that the Judiciary Committee chairman worked so hard to require in the 2006 PATRIOT Act reauthorization legislation--the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General has documented years of misuse. In his first report, in 2007, the inspector general found--as he put it-- ``widespread and serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities.'' His most recent report documents even more instances of the FBI inappropriately obtaining telephone records, through the use of so-called ``exigent letters'' and other informal requests for telephone billing records that violated the requirements of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA.

So I will continue to press for improvements to the PATRIOT Act. Indeed, last year I and nine other Senators introduced the JUSTICE Act, which takes a comprehensive approach to fixing our surveillance laws. It permits the government to conduct necessary surveillance but within a framework of accountability and oversight. It ensures both that our government has the tools to keep us safe and that the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans will be protected. These are not mutually exclusive goals. We can and must do both.

Since the PATRIOT Act was first passed in 2001, we have learned some important lessons. Perhaps the most important is that Congress cannot grant the government overly broad authorities and just keep its fingers crossed that they won't be misused or interpreted by aggressive executive branch lawyers in as broad a way as possible. It is no longer possible for proponents of the PATRIOT Act to argue that it has never been abused. It has. Congress cannot and must not ignore its responsibility to put appropriate limits on government authorities-- limits that allow agents to actively pursue criminals, terrorists and spies but that also protect the privacy of innocent Americans.

We also now know that lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel looked for every possible loophole in statutory language to justify what I believe were clearly illegal wiretapping and interrogation programs. That should also teach us that we must be extraordinarily careful in how we draft these laws: We must say exactly what we mean and leave no room for reinterpretation.

I hope that this extension will allow Congress an opportunity to do just that--to get this right once and for all.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Support Renewable Energy Act of 2010 with my colleague, Senator Ensign. This bill would modify the Renewable Electricity Standard currently drafted in the American Clean Energy Leadership Act to ensure that all forms of renewable energy qualify.

I am pleased that the Senate is again considering the implementation of a Renewable Electricity Standard that will encourage the development and deployment of new and existing renewable energy technologies. However, as the proposed Renewable Electricity Standard is currently drafted, only electricity-producing renewable technologies would qualify. This would exclude direct use renewable energy technologies that displace the need for electricity, rather than produce electricity.

Our legislation would modify the definition of renewable energy as it applies to the draft Renewable Electricity Standard to include customer-sited renewable energy equipment. Specific examples of these direct use technologies are solar water heating, solar space heating and cooling, solar daylight and light-pipe technology, biogas, and ground source geothermal heat pumps. These technologies can be used in homes and businesses to provide light, heating, and cooling directly-- without the need for electricity from the grid. This legislation will allow utilities to generate renewable energy credits equal to the electricity or thermal energy displaced by direct use renewable energy technologies in order to meet a Renewable Electricity Standard.

In addition to the reduced stress on our overburdened electricity transmission grid, the incentivized production and installation of these renewable technologies would spur the growth of green, sustainable jobs. One example of the potential for job creation was provided to me by Orion Energy Systems in my home State of Wisconsin. Orion manufactures light-pipes, which captures natural light on a roof and transfers that light through a pipe to a ceiling, where it is diffused to light a room, like a traditional light bulb. Because light pipes uses solar energy directly to produce light, rather than generate electricity, this innovative technology would not qualify as renewable energy under the draft Renewable Electricity Standard.

Orion has already retrofitted approximately 5,000 facilities with improved lighting technology nationwide. With about 400 lighting fixtures on average, if these same facilities decided to upgrade to the light-pipe technology it would take between 6 million and 10 million man-hours to install. These would be jobs for roofers and carpenters at a time when the construction industry is badly in need of work.

Direct use renewable energy technologies have significant environmental benefits. The energy savings from retrofitting these facilities with the light-pipe would amount to a savings of between 915 and 1,934 gigawatts of electricity per year, which amounts to the energy equivalent of 343 to 725 million tons of coal that would not have to be burned, avoiding the release of between 0.6 and 1.28 million tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. In addition, the users of this technology will save money on their electric bill, which could then be used for other things, like hiring new employees or increasing salaries.

This is just one company and one of the many technologies that would qualify for the expanded Renewable Electricity Standard under our legislation. This is clearly a win-win-win situation for jobs, the facilities that install the technologies and save on energy costs, and for the environment.

Direct use renewable energy technology is cost-effective, can be deployed locally, requires no new transmission infrastructure, and can be utilized in areas throughout the country that cannot sustain a commercial-scale power generation facility from other renewable energy sources. Furthermore, it will create much needed American jobs in both manufacturing and construction. I encourage my colleagues to support the Support Renewable Energy Act of 2010.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Support Renewable Energy Act of 2010 with my colleague, Senator Ensign. This bill would modify the Renewable Electricity Standard currently drafted in the American Clean Energy Leadership Act to ensure that all forms of renewable energy qualify.

I am pleased that the Senate is again considering the implementation of a Renewable Electricity Standard that will encourage the development and deployment of new and existing renewable energy technologies. However, as the proposed Renewable Electricity Standard is currently drafted, only electricity-producing renewable technologies would qualify. This would exclude direct use renewable energy technologies that displace the need for electricity, rather than produce electricity.

Our legislation would modify the definition of renewable energy as it applies to the draft Renewable Electricity Standard to include customer-sited renewable energy equipment. Specific examples of these direct use technologies are solar water heating, solar space heating and cooling, solar daylight and light-pipe technology, biogas, and ground source geothermal heat pumps. These technologies can be used in homes and businesses to provide light, heating, and cooling directly-- without the need for electricity from the grid. This legislation will allow utilities to generate renewable energy credits equal to the electricity or thermal energy displaced by direct use renewable energy technologies in order to meet a Renewable Electricity Standard.

In addition to the reduced stress on our overburdened electricity transmission grid, the incentivized production and installation of these renewable technologies would spur the growth of green, sustainable jobs. One example of the potential for job creation was provided to me by Orion Energy Systems in my home State of Wisconsin. Orion manufactures light-pipes, which captures natural light on a roof and transfers that light through a pipe to a ceiling, where it is diffused to light a room, like a traditional light bulb. Because light pipes uses solar energy directly to produce light, rather than generate electricity, this innovative technology would not qualify as renewable energy under the draft Renewable Electricity Standard.

Orion has already retrofitted approximately 5,000 facilities with improved lighting technology nationwide. With about 400 lighting fixtures on average, if these same facilities decided to upgrade to the light-pipe technology it would take between 6 million and 10 million man-hours to install. These would be jobs for roofers and carpenters at a time when the construction industry is badly in need of work.

Direct use renewable energy technologies have significant environmental benefits. The energy savings from retrofitting these facilities with the light-pipe would amount to a savings of between 915 and 1,934 gigawatts of electricity per year, which amounts to the energy equivalent of 343 to 725 million tons of coal that would not have to be burned, avoiding the release of between 0.6 and 1.28 million tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. In addition, the users of this technology will save money on their electric bill, which could then be used for other things, like hiring new employees or increasing salaries.

This is just one company and one of the many technologies that would qualify for the expanded Renewable Electricity Standard under our legislation. This is clearly a win-win-win situation for jobs, the facilities that install the technologies and save on energy costs, and for the environment.

Direct use renewable energy technology is cost-effective, can be deployed locally, requires no new transmission infrastructure, and can be utilized in areas throughout the country that cannot sustain a commercial-scale power generation facility from other renewable energy sources. Furthermore, it will create much needed American jobs in both manufacturing and construction. I encourage my colleagues to support the Support Renewable Energy Act of 2010.

Mr. President, the attempt to blow up a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day has shined a spotlight squarely, if belatedly, on Yemen. I cannot overstate the importance of denying al-Qaida safe havens in Yemen and countries like it, an issue on which I have been working for years. The threat from al-Qaida in Yemen, as well as the broader region, is increasing, and our attention to this part of the world is long overdue.

That is why I welcome the President's increased focus on Yemen. But we need to remember, as we focus needed resources and attention on Yemen, that it shouldn't be seen as the new Afghanistan, or the new Iraq. Instead, Yemen highlights the importance of a comprehensive, global counterterrorism strategy that takes into account security sector reform, human rights, economic development, transparency, good governance, accountability, and the rule of law.

We must seize the opportunity to focus attention on the strategy and policies we need to deny al-Qaida safe havens around the world, including in Yemen. Concurrently, we need to examine our policy in Yemen and better understand how we can develop a partnership that is both in our national security interest and helps Yemen to move towards becoming a more stable, secure nation for its people. The recognition at the recent high-level international meeting on Yemen in London of the importance of addressing broader economic, social and political factors in Yemen is thus very welcome.

Any serious effort against al-Qaida in Yemen will require strengthening the

weak capacity of the government as well as its legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. We need to be careful about providing assistance to a government that isn't always aligned with the needs of the Yemeni people, as last year's State Department report on human rights notes. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor with Senators Kerry and Feinstein of a resolution that urges the implementation of a comprehensive strategy to address instability in Yemen that also calls on the Yemeni government to strengthen efforts to address corruption, to respect human rights and to work with its citizens and the international community to address the factors driving instability in the country.

Yemen is a fragile state whose government has limited control in many parts of the country. It faces a multitude of challenges including poverty, a young and growing population, resource scarcities, and corruption. It is also distracted from the counterterrorism effort by two other sources of domestic instability--the al-Houthi rebellion in the North and tensions with a southern region with which Sana'a was united less than 20 years ago. In other words, counterterrorism is hampered by weak governance and by internal conflicts that would not appear on the surface to threaten our interests. With this in mind, we must also work to ensure that, in the provision and use of our counterterrorism assistance to Yemen, care is taken to protect civilians and prevent the alienation of the local population and attention is given to the local conditions that enable militants to recruit followers.

Instability in Yemen is, of course, also closely linked to conflict in the Horn of Africa. Last year, Somali pirates attacked a U.S. vessel, which briefly raised awareness of maritime insecurity fostered by a lack of effective governance and insufficient naval capacity on both sides of the Gulf of Aden. This problem continues, even when it is not on the front pages, and is both a symptom and a driver of overall instability in the region. Meanwhile, refugees from the conflict in Somalia, as well as from the broader region, are fleeing to Yemen. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, more than 70,000 Somalis and Ethiopians arrived on Yemen's shores in 2009--a dramatic increase from previous years. The human cost to this exodus, as well as the potentially destabilizing effects, demand our attention.

Congress and the executive branch need to work together to ensure that the weak states, chronic instability, vast ungoverned areas, and unresolved local tensions that have created safe havens in which terrorists can recruit and operate do not get short shrift in our counterterrorism efforts. We cannot continue to jump from one perceived ``central front in the war on terror'' to the next. Local conditions in places like Yemen--as well as Somalia, north Africa and elsewhere--will continue to enable al-Qaida affiliates and sympathizers to recruit new followers. As a result, although we should aggressively pursue al-Qaida leaders, and our efforts to track individual operatives are critical, we will not ultimately be successful if we treat counterterrorism merely as a manhunt with a finite number of al-Qaida members. I am pleased to see that Ambassador Daniel Benjamin has underscored the importance of our counterterrorism efforts addressing conditions that facilitate recruitment to terrorism and extremism. I hope this understanding is shared throughout our government agencies and in the implementation process.

To effectively fight the threat from al-Qaida and its affiliates in Yemen and elsewhere, we also need to change the way our government is structured and how it operates.

In this regard, we need better intelligence. For example, we need to improve the intelligence that relates directly to al-Qaida affiliates-- where they find safe haven and why and the local conflicts and other conditions that create a fertile ground for terrorist recruitment. And we need to pay attention to all relevant information--including the information that the State Department and others in the Federal Government openly collect. Conditions around the world that allow al- Qaida to operate are often apparent to our diplomats, and do not necessarily require clandestine collection. The information diplomats and others collect therefore should be fully integrated with the intelligence community.

That is why I have proposed and the Senate has approved a bipartisan commission to provide recommendations to the President and to the Congress on how to integrate and otherwise reform our existing national security institutions. Unless we reform how our government collects, reports and analyzes information from around the world, we will remain a step behind al-Qaida's global network.

We also need better access to important countries and regions. When our diplomats aren't present, not only will we never truly understand what is going on, but we also won't be able to build relationships with the local population. In some cases, we can and should establish new embassy posts, such as in northern Nigeria. In other cases, such as Yemen, where security concerns present obstacles, we should develop policies that focus on helping to reestablish security, for the sake of the local populations as well as for our own interests.

In addition, as Yemen makes clear, we need strong, sustained policies aimed directly at resolving conflicts that allow al-Qaida affiliates to operate and recruit. These policies must be sophisticated and informed. We have suffered from a tendency to view the world in terms of extremists versus moderates, good guys versus bad guys. These are blinders that prevent us from understanding, on their own terms, complex conflicts such as the ones in Yemen that undermine broader counterterrorism goals. This approach has led us to prioritize tactical counterterrorism over long-term strategies. And it has contributed to the misperception that regional conflicts, which are often the breeding grounds for al-Qaida affiliates, are obscure and unimportant and can be relegated to small State Department teams with few resources and limited influence outside the Department. We must change this dangerous pattern, which is why my resolution with Senators Kerry and Feinstein urges a comprehensive policy toward Yemen, approved at the highest levels and agreed upon by the entirety of the U.S. Government.

We have an opportunity to take a smarter approach. By recognizing al- Qaida as a global network that takes advantage of local conditions, instead of a monolithic threat, we can get ahead of the curve and identify threats before the next attack.

Mr. President, I have given substantial deference to executive branch nominations made by Presidents of both parties. That deference is greatest when the nomination is for a position closest to the President, such as a position in the Cabinet, and at its lowest for positions with greater independence and distance from the President.

The position to which Benjamin Bernanke has been nominated, namely to serve another term as Chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, is among those for which appropriate deference is lower. The Federal Reserve is famously independent.

A chief responsibility of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is to ensure a sound financial system. Under the watch of Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve permitted grossly irresponsible financial activities that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

While Chairman Bernanke has certainly been instrumental in helping the financial system recover from that crisis, we should not forget his role in its creation. Under Chairman Bernanke's watch predatory mortgage lending flourished, and too big to fail financial giants were permitted to engage in activities that put our nation's economy at risk. And as it responds to the crisis it helped to usher in, the Federal Reserve under Chairman Bernanke's leadership continues to resist appropriate efforts to review that response, how taxpayers' money was being used, and whether it acted appropriately.

For those reasons, I will vote against another term for Chairman Bernanke.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation establishing a temporary jobs tax credit to help businesses expand their payroll here in the U.S. by hiring more employees, expanding work hours, or raising pay. The measure is modeled on a proposal by the Economic Policy Institute that would create an estimated 5 million jobs over the next two years.

As we should not undermine the long-term prospects of our economy for the sake of a short-term problem, the legislation is fully offset to ensure that over the next 10 years it will not increase the deficit.

Briefly, the legislation provides firms a tax credit of 15 percent of the increase in their eligible payroll in 2010, and 10 percent in 2011. Eligible payroll includes that portion of a firm's wages subject to Social Security taxes. For 2010 those are wages of $106,800 or less. Thus, pay hikes for very highly salaried workers would not be eligible for the tax credit.

The jobs tax credit is designed to avoid seasonal employment spikes by calculating it on a quarter over-year-ago-quarter basis. For example, wages for the first quarter of 2010 are compared with wages for the first quarter of 2009; wages for the third quarter of 2010 are compared with wages for the third quarter of 2009. To limit possible gaming of the credit the last quarter of 2010 would be measured against the last quarter of 2008, rather than 2009.

Only increased wages for employees here in the U.S. would be eligible for the credit.

President Obama was handed the worst economy since the Great Depression. While he has taken significant steps to turn the economy around, employment continues to be a problem.

The official unemployment rate is a tragically high 10 percent. But even that high level understates the true employment picture, for if one adds in the millions of people working part-time who want full-time employment, and the millions more who are discouraged and have given up looking for work, the rate is 17.3 percent, one of the highest levels since 1994.

We must take steps to help businesses put people back to work and this bill will do that.

No tax credit can be perfectly targeted. Any tax incentive we provide firms will provide some businesses with a windfall for behaving in ways they would have anyway, but a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office on various policy options to spur employment found that a tax break similar to this proposal would be among the most efficient and effective policies we could enact. The CBO report estimated a similar jobs tax credit would boost Gross Domestic Product by as much as $1.30 for every dollar spent, and would increase employment by as much as 18 net full-time equivalent jobs for every million dollars invested through the credit. In laying out the jobs tax credit proposal on which this measure is based, the Economic Policy Institute projected an increase of more than 5 million jobs over the next 2 years.

As I noted earlier, it is essential that we not aggravate the long- term problems facing our economy, and for that reason my legislation includes provisions that will offset the estimated cost of the jobs tax credit, which the Economic Policy Institute estimates to be $27 billion. Specifically, the proposal includes provisions originally proposed by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, in S. 506, the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act.

Under the leadership of Senator Levin, the Homeland Security Committee's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that offshore tax evasion costs the taxpayers of this country an estimated one hundred billion dollars every year. Because of this abuse, ordinary taxpayers are bearing more than their fair share of the cost of their government, and our children and grandchildren will be paying an even bigger bill for the increased deficits and debt that result from this practice.

The legislation Senator Levin developed as a result of his Subcommittee's work would go a long way to shutting down this abuse, and I am pleased to include it in a measure to help firms put people back to work.

The economic pain caused by the current recession is real. More than fifteen million people are considered officially unemployed today, and if we include those who want to work more hours and those who have given up looking for work, that number rises to over 26 million. As we know, losing one's job means more than losing income. It is one of the most traumatic events we can experience, and can be devastating for the millions of families that have been affected.

We must take action to address this employment crisis. As the Senate begins to debate possible responses, a jobs tax credit should be at the top of the proposals we consider. While the precise terms of such a credit can be debated, the need for it is clear.

I urge my colleagues to support this approach.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation establishing a temporary jobs tax credit to help businesses expand their payroll here in the U.S. by hiring more employees, expanding work hours, or raising pay. The measure is modeled on a proposal by the Economic Policy Institute that would create an estimated 5 million jobs over the next two years.

As we should not undermine the long-term prospects of our economy for the sake of a short-term problem, the legislation is fully offset to ensure that over the next 10 years it will not increase the deficit.

Briefly, the legislation provides firms a tax credit of 15 percent of the increase in their eligible payroll in 2010, and 10 percent in 2011. Eligible payroll includes that portion of a firm's wages subject to Social Security taxes. For 2010 those are wages of $106,800 or less. Thus, pay hikes for very highly salaried workers would not be eligible for the tax credit.

The jobs tax credit is designed to avoid seasonal employment spikes by calculating it on a quarter over-year-ago-quarter basis. For example, wages for the first quarter of 2010 are compared with wages for the first quarter of 2009; wages for the third quarter of 2010 are compared with wages for the third quarter of 2009. To limit possible gaming of the credit the last quarter of 2010 would be measured against the last quarter of 2008, rather than 2009.

Only increased wages for employees here in the U.S. would be eligible for the credit.

President Obama was handed the worst economy since the Great Depression. While he has taken significant steps to turn the economy around, employment continues to be a problem.

The official unemployment rate is a tragically high 10 percent. But even that high level understates the true employment picture, for if one adds in the millions of people working part-time who want full-time employment, and the millions more who are discouraged and have given up looking for work, the rate is 17.3 percent, one of the highest levels since 1994.

We must take steps to help businesses put people back to work and this bill will do that.

No tax credit can be perfectly targeted. Any tax incentive we provide firms will provide some businesses with a windfall for behaving in ways they would have anyway, but a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office on various policy options to spur employment found that a tax break similar to this proposal would be among the most efficient and effective policies we could enact. The CBO report estimated a similar jobs tax credit would boost Gross Domestic Product by as much as $1.30 for every dollar spent, and would increase employment by as much as 18 net full-time equivalent jobs for every million dollars invested through the credit. In laying out the jobs tax credit proposal on which this measure is based, the Economic Policy Institute projected an increase of more than 5 million jobs over the next 2 years.

As I noted earlier, it is essential that we not aggravate the long- term problems facing our economy, and for that reason my legislation includes provisions that will offset the estimated cost of the jobs tax credit, which the Economic Policy Institute estimates to be $27 billion. Specifically, the proposal includes provisions originally proposed by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, in S. 506, the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act.

Under the leadership of Senator Levin, the Homeland Security Committee's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that offshore tax evasion costs the taxpayers of this country an estimated one hundred billion dollars every year. Because of this abuse, ordinary taxpayers are bearing more than their fair share of the cost of their government, and our children and grandchildren will be paying an even bigger bill for the increased deficits and debt that result from this practice.

The legislation Senator Levin developed as a result of his Subcommittee's work would go a long way to shutting down this abuse, and I am pleased to include it in a measure to help firms put people back to work.

The economic pain caused by the current recession is real. More than fifteen million people are considered officially unemployed today, and if we include those who want to work more hours and those who have given up looking for work, that number rises to over 26 million. As we know, losing one's job means more than losing income. It is one of the most traumatic events we can experience, and can be devastating for the millions of families that have been affected.

We must take action to address this employment crisis. As the Senate begins to debate possible responses, a jobs tax credit should be at the top of the proposals we consider. While the precise terms of such a credit can be debated, the need for it is clear.

I urge my colleagues to support this approach.

I also seek clarification of this piece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, specifically in section 2001, regarding the definition of individuals that would be considered newly eligible under Medicaid.

I thank the Senator. As the Senator knows, to be considered ``newly eligible'' under this bill, individuals must not be eligible under the State plan or under a waiver of the plan for full benefits or for benchmark coverage as described in section 1937 of the Social Security Act. Two of the benefits that must be incorporated into benchmark coverage under section 1937 of the Social Security Act are mental health and substance use disorder services, and prescription drug coverage. If these two benefits are not offered at all, then the coverage will not count as benchmark coverage.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose this fiscally irresponsible and misguided bill. While the bill includes many good provisions, it will also fund a massive troop surge in Afghanistan that will overburden our troops and will likely hurt, not help, our efforts to eliminate the global threat posed by al-Qaida and its affiliates. And it is stuffed with earmarks and wasteful spending, such as $2.5 billion for 10 C-17s that the Defense Department does not want and $130 million for a Presidential helicopter program that has been cancelled.

While I will vote against the Defense appropriations bill, I am not going to be part of a partisan and cynical effort to delay passage of the Defense bill in order to block the Senate from considering health care reform. That is why I voted to end debate on the Defense appropriations bill, so the Senate could conduct a final vote on that bill and return to debating and voting on health care reform legislation.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help American workers and companies.

The bill that I am introducing, the Buy American Improvement Act, focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic manufacturers and workers and on the role of Federal procurement policy in achieving this goal. The reintroduction of this bill, which I first introduced in 2003, is part of my ongoing efforts to support American workers and manufacturing.

The Buy American Act of 1933 is the primary statute that governs Federal procurement. The name of this law accurately describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. Regrettably, this law contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for government agencies to buy foreign-made goods.

My bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing law by tightening its waiver provisions. Currently, the heads of Federal departments and agencies are given broad discretion to waive the act and buy foreign goods with little or no accountability. We should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the U.S. completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice.

With unemployed workers in the U.S. facing a double-digit unemployment rate, the highest rate since 1983, it is critical Congress back efforts to support American workers. Many unemployed American workers are currently facing persistently long periods of unemployment; data from the Department of Labor showed that in October of this year, over 35 percent of unemployed workers had been without jobs for at least 27 weeks. Since December of 2007, the number of unemployed workers in the U.S. has grown by over 8 million, with manufacturing and construction workers being particularly hard-hit. We need to do all we can to promote fiscally responsible Federal policies that support the creation of American jobs to help get the unemployed and Funderemployed back to work. A strong Buy American Act should be part of the Federal effort to create and retain American jobs.

During another period of economic upheaval in the 1930s, Congress passed a series of laws designed to promote job growth in the U.S., including the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. Sec. 10a-10d. The Buy American Act requires the Federal Government to support domestic manufacturers and workers by purchasing American-made goods. Over the years, other domestic sourcing legislation has been passed to help support American industry, including the Buy America Act, 23 U.S.C. Sec. 313, which applies to Federal transportation funding. In addition, Congress included domestic sourcing requirements in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, P.L. 111-5, earlier this year because it recognized the importance of supporting American workers and American industry. My legislation would help American industry by making it more difficult to waive the Buy American Act and help ensure the Federal Government does all it can to support American workers.

I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price-gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors.

The gaping loopholes in the Buy American Act and the trade agreements and defense procurement agreements that contain additional waivers of domestic source restrictions have combined to weaken our domestic

manufacturing base by allowing--and sometimes actually encouraging--the Federal Government to buy foreign-made goods. Congress can and should do more to support American companies and American workers. We must strengthen the Buy American Act and we must stop entering into bad trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and undermine our own domestic preference laws.

By strengthening Federal procurement policy, we can help to bolster our domestic manufacturers during these difficult times. As I have repeatedly noted, Congress cannot simply stand on the sidelines while tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been and continue to be shipped overseas. While there may be no single solution to this problem one way in which Congress should act is by strengthening the Buy American Act.