us here to do. they certainly didn't send us here to take away a woman's right to choose. they sent us here to work on this economic recovery, and we've got proposals over there on the other side that are unbelievable. that would raise taxes on people who have health care policies that include reproductive health care for women. can you imagine? they want to raise taxes on small businesses that have health policies that cover reproductive health care for women. i didn't think that's what this election was about. i thought it was about getting jobs in this economy. between that and the overreaching on the budget, we got a lot of work to do. i say it with due respect, i really do.

but the american people are going to need to weigh in on this. they're going to need to say how much is too much, what their values are. richard nixon signed a clean air act -- the clean water act. a republican president signed these acts. and now the republicans are trying to destroy these important bipartisan accomplishments. you know why, they say? it kills jobs. guess what? we heard the same thing, the people who tried to stop the clean air act, the polluters. they said it's going to cost jobs. we had the greatest economic growth after that period. guess what? jobs are created when you clean up the air. jobs are created, technologies that we can export, when you find ways to make drinking water safe.

so, frankly, i'm energized by this debate because, you know, i believe there are differences in the parties. i think that's okay. it's fine. so i'll be involved in the debate. i'm sure my colleagues on the other side who disagree will put forward their view. they're trying to take away the power of the environmental protection agency to enforce standards on carbon pollution, dangerous, dangerous carbon pollution that the bush administration told us through their work put our people in danger, put our families in danger, put our country in danger, put our economy in danger. they're actually trying to stop the e.p.a. from enforcing the clean air act. again, i don't know what constituent that ever told me that they thought the air was too clean or the water was too safe to drink. so this is a bit of a preview,

but on the very bright side today, it is my honor to support the nomination of judge edward davila. as the senate prepares to vote on his kweurpgs to become a -- confirmation to become a district court judge, i want to congratulate him and his family on this important day. i've had the privilege of recommending judge davila to president obama to serve on the northern district court of california. he is respected by his colleagues and those who appear before him, and he will make an excellent addition to the bench. this is a critical vacancy to fill. the northern district has been designated a judicial emergency by the administrative office of the u.s. courts. let me say that again: the northern district of california has been designated a judicial emergency. we don't have enough judges, and it's another area we must work

better together. i'm hopeful on this one that we can. i'm pleased that we're voting on judge davila today. and when he is confirmed, judge davila will be the only latino serving on the northern district court. and that's important. our state is so diverse. it's extraordinary. and we just need everybody feeling that they are represented. the judge is outstanding. he brings an impressive background of service in both public service and private practice. judge davila was born in palo alto, one of three children raised by a single mother. a single mother. it is from his mother dora that he learned the important qualities that have served him well, and he defines those as hard work and determination. and i would like to extend my personal congratulations to dora. as a mother, i know the immense

pride she must feel for her son and his extraordinary accomplishments. judge davila is a graduate of the california state university at san diego and the university of california college of law in san francisco. he practiced law for nearly three decades spending his first seven years as a santa clara county public defender before moving into the private sector as a co-owner of a small firm specializing in criminal defense. during his time as a defense koupb serblgs judge davila earned the respect of prosecutors and law enforcement officials with whom he interacted, and he received awards from the state bar of california. and he served as president of the santa clara bar association in 1998. since 2001, he has served on the santa clara county superior court where he's drawn praise from fellow judges and lawyers for his hard work, his integrity and his fairness. in a recent survey by the santa

clara county bar association his peformance was rated excellent or good by a huge percentage of participants. with respect to his work ethic, his knowledge of the law, his knowledge of procedure, integrity, dispute resolution and his judicial temperament which we know is so important. he's also received awards and recognition for his judicial peformance from the santa clara bar association and the california state assembly. so i will close my remarks today by congratulating judge davila and his entire family on this momentous day. here's another example of the american dream. and i urge my colleagues in the senate to join me in voting to confirm this highly qualified nominee to the federal bench. thank you very much, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that my remarks on the budget appear in the record at the appropriate

place. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: mr. president, i rise today in strong support of justice graves. am i recognized to speak on that purpose? the presiding officer: we're currently in a quorum call. mr. wicker: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with, and i ask unanimous consent that it be. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: thank you. and now i will state to the president and to members that i rise in strong support of the

nomination of mississippi supreme court justice james graves to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit. i want to thank all of those on both sides of the aisle who have worked to get this vote scheduled and to bring us to this moment today where i'm confident that justice graves will be confirmed. when that happens today, and when he takes the oath, justice graves will bring a rich and distinguished background of public service to the fifth circuit. he is a mississippi native. he graduated as valedictorian of sumner high school in the small delta town of sumner and went ton to receive his bachelor's degree from millsap's college. justice graves presides as a justice on the mississippi supreme court where he has

faithfully served since his appointment in 2001 and his subsequent election in 2004. before being appointed to the mississippi supreme court, justice graves served as a circuit court judge in heinz county, mississippi, for ten years. justice graves is a dedicated family man and community volunteer. he has been honored on numerous occasions with awards recognizing his public service. those who know him know that he is particularly committed to teaching and motivating young people, particularly the young people of my state of mississippi. and i'm confident that even in this position of increased responsibility and visibility, he will continue taking time to work with our nation's young people. so i'm proud today to speak on behalf of justice graves. i urge my colleagues to vote in support of his nomination to the

fifth circuit. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

he. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the order for the -- mr. cochran: i ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum be rescinded. i am pleased to support the nomination of justice james e. graves jr. to serve as a judge on the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit. at this time justice graves is

serving as a presiding justice on the mississippi supreme court. he was appointed to our state's highest court in 2001, and he was elected to the court in 2004. prior to that, he served as a trial court judge for ten years. justice graves has earned impressive academic credentials, including an undergraduate degree from millsaps college, a law degree from syracuse university college of law, and a master's degree of public administration from syracuse university. justice graves has served as a director of the child support division of the mississippi

department of human services. mr. president, it is with pride and pleasure that i am able to recommend to the senate the confirmation of justice james e. graves jr. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. a. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: today the senate will confirm two more of president obama's judicial nominees. with this action we're filling two seats which have been declared judicial emergencies. i am pleased that we're moving forward with these very important nominations and filling these vacancies. i agree with the chairman's recent editorial and remarks

that he has made that we have an opportunity to turn a page and work together in the spirit of bipartisanship and civility. i do not view it as a productive effort to continue with finger-pointing and the negative back around forth regarding previous pace or outcome of judicial nominations. unfortunately that rhetoric has frequently overshadowed the debate of the qualifications of particular nominees. i and my republican colleagues have been very cooperative in taking action on president's nominees. during this congress, the president has nominated 50 individuals to the federal judiciary. this congress has been in session for approximately one month. in this brief time we have taken positive action in one form or another on nearly half of these nominees. with today's vote, we will have

confirmed five nominees and, of course, this is corporation, and if it's not, i don't know what is. furthermore, we've seen a high level of bipartisanship with regard to president obama's confirmed nominees. for president obama's confirmed district judge nominees, 94% of those confirmations were by unanimous votes. only 59% of president bush's confirmed district court nominees were afforded the same level of bipartisanship. so i think it is fair to say that we're cooperating in a bipartisan manner and in a deliberate pace. i'm working with the chairman to ensure nominees are afforded a fair, but thorough process in a timely manner. i appreciated the chairman's curt sis as we have worked -- courtesies as we have worked together to set agendas and schedules. as we work together, i assure my colleagues i will not falter in

ensuring that each nominee is properly and thoroughly evaluated. we're acting to reduce the judicial vacancy rate. there are currently 99 vacancies in the federal courts. however, it is remarkable to me that more than half of these vacancies, 52, have yet to receive a nomination. further, 25 of the 46 deemed to be judicial emergencies do not have nominees. it is unfair to blame republicans for any delays with these vacancies. it is impossible to fill seats when a nominee has not been named. it is the responsibility of the president to send to the senate consensus nominees for these positions. i'd like to say a few words about nominees who are scheduled to have votes today. i thank our leadership for the reasonable arrangements that was reached to consider the nominations. justice james e. graves has been nominated to be circuit judge for the fifth circuit.

he received his b.a. from milsapp and j.d. from syracuse university. justice graves comes to the federal bench with extensive experience in the legal field. he was a staff attorney for the central mississippi legal services for three years before moving into private practice. justice graves also spent time first as a consult then as chief legal consult in the office of the mississippi attorney general. justice graves left the office of attorney general to become director of the mississippi department of human services child support and first division. justice graves also has considerable judicial experience. he was appointed to the mississippi circuit court judge in 1991 and was reelected twice. since 2001, justice graves has served on the mississippi supreme court and has authored

151 majority opinions for the court and 92 concurring or i did send -- descending opinions. the american bar association on federal judiciary unanimously rated him qualified. i also support the nominee judge edward davila to u.s. district judge for the northern district of california. with today's votes we will have confirmed seven of president obama's nominees to the district courts of california. judge davila received his b.a. from california state university, saying, and -- san diego, and his j.d. from university of california hastings college of law. the judge davila began his career at santa clara public defender before entering private practice. he represented criminal

defendants in state and federal courts. in august of 2001, then governor gray davis, appoint judge davila to the superior court of california county of santa clara. judge davila was reelected without an opposition twice. mr. president, we're making good progress and -- considering judicial nomination and i'm pleased that the chairman and i have moved forward. we're filling judicial vacancies with a particular focus on judicial emergencies. we're working in a manner that treats each nominee in a fair manner and permits each senator to thoroughly review the qualifications of each nominee. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the role. -- the roll.

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, we are prepared to yield back any time on this side, and i understand from my republican colleagues, they yield back on their time.

i don't believe -- parliamentary inquiry. the first nomination, the graves nomination? the presiding officer: yes, senator, that is correct. mr. leahy: it is my understanding that there is not a request for a roll call on that one. the presiding officer: if all time is yielded back, the question is on the graves nomination. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. leahy: move to reconsider. a senator: move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is now on the davila nomination. mr. leahy: mr. president, there has been a request for a roll call on that. i'd ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient

second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 93, the nays are zero. knot nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions, and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: mr. leader. mr. reid: there will be no more votes tonight. i've been in -- had a number of conversations with the republican leader today. we're going to have one or two votes before our caucus loons tomorrow. we'll have a number of votes set

up after the caucus leon. we're moving to finish this bill as quickly as we can, which will be this week. i know that the people -- a number of people have been waiting around for votes. i know senator paul has been waiting around. i think we've a pathway to be able to vote on that tomorrow afternoon. i know that the senator from nebraska has an amendment, senator wicker has an amendment we're trying to -- we're trying to notify those as soon as we can. -- we're trying to move to those as soon as we can. anyway, we're going to have some more votes tomorrow. no more votes tonight. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: the distinguished senior senator from oklahoma and i be recognized for a total of six minutes evenly divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i dwreeld to the senator from oklahoma.

mr. inhofe: okay, mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: senator leahy and i have two amendments, he has amendment number 50 fnlt i have my amendment number 6. we'll just be a couple minutes because you were kind enough to let us go in front of you there. this has to do with the liability of those individuals who are taking their -- making their own sacrifice to help people in distress. it's something that those of us who are pilots have done in helping individuals, in being relieved of some of the individual liability that might be incurred. his amendment goes a little further than mine, but i'm satisfied with his, rand so what i'd like to do is request unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment number 6 that gives liability protection to volunteer pilots and organizations and also request unanimous consent that i be added as a cosponsor to the leahy amendment number 50. we've been in negotiations to for a number of weeks on this. in fact, w we were even last yer

and i think we've reached an agreement that we would both find acceptable. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i might say for the distinguished senator from oklahoma, he and i worked together to advance both of these amendments in a bipartisan way. we worked together to do it last year. we're working together again this year. our amendment closes a gap in our public safety officers' benefits act for emergency service providers by extending federal benefits to emergency service providers who die or are disabled in the line of duty, who work for private or nonprofit emergency services. tragedy two years ago in vermont highlighted this. first responder dale long from vermont, the rescue quad

2008e.m.t. of the year, a 2009 recipient of the american ambulance association's star of liflife award. shortly after that, he was killed in the line of duty. given the nonprofit status of his ambulance service, he was ineligible for federal death benefits. now, the judiciary committee -- all republicans, all democrats -- unanimous lei proved this legislation last congress. the leahy-inhofe amendment is fully paid for and included in the offset. i know the distinguished senator and i have talked about this. he comes from a part of the country where people have to fly to get rescued. we drive to rescue them. we're a much smaller land area. they fly to it. either way, we ought to be doing something to protect the people out there trying to rescue or aid the people in distress. so i am proud to join with

senator inhofe on this, and i would hope at some appropriate time the amendment is now amended and will be accepted. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i would respond by saying that on numerous owe cautions in my, i guess, 55 years in the flying airplanes around, i've done a lot of the good samaritan things and it never really acoward it me during that time. one time i went all the way down to bilmanika, just north of venezuela. i was stem celling the senator from iowa about that, leading ten planes. eight of us made it down and back. that was something that none of us had to do but nobody else would do it. i jus b -- i just believe we could encourage more people to do these good samaritan duties if we gave them more liability. i ask unanimous consent that the senator after the senator from iowa made his remarks that i be recognized

for ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i want to discuss for a few moments here a few amendments that are pending that i think would undermine the basic rights and protections for american workers. in these difficult economic times working families are struggling enough. wages are stagnant. i saw a report the other day that in real terms, in real terms, when you take inflation into account wages right now for working men and women are where they were in 1974; almost 40 years. job security is harder to find. more and more companies facing financial pressures are deciding to cut corners on fundamentals like worker safety. now more than ever workers need the basic protections that our laws provide. the last thing we need to do is take a step backwards and make working people even more vulnerable than they are today especially in terms of their safety and health.

that's exactly what the wicker amendment and the paul amendment would do for two groups of very dedicated people: flight crews and transportation security officers who work every day to keep us safe when we travel. first, the paul amendment would undermine valuable safety and health protections for flight crews. i don't think it would come as a surprise to any of us to hear that working on an airplane can be a dangerous job. according to the bureau of labor and statistics, flight attendants as well as other employees in the air transportation industry suffer occupational illnesses at rates far hire than any other sector of private industry. this industry raises unique safety challenges and we need to make special efforts to keep these workers safe on the job. now the f.a.a. -- the federal aviation administration -- regulates all workplace safety issues on airplanes. however, at congress's urging,

the f.a.a. has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the occupational safety and health administration that is supposed to facilitate consultation and coordination between the two agencies about safety issues. this is entirely appropriate since the occupational safety and health administration has the expertise in this area. but that coordination hasn't been effective in recent years. while a 2000 f.a.a. report identified areas where flight crew safety could be improved, after that report, coordination essentially stopped. and the f.a.a. has failed to take additional action to review and implement the recommended workplace safety standards. the bill that we're considering now on the floor would restore and improve the level of coordination between the f.a.a. and osha so that they can complete the valuable work outlined in that memorandum of understanding. it would just basically require that the two agencies put their

heads together and consider whether any osha standards should properly be applied to people employed on aircrafts. i want to be very clear on this point. the bill does not supplant f.a.a.'s authority. osha would not be conducting investigations or issuing fines for f.a.a.-covered employees. that's the sole purview of the f.a.a. all the bill says is the two agencies should continue to talk and to coordinate. and this seems to be eminently sensible. it simply defies explanation to preclude this kind of coordination, and it puts workers' lives and workers' safety at risk. for example, flight crews are exposeed to a variety of dangerous chemicals including jet fuel vapors, compressed oxygen, the icing chemicals. yet, there is no current rule requiring that the employees be informed of hazardous materials

in the workplace. osha has a safety standard about hazard communication requiring that workers be informed of such hazardous materials. it's a simple, easy to comply with standard it, saves workers lives. the 2000 report that i referred to earlier found that f.a.a. could complement osha standard on hazardous communication without any implications for flight safety. but what has happened? absolutely nothing. despite finding that the osha standard could improve safety for airline employees that it would not impact aviation safety, the cooperative effort stalled in its tracks. this bill would kind of recess tate that cooperation -- resuscitate that cooperation. this is one of a number of important reforms that would improve workplace safety without compromising flight saefplt hardworking flight attendants and other flight crew workers

deserve our efforts to make this a reality. the legislation does not change or undermine f.a.a.'s role at all. it simply fosters cooperation between two government agencies, one that has a lot of technical expertise; the other one which has the jurisdiction. again, i just think that this would be something that you'd say, well, sure they should cooperate and communicate. the amendment before us now would say that they couldn't even collaborate and would make people less safe on the job. i urge my colleagues to protect the safety of our workers by opposing this amendment. i'm equally concerned about the impact that the amendment by senators wicker and collins would have on the hardworking people who keep our airports and planes safe. i've spoken about this amendment before, but i'd like to bring it up again.

the legislation that we created when we created the transportation security administration, the t.s.a., congress gave t.s.a. the right to determine whether transportation safety officers, t.s.o.'s, have the right to collectively bargain. those are the people we see every time we go through the airport and they check our i.d.'s and they run the machines that check our bags. these are our transportation safety officers. well, the transportation security administration found that collective bargaining could improve security by tkraegs low morale -- addressing low merely. however, certain subjects remain off limits for bargaining, including pay, training and any t.s.a. emergency response measure. now, right now the t.s.o.'s

under what the t.s.a. wanted to do would be allowed to collectively bargain but for, but for those certain items. as i said, pay, they couldn't collectively bargain on pay or deployment or training or emergency response measures. now, as i mentioned when i previously addressed this issue on the senate floor, a recent -- quote -- "best places to work" survey ranked the t.s.a. 220 out of 224 federal employers. the agency's turnover and injury rates are among the highest for any federal agency. low morale and high turnover at a front line security agency are a recipe for disaster. t.s.a. determined that collective bargaining will address those problems and improve the agency's ability to fulfill its mission. the t.s.a.'s decision is well reasoned and sound. it states that a -- quote --

"one size fits all model of labor relations that undermines initiative and flexibility would not serve t.s.a. or its workforce well." that's exactly what this amendment by senators wicker and collins would do. it would lock into place one model of labor relations, the most adversarial model that's most harmful to employee morale. as i said, we know that employee morale at the t.s.o. level is very low, and a very high turnover rate. while my colleagues who support this amendment cite concerns about disruptions to security procedures, the agency believes, and i agree that those concerns are misguided. first and foremost, i question the assumption underlying this concern that men and women who take a job protecting our nation would cast that duty aside if they were granted basic labor protections like collective bargaining. i think that's an insult to

every man and woman in uniform who works under a checkive bargaining agreement across this country -- a collective bargaining agreement across this country. to suggest unionized security personnel are somehow less effective, less dedicated, less willing to put their lives on the line in an emergency is scandalous. most federal security employees, including border patrol personnel, immigration and custom officials or capitol police officers who protect us, federal protective services officers, they all have collective bargaining rights. and i also always point out the famous picture of september 112001, when that awful, awful tragedy happened in new york. those buildings came down, and we saw thousands of people running away from this disaster and the buildings falling down, while running into the buildings were our police, our

firefighters and our emergency personnel. all of them, every single one of them, a member of a union. every single one of them covered by a collective bargaining agreement. did they shirk their duty? did they shirk their responsibilities? not a bit. we're proud of them. so why should t.s.o.'s be any different? again, the exclusion of deployment and training and emergency response measures from bargaining will prevent any disruptions to security procedures. it's why i fillerly believe -- firmly believe that collective bargaining is a way to bring dignity to a workplace. it will make our t.s.o. workforce more stable. restoring these essential rights is long overdue. i urge my colleagues to oppose the wicker-collins amendment. finally, mr. president, while i think it's critically important that the bill we are considering must not be a vehicle for rolling back worker protections,

i regret that it will not be a vehicle to correct an outrageous attack on workers' rights that was enacted on this legislation in 1996. in a rider to the 1996 f.a.a. reauthorization bill, congress made it harder for employees of an expressed carrier to organize a union in order to unfairly advantage one company -- one company -- fedex express. the bill carved out employees of an express carrier delivery company, which meant only one company -- fedex -- from coverage under the national labor relations act and placed them under the railway labor relations act. as a result, it is difficult, if not impossible, for fedex employees to organize and bargain collectively. what's the difference? well, under the national labor relations act, workers can act

locally in seeking to organize and bargain collectively. under the railway labor act, workers must organize nationally. nationally. an enormous challenge in today's labor environment, especially for workers who did not necessarily work in mobile industries. under the current law, if package sorters in des moines, for example, want to organize a union, they'd have to go to new york and georgia and texas and california to get every warehouse worker in the country to join them, which is obviously extremely difficult. this quirk in the law is not only illogical, it's the worst kind of political favoritism. why do i say that, mr. president? because obviously one of the biggest competitors of fedex is united parcel service. united parcel service allows their -- they're under the national labor relations act. not every single one of their employees is unionized, but they're allowed to organize and

bargain collectively. in certain states that are covered by union shop, then they would all be covered in a state like iowa, which is a right-to-work state, some of the employees of united parcel service would be members of a union. some wouldn't. but they would all be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. so united parcel service, their workers doing the same exact job aciphex workers -- as fedex workers, in organizing and bargaining collectively, fedex workers can't because they are under the railway labor act. that was a rider to this bill in 1996 to favor one company. again, identical jobs for fedex, another company, different rights under the law. that's unfair. congress should ensure that companies compete on a level playing field. we shouldn't be picking favorites. we shouldn't be picking

favorites, especially not by silencing the voices of employees of one company. in past congresses, i've introduced legislation to eliminate this special treatment and ensure that employees who have nothing to do with air transport have all the rights they're entitleed to under the national labor relations act. there are tens of thousands of truck drivers and warehouse employees who have nothing to do with airline travel, and the rules of the game are rigged against them. i had hoped this bill would provide an opportunity to right these past wrongs. i know it's important to complete our work on the f.a.a. reauthorization in short order. this bill will create hundred of thousands of jobs. as a pilot, myself, my friend from -- from oklahoma has been flying longer than i have i think, but we've both been flying a long time. i've been one of those waiting for the next gem to come on

board, it will enhance flight safety. it will make it easier for our aviation pilots to fly in this -- in this environment. and -- and it's important to get the bill done. so that's why i -- i support the bill. but, again, i -- i -- i had hoped that we would have addressed this inequity that exists in here in this -- as it regards to the federal express. but it's not so we'll have to carry on the battle on another bill on another day because i think it is just an issue of fundamental fairness for workers and hopefully we'll revisit this again sometime in the future. mr. president, i thank my friend from oklahoma for being so patient and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: before my friend from iowa leaves the floor. let me just mention when you talk about nextgen, years ago

when we first flew, there was nothing but low frequency. and then they came along with v.o.r.'s and i the thought this has to be the end of it. and then you pick up a v.r. and move it over here. what more could they do? then loran and then g.p.s. i keep saying they can't get better. there's hardly a runway that you can't shoot an instrument approach on using g.p.s. i flew a plane across siberia, i shot my approaches with a g.p.s. you can train a chi chimp to use g.p.s. we -- these opportunities coming up to enhance the safety and abilities of jetway aviation with commercial aviation. mr. harkin: the first plane i owned had the old coffee grinder in it, you get the a.n.n., so i

remember those days quite well. thank god we've got g.p.s. now. mr. inhofe: i thank my friend. let me mention, a few minutes ago i talked about two amendments i had for -- in the f.a.a. bill. one is what i would call the good samaritan amendment. we talked about this for years. senator leahy and i have come to an agree, while i would like to offer liability protection beyond just the pilots who might be offering their services as my friend from iowa and i have done many times at our own expense because no one else would do it. i mentioned -- i say to the occupier of the chair, it wasn't that many years ago there was a horrible hurricane that wiped out an island called dominica and i can remember putting together 10 flights, general aviation airplanes and we took

doctors, nurses, generators and good down there and food and water because nobody else would do it. and -- and this type of thing is going on all the time. and i just think that they should be afforded some protection from the liability laws and -- but i do realistically know that -- that with this compromise we can get it passed and it this offer individuals protection. but the other amendment that i have is quite different. it has to do with something that's called sub par s of f.a.r. in the regulations part 121. the department of defense, many of the movement of troops and individuals rely on supplemental carriers, supplemental carriers. we're talking about nonscheduled carriers or chartered airlines. and these are people -- or airlines that are nonscheduled, they come up a -- under a separate part, part-b, and

they're given some exemption from the crew rest rigid parts that affect the scheduled airlines. it's easy for a scheduled airline to have the rigorous crew rest times because they're scheduled. when you get into nonscheduling, you are -- are getting into some areas where it's much more difficult. i'd like to say two things about it. first of all, the supplemental air carriers are -- have had a -- a safety record that is even better than scheduled. there has never been one time in 15 years that the n.s. -- ntsb has cited some kind of -- something wrong, something that happened with the part-b or nonscheduled carriers as a result of -- of -- of fatigue. it just hasn't happened. i often say we get so anxious to pass laws around here, and i've always had the -- the philosophy that if it ain't broke, don't

fix it. and this is not broke. it's worked very well. so i think that their record speaks for themselves. the -- the -- the thing that a lot of people are not aware of is if you're a nonscheduled airline, you are able to have longer rest periods even though you go over the 15 hours of actual flight time and so they end up getting -- it works out in the long rage and they can -- long range and they can do things that they couldn't do otherwise. nonscheduled airlines, the department of defense defends on them for 95% of all military passengers and 40% of military karg yoavment that's going into -- cargo. that's going into iraq, afganistan, all throughout the danger points and southwest asia and it is expected that these new regulations would negatively impact the mission capability and increase the cost to both the carriers and to d.o.d. supplemental flights are carried

out under control of the air mobility command, that's at fort scott air force base in illinois, a central feature of the carrier's ability to complete the critical missions every day is that flexibility built into sub part s of the f.a.a. regulations. now, i -- i'm not offering something that is going to change how they treat sub part s. i'm going to say that they currently have a rule that they're considering. and this rule would change the -- would -- would draw -- do away with the distinction between sub part q and r and subpart s, we is nonscheduled airlines. and so if we are depending upon the -- these nonscheduled airlines to fly our troops, our -- our cargo into these areas, these war torn areas, then there's no other way of doing it. you can say that the air force

can use their c-17. right now they're in a tempo where they can't take on anymore missions. you have critical things happening. like flying blood into areas of the -- of combat. let me give you a couple of examples, mr. president. there's a regular run that goes from nato, that's belgium to bagrum and then back to amsterdam. they're taking tents, cargo, gasoline, food, and other supplies. that would be 19.6 hours. that means they can't do it. to do it they would have to have crew rest time and that would have to take place in bagrum. you can't leave a commercial airline in bagrum. it cannot be done. you have to figure out some way to get the cargo in and out of bagrum. there's her to run that goes from germany to kandahar to hong kong.

that's 17.5 hours. you can't do that because you can't leave your aircraft in a war zone. to kara zstan, that can't be done. i think the one most critical twice a week one carrier currently operates and takes lifesaving blood runs twice a week from mcgwire air force base to ramstein and then to qatar. from qatar they have to go into -- into afganistan and back and that roundtrip is -- extends beyond the 15 hours that would be allowed with the scheduled airline. so under a su subpart s they cao it. we're talking about twice a week, regular runs taking blood into areas in afganistan, where we -- it's critical that we get it in. i'm saying that we should and the f.a.a. in promulgating the

rules, should take into consideration that there is a separate type of a -- a mission that has to be performed for our young men and women in harm's way and we can't do it unless we treat the sub -- the sub s parts of the rule 121, f.a.r.121 from the scheduled airlines. i'm hoping we'll have a chance. my concern is this, there are are a lot of people there for some labor reasons they don't want to have anyone to have that ability to go beyond the 15 hours even though they get more crew rest time. and i'm the only one talking about the fact that we have lives of our young men and women in harm's way at stake depending on these sub s treatment. so that's -- this thing is very, very critical and i really believe that we should do something to -- to make sure that if -- if they're going to look at the rules, that at least look at the rules in a different

light, then just looking at them all together, but look at sub s and hear the testimony and -- and see if that doesn't work -- warrant a special consideration. mr. president, there's nobody -- i don't see anyone else in the chamber waiting to talk. i only want to make one -- one comment. i was in shock when i got off the plane and saw that the president -- read what the president came out with in his budget. i think it's unbelievable. $8.7 trillion in new spending. $1.6 trillion in new taxes. $13 trillion in new debt. the current year deficit increase by $1.6 trillion. not $1.4 trillion or $1.5 trillion as they talked about before. it's incredible this could be happening right now. and i just wonder if he didn't get the message of last november 2, and that is people know that we cannot keep extending the spending. the fact that we had increased in the first two years -- this

came straight from the white house, from the administration, our spending greater than all spending in the history of this country from george washington to george w. bush. mine, it can't happen. people are talking about the deficits that took place during george w. bush. the average deficit wa was $247 billion. and that was right after he tried to rebuild a military an after 9/11, we found ourselves in two wars. so -- so instead of the deficit being $247 billion. the deficit in this administration has been $3 trillion in two years. that's inconceivable. now, i thought he'd come out with something after listening to the state of the union message, start moderating and start trying to save some money. it just hasn't happened. the only big loser, spending money on everything except the military. i don't know why it is that liberals never want to spend

money on the military. an $80 billion cut over a five-year period in the department of defense. this is right after we went through the days we had a draw down of defense by 40%. we find ourselves after 9/11 in two wars. we need to make sure that the american people realize that the state of the union message sounded good when he said we're going to put a freeze on -- you know what the freeze was? the freeze was to take the non-defense discretionary spending and freeze it for five years. wait a minute. that's after he increased it over 20%. you freeze it so we can't bring it back down. i hope the people are looking carefully and seeing what's happening. they will -- if you look at what they're doing just on the oil and gas industry, and i know there are a lot of people in the liberal communities who want to put them out of business. they're going to successfully do this if they pass this particular budget. i'm talking about the i.d.c.,

199 manufacturers deduction. by the way, the only industry under this budget that is affected negatively by that is oil and gas. all other manufacturers in the industry are all right. so i hope people have a chance to look at this very carefully. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent that the order of the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the

pending amendments be set aside to call up the baucus amendment, number 75, as modified. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from west virginia, mr. rockefeller, for mr. baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 75 as modified. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the clerk dispense with the reading of the amendment, and i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i -- i rise to talk about one of america's great institutions, gallaudet university. on july 4, 1861, president lincoln celebrated our nation's independence on the eve of the civil war by declaring to congress the principal aim of the u.s. government should be to elevate the condition of man, to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life. just a few months before that, president lincoln signed into

federal law the authorization to confer collegiate degrees to the deaf and to the hard of hearing in a campus in washington, d.c. for the first time in the nation's history, and still alone to this day, gallaudet university is the only liberal arts university in the world dedicated to the pursuit of higher education for deaf and hard of hearing people. simply put, gallaudet is a gem, a gem for our -- for this city, a gem for our country, a gem for the world for higher education. truly a national university located a short distance from the capitol and founded by president abraham lincoln. i am one of two appointees, one from the house, one from the senate, by statute to the board of trustees at gallaudet university. during my tenure on the board, i have met with proud alumni and supporters of gallaudet in ohio and here in washington. last friday, i was again on

campus and met with members of the board, the president's cabinet and a few students. someone i admire a great deal, with whom i have talked to about the culture of our nation's deaf communities are jay and meredith crane. jay is a member of the gallaudet board of trustees. jay and his wife -- jay and meredith are outstanding advocates for ohio's deaf community and culture. jay and meredith have a son and a daughter who are deaf, and they demonstrate to all of us how important a gallaudet education can be in one's life. jay's son at an event in columbus last year, explained to us how gallaudet is an oasis for students, students who have lived all over the country, generally integrated into a community, but having a sense of isolation among people who are not deaf, yet jay's son when coming to the university talked about how -- how -- what an oasis gallaudet university is for him and for his classmates.

the parents, the educators, the administrators at gallaudet serve as role models and continue to make a difference in the lives of students. that's why the relationship between gallaudet and our federal government is so important. it's why our support and encouragement of deaf and hard of hearing students allows them to explore new opportunities and experiences to enrich our workplaces in our communities. the overwhelming majority of undergraduate students at gallaudet are deaf. about half of the graduates -- the students in the graduate school at gallaudet are deaf and half of them are hearing students. many of those graduates, undergraduate and in the master's program at imal debt and the -- gallaudet and the graduate program at gallaudet, many of those students go in to serving the deaf around the country. many of them, as in jay and meredith's son, go into other professions not directly concerned with the deaf. jay's son -- jay and meredith's son, for instance, is in law school in california. most of these students come from

middle-class or working-class families. 2008-2009, more than 80% of gallaudet's students received financial aid in order to get the education they deserve. and these students are talented. i will soon have a gallaudet intern by the name of brianna johnson, a student at gallaudet who is an education and human rights justice major. she'll be graduating in may 2010. she's on the dean scholar's list. she is originally from atlanta, georgia. the gallaudet university women's basketball team ranked 18th in the nation, just was undefeated until unfortunately this past weekend when they -- when they lost to a school from penn state-harrisburg. they play in the northeastern atlantic -- athletic conference. their division iii guard is a graduate of the columbus school of the deaf in columbus, ohio. their head coach is mark elan, their assistant coach came out of one of the great basketbal basketball -- women's basketball programs in ohio, stephanie stevens, a 2000 graduate -- 2010

graduate of the university of cincinnati. she went to pickerrington high school, which has been in the state finals, final four many, many times. mr. president, as we prepare our nation to win the future and outcompete and outeducate the rest of the world, we must ensure that mission includes all americans. the creation of gallaudet 140-plus years ago helped establish a nationwide community for generations of deaf children. ohio's first school for the deaf was established in 1829 in a small house right near where the statehouse now is on broad and my columbus. that school, the columbus school for the deaf, for ohio will soon have a new campus on 200 acres on morris road in columbus with convenient student housing and modern education technology and space for future expansion. such progress demonstrates how far education for deaf and hard-of-hearing students has come and how much further can go. last year i gave a speech on this floor honoring gallaudet as

the senate passed a resolution commemorating the 104th -- 145th anniversary of gallaudet's charter that was authored by president lincoln. 141 years ago, the three members of gallaudet's first graduating class received degrees signed by president lincoln. last year during gallaudet's 140th commencement, ten ohio students graduated from gallaudet with a degree signed by president obama. i'm concerned, though, mr. president, that funding for gallaudet may be compromised in the budget that's working its way through the house of representatives. gallaudet's budget has been frozen at $118 million for, i believe, three straight years. they've gotten no increase in federal funding. they raise private money. they, obviously, charge tuition, although a huge percentage of their students, as i said, are on scholarship. and the federal money they have has been -- has not -- has not increased over the last, i believe, three years. so my concern, mr. president, is

as the budget makes its way through here, we don't just -- we don't just help those students who are going to gallaudet but we do understand that gallaudet is -- is one of our nation's gems, a national university unlike any other not just in the united states of america but any other university anywhere in the world. the proud alumni of gallaudet have enriched our communities have taught all of us the meaning of the values president lincoln laid before us, that we educate ourselves as part of a community, full of opportunity, free of, as lincoln said, free of artificial weight that works towards the good of our society. mr. president, gallaudet is a -- is a jewel for our country, it's an honor to be on their board, it's an honor, frankly, to me and a mission for the united states of america that we continue to assist this great national university that is a credit to all of us in this great country. mr. president, i yield the flo floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: