[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1639-1646]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   FAA AIR TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT--
                               Continued

  Mr. REID. For the information of all Senators, there will be no more 
votes tonight. I have had a number of conversations with the Republican 
leader today. We are going to have one or two votes before our caucus 
lunches tomorrow. We will have a number of votes set up after the 
caucus luncheons. We want to finish this bill as quickly as we can, 
which will be this week. I know a number of people are waiting around 
for votes. I know Senator Paul is waiting around for a vote on his 
amendment tomorrow afternoon, and I know Senator Nelson of Nebraska and 
Senator Wicker have amendments we are trying to get a vote on. We are 
trying to move to those as soon as we can.
  Anyway, we are going to have some votes tomorrow. No more votes 
tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma and I be recognized for a 
total of 6 minutes evenly divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.


                       Amendment No. 6 Withdrawn

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Senator Leahy and I have two amendments. 
He has Leahy amendment No. 50 and my amendment is No. 6. I say to my 
friend from Iowa, I will just be a few minutes, as he was kind enough 
to allow us to do this first.
  This has to do with the liability of those individuals who are making 
their own sacrifice to help people in distress. It is something that 
those of us who are pilots have done--helping individuals in being 
relieved of some of the individual liability that might be incurred. 
The Leahy amendment goes a little further than mine, but I am satisfied 
with his. So what I wish to do is request unanimous consent to withdraw 
my amendment No. 6 that gives liability protection to volunteer pilots 
and organizations, as well as request to be added as a cosponsor to the 
Leahy amendment No. 50. We have been in negotiations for a number of 
weeks. In fact, we were even last year. I think we have reached an 
agreement we both find acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and 
I worked together to advance both of these amendments in a bipartisan 
way. We worked together during the last year, and we are 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 
and who work for private, nonprofit emergency services organizations.
  A tragedy in Vermont 2 years ago highlighted this issue. First 
responder Dale Long from Bennington, VT, was Bennington Rescue Squad's 
2008 EMT of the Year and a 2009 recipient of the American Ambulance 
Association's Star of Life Award. Shortly after that ceremony, he was 
killed in the line of duty. Given the private, nonprofit status of his 
ambulance service, he is ineligible for Federal death benefits.
  The Judiciary Committee--all Republicans, all Democrats--unanimously 
approved this legislation last Congress. The Leahy-Inhofe amendment is 
fully paid through an included offset.
  The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and I have talked about this. 
He comes from a part of the country where people have to fly to rescue. 
We drive to rescue. We are much smaller. They fly. Either way, we ought 
to be doing something to protect the people who are out there trying to 
rescue or aid people in distress.
  I am proud to join with Senator Inhofe, and I hope at some 
appropriate time the amendment, as now amended, will be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will respond by saying that on numerous 
occasions in my 55 years of flying airplanes, I have done a lot of Good 
Samaritan things. It never really occurred to me, but one time I went 
all the way down to Dominica, near Caracas, Venezuela--I was telling 
the Senator from Iowa about it--leading 10 planes. Eight of us made it 
down and back. That is something we did not have to do, but no one else 
would do it.
  I believe we can encourage a lot more people to do these Good 
Samaritan duties if we give them a little bit of relief from liability.
  I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Iowa makes his 
remarks, I be recognized for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield back any time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss for a few moments a few 
amendments that are pending that I think would undermine the basic 
rights and protections of American workers. In these difficult economic 
times, working families are struggling enough. Wages are stagnant. In 
fact, I saw a report the other day that, in real terms, if you take 
inflation into account, wages right now for working men and women are 
about 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 such as worker safety.
  Now more than ever, workers need the basic protections our laws 
provide. The last thing we need to do is take a

[[Page 1640]]

step backward and make working people even more vulnerable than they 
are today, especially in terms of their safety and health. That is 
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 do not think it would come as a 
surprise to any of us that working on an airplane could be a dangerous 
job. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, flight attendants, as 
well as other employees in the air transportation industry, suffer 
occupational injuries and illnesses at rates far higher than workers in 
nearly every 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.
  The Federal Aviation Administration regulates all workplace safety 
issues on airplanes. However, at Congress's urging, FAA 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 
has not been effective in recent years. While a 2000 OSHA/FAA report 
identified areas where flight crew safety could be improved, after that 
report, coordination essentially stopped, and the FAA has failed to 
take additional action to review and implement the recommended 
workplace safety standards.
  The bill we are considering on the floor would restore and improve 
the level of coordination between the FAA and OSHA so that they can 
complete the valuable work outlined in that memorandum of 
understanding. It would basically require the two agencies to put their 
heads together and consider whether any OSHA standards should properly 
be applied to people working on aircrafts.
  I wish to be very clear on this point. The bill does not supplant 
FAA's authority. OSHA would not be conducting investigations or issuing 
fines for FAA-covered employees. That is the sole purview of the FAA. 
All the bill says is that the two agencies should continue to talk and 
to coordinate. This seems to be eminently sensible. It simply defies 
explanation to preclude this kind of coordination, and it could put 
workers' lives and workers' safety at risk.
  For example, flight crews are currently exposed to a variety of 
dangerous chemicals, including jet fuel vapors, compressed oxygen, 
commercial cleaning agents, deicing chemicals. Yet there is no current 
rule requiring that the employees be informed of hazardous materials in 
their workplace.
  OSHA has a safety standard about hazard communication requiring that 
workers be informed of such hazardous materials. This simple, easy-to-
comply-with standard saves workers' lives. The 2000 report I referred 
to earlier found that FAA could implement the OSHA standard on hazard 
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 and that it would not impact 
aviation safety, the cooperative effort stalled in its tracks. This 
bill would resuscitate that cooperation. This is just one of a number 
of important reforms that would improve workplace safety without 
compromising flight safety. Hard-working flight attendants and other 
flight crew workers deserve our best efforts to make these reforms a 
reality.
  Again, I wish to make one point very clear. The legislation does not 
change or undermine FAA'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 think this would be something where one would say: Sure, 
they should cooperate and communicate. The amendment before us would 
undermine a common sense practice--collaboration between agencies--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 am equally concerned about the impact the amendment by Senators 
Wicker and Collins would have on the hard-working people who keep our 
airports and planes safe. I have spoken about this amendment before. I 
would like to bring it up again.
  In legislation creating the Transportation Security Administration, 
TSA, Congress gave TSA the right to determine whether transportation 
security officers, TSOs, have the right to collectively bargain. Those 
are the people we see every time we go through the airport. They check 
our IDs. They run the machines and check our bags. These are the 
transportation safety officers.
  The Transportation Security Administration found that collective 
bargaining could improve security by addressing the agency's chronic 
low morale and employee engagement. However, certain subjects remain 
off limits for bargaining, including pay, deployment, training, and any 
TSA emergency response measures. Right now, the TSOs, under what the 
TSA wanted to do, would be allowed to collectively bargain but for 
those certain items. As I said, they could not collectively bargain on 
pay or deployment or training or emergency response measures.
  As I mentioned when I previously addressed this issue on the Senate 
floor, a recent ``best places to work'' survey ranked the TSA 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.
  TSA determined that collective bargaining will address those problems 
and improve the agency's ability to fulfill its mission. The TSA's 
decision is well reasoned and sound. It states that a ``one-size-fits-
all model of labor relations that undermines initiative and flexibility 
would not serve TSA or its workforce well.'' That is 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 is 
most harmful to employee morale. As I just said, we know employee 
morale at the TSO level is very low, and there is 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 concessions such 
as collective bargaining. I think that is an insult to every man and 
woman in uniform who works under collective bargaining agreements 
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 just plain scandalous. Most Federal 
security employees, including Border Patrol personnel, Immigration and 
Customs officials, our Capitol police officers who protect us, Federal 
Protective Services officers--they all have collective bargaining 
rights.
  I always point out that famous picture of September 11, 2001, when 
that awful tragedy happened in New York and those buildings came down 
and we saw the 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. Those workers 
were members of a union and covered by a collective bargaining 
agreement. Did they shirk their duty? Did they shirk their 
responsibility? Not a bit. We are proud of them. Why should TSOs be any 
different?
  Again, the exclusion of deployment and training and emergency 
response measures from bargaining will prevent any disruptions to 
security procedures.
  I firmly believe collective bargaining is the best way to bring 
dignity, consistency, and fairness to a workplace.

[[Page 1641]]

It will make our TSO workforce safer and more stable. Restoring these 
essential rights is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Wicker-Collins amendment.
  Finally, while I think it is 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 FAA reauthorization bill, Congress made it 
harder for employees of an express carrier to organize a union in order 
to unfairly advantage 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 Act. As a result, it is much 
more difficult for FedEx employees to organize and bargain 
collectively. What is the difference? 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--an enormous challenge in today's labor 
environment, especially for workers who do not necessarily work in 
mobile industries. Under the current law, if package sorters in Des 
Moines, for example, want to organize a union, they would 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 is the worst kind of 
political favoritism. Why do I say that? Obviously because one of the 
biggest competitors of FedEx is United Parcel Service. United Parcel 
Service is under the National Labor Relations Act. Not every single one 
of their employees is unionized, but they are allowed to organize and 
bargain collectively locally. In certain States that are covered by 
union shop, then they would all be covered. In a State such as Iowa, 
which is a right-to-work State, some of the employees of United Parcel 
Service would be members of a union and some would not. But they would 
all be covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
  United Parcel Service workers, doing the same exact job as FedEx 
workers, can organize and bargain collectively locally. FedEx workers 
cannot because they are under the Railway Labor Act, not the National 
Labor Relations Act. That was a rider to this bill in 1996 to favor one 
company. Again, identical jobs for FedEx and another company, different 
rights under the law--that is unfair. Congress should ensure that 
companies compete on a level playing field. We should not be picking 
favorites, especially not by silencing the voices of employees of one 
company.
  In past Congresses, I have introduced legislation to eliminate this 
special treatment and ensure that employees who have nothing to do with 
air transport have all the rights they are entitled to under the 
National Labor Relations Act. There are tens of thousands of 
truckdrivers 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, but I know it is important to complete our work on the FAA 
reauthorization in short order. This bill will create hundreds of 
thousands of jobs. It will make crucial investments in our Nation's 
infrastructure. As a pilot myself--and my friend from Oklahoma has been 
flying even longer than I have, I think, but we have both been flying 
for a long time--I have been waiting for the NextGen to come on board 
because it will enhance flight safety and make it a lot easier for our 
general aviation pilots to fly in this environment and it is important 
to get the bill done. So that is why I support the bill.
  Again, I had hoped we would address this inequity that exists as 
regards the Federal Express, but we did not, so we will have to carry 
on the battle on another bill on another day. It is just an issue of 
fundamental fairness for workers, so I expect that we will revisit this 
again in the future.
  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, when he 
talked about NextGen, I can remember--and he can remember--years ago, 
when we first flew, there was nothing but low frequency out there, and 
we used to shoot those low-frequency approaches. Then they came along 
with VORs, and I thought this has to be the end of it. Then they came 
along with RNAV. They could pick up a VR and move it over here. What 
more could they ever do than that? Then LORAN came along and then GPS. 
So I quit saying they can't get better because now there is hardly a 
runway in the world you can't shoot an instrument approach on using 
GPS. I flew an airplane around the world, all across Siberia--bad 
weather all the way--and I shot my approaches with GPS. You could train 
a chimpanzee to do it with a GPS.
  I agree with my friend from Iowa. We are anxious for NextGen and 
these opportunities we have that are coming up to enhance the safety 
and abilities of general aviation along with commercial aviation.
  Mr. HARKIN. If my friend would yield just for a second, I would just 
tell him the first plane I owned had an old--I called it a coffee 
grinder in it, you would get the ANN--annuls--and that would take you 
into the airport. So I can remember those days quite well. Thank God we 
have GPS now.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank my friend.
  Mr. President, a few minutes ago I talked about two amendments I had 
in the FAA bill. One was what I would call the Good Samaritan 
amendment. We have talked about this for years. Senator Leahy and I 
have come to an agreement. I would like to have it go further and 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 would 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, north of Caracas, Venezuela. I remember putting together 10 
airplanes, general aviation airplanes, and we took doctors and nurses 
and generators and goods down there and food and water because nobody 
else would do it. This type of thing is going on all the time, and I 
think they should be afforded some protection from the liability laws. 
But I do realistically know with this compromise, we can get it passed 
and this would offer individuals protection.
  The other amendment I have is quite different. It has to do with 
something called subpart S of FAR in the regulations, part 121. The 
Department of Defense--in the movement of many of the troops and 
individuals--relies on supplemental carriers. We are talking about 
nonscheduled carriers or charter airlines, and these are people or 
airlines that are nonscheduled. They come under a separate part, 
subpart B, and they are given some exemption from the crew rest rigid 
parts that affect the scheduled airlines. It is easy for a scheduled 
airline to have these very rigorous crew rest times because they are, 
as it says, scheduled. But when you get into nonscheduled, you are 
getting into areas where it is much more difficult.
  So I wish to say two things about it. First of all, the supplemental 
air carriers have had a safety record that is even better than 
scheduled. There has never been one time in 15 years that the NTSB has 
cited something wrong, something that has happened with the part B or 
nonscheduled carriers as a result of fatigue. It hasn't happened. I 
often say we get too anxious to pass laws around here. I have always 
had the philosophy if it ``ain't'' broken, don't fix it. This is not 
broken, and it has worked very well. So I think their record speaks for 
itself.
  The thing a lot of people are not aware of is if you are a 
nonscheduled airline, you are able to have longer rest periods, even 
though you may go over the 15 hours of actual flight time. So it works 
out, in the long range, they can do things they couldn't do otherwise.

[[Page 1642]]

  Here is the thing not many people realize about nonscheduled 
airlines. The Department of Defense depends on them for 95 percent of 
all military passengers and 40 percent of military cargo. That is going 
into Iraq, Afghanistan, all throughout the danger points, and Southwest 
Asia, and it is expected that these new regulations will negatively 
impact the mission capability and increase the cost to both the 
carriers and to DOD.
  Supplemental flights in support of the Department of Defense are 
carried out under control of the Air Mobility Command, which is at Fort 
Scott Air Force Base in Illinois. A central feature of the supplemental 
carrier's ability to complete these critical missions every day is the 
flexibility built into subpart S of the FAA regulations.
  I am not offering something that is going to change how they treat 
subpart S. I am only going to say they currently have a rule they are 
considering, and this rule would do away with the distinction between 
subpart Q, R, and subpart S, which is nonscheduled airlines. So if we 
are depending upon these nonscheduled airlines to fly our troops, our 
cargo into these war-torn areas, then there is no other way of doing 
it.
  You can say: Well, the Air Force can use their C-17s. Right now the 
Air Force's C-17s are in an OPTEMPO, where they can't take on any more 
missions. So you have critical things that are happening--such as 
flying blood into areas of combat. Let me give a couple examples. There 
is a regular run that goes from NATO--that is Belgium--from Belgium to 
Bagram, then back to Amsterdam. They are taking things such as 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 Bagram. There are rules 
against it. You can't leave a commercial airline in Bagram. It cannot 
be done. So you have to figure out some way to get that cargo in and 
out of Bagram.
  There is another regular run from Germany to Kandahar and then to 
Hong Kong. Well, that is 17.5 hours, so you can't do that because you 
can't leave your aircraft in a war zone. There is another run from 
Shannon to Kyrgystan and return, and that is something that is 16 hours 
and 15 minutes. That can't be done.
  I think the one that is most critical is twice a week one carrier 
currently operates and takes lifesaving blood runs from McGuire Air 
Force Base in New Jersey to Ramstein in Germany and then to Qatar. From 
Qatar, they have to go all the way into Afghanistan and back, and that 
round trip extends beyond the 15 hours that would be allowed with a 
scheduled airline. So under subpart S, they can do it. We are talking 
about twice a week, regular runs, taking blood into areas in 
Afghanistan where it is critical we get it in.
  So I am just saying the FAA, in promulgating the rules they are 
looking at right now, should take into consideration that there is a 
separate type of 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 subpart 
S of the rule FAR 121 from the scheduled airlines. So I am hoping we 
will have a chance.
  My concern is this: There are a lot of people who, for some labor 
reasons, don't want to have anyone to have the ability to go beyond the 
15 hours, even though they get more rest time. I am the only one 
talking about the fact we have the lives of our young men and women in 
harm's way at stake depending on this subpart S treatment. So this 
thing is very critical. I believe we should do something to make sure, 
if they are going to look at the rules, they at least look at the rules 
in a different light than just looking at them altogether, but look at 
subpart S and hear the testimony and see if that doesn't work, the 
special consideration.


                               The Budget

  Mr. President, I don't see anyone else in the Chamber waiting to 
talk, so I wish to make one additional comment. I was in shock when I 
got off the plane and read what the President came out with in his 
budget. I think it is unbelievable--$8.7 trillion in new spending, $1.6 
trillion in new taxes, $13 trillion in new debt, the current year 
deficit increased by $1.6 trillion--not $1.4 or $1.5, as they talked 
before--and it is incredible this could be happening right now.
  I wonder if he didn't get the message of last November 2; that is, 
people know we cannot keep extending the spending, the fact we had an 
increase in the first 2 years--and this came straight from the White 
House, from the administration--in our spending greater than all 
spending in the history of this country from George Washington to 
George W. Bush can't happen. People are talking about the deficits that 
took place during George W. Bush, with an average deficit of $247 
billion, and that was right after trying to rebuild a military and 
after 9/11, when we found ourselves, for all practical purposes, in two 
wars. So instead of a deficit of $247 billion, the deficit in this 
administration has been $3 trillion in 2 years. That is inconceivable.
  I thought he would come out with something, after listening to the 
State of the Union Message, that would start moderating and start 
trying to save some money, but it hasn't happened. There is spending 
money on everything except the military, which is the big loser. I 
don't know why it is that liberals never want to spend money on the 
military--an $80 billion cut over a 5-year period in the Department of 
Defense. This is right after we went through the 1990s, where we had a 
drawdown of our Defense by about 40 percent, and of course we find 
ourselves now, after 9/11, in two wars.
  So I think we need to make sure the American people realize the State 
of the Union Message sounded real good when he said we are going to 
start putting a freeze on. You know what that freeze is? The freeze is 
to take the nondefense discretionary spending and freeze it for 5 
years. But wait a minute, that is after he increased it over 20 
percent. So he increased it so we can't afford it and then he freezes 
it there so we can't bring it back down.
  So anyway, I hope people are looking carefully and seeing what is 
happening. They will. If you look at what they are doing just to the 
oil and gas industry--and I know a lot of people in the liberal 
communities who want to put them out of business, and they are going to 
successfully do it if they pass this particular budget--I am talking 
about percentage depletion, the IDC--the section 199 manufacturer's 
deduction. By the way, the only industry under this budget that is 
affected negatively by that is oil and gas. All other manufacturers in 
industry are all right. So I hope people have a chance to look at this 
carefully.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 75, as Modified

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment also be set aside to call up the Baucus amendment, 
No. 75, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], for Mr. 
     Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 75, as modified.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                   (Purpose: To provide a substitute)

       Strike title VIII and insert the following:

 TITLE VIII--AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND PROVISIONS AND RELATED TAXES

     SEC. 800. AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

[[Page 1643]]



     SEC. 801. EXTENSION OF TAXES FUNDING AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST 
                   FUND.

       (a) Fuel Taxes.--Subparagraph (B) of section 4081(d)(2) is 
     amended by striking ``March 31, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2013''.
       (b) Ticket Taxes.--
       (1) Persons.--Clause (ii) of section 4261(j)(1)(A) is 
     amended by striking ``March 31, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2013''.
       (2) Property.--Clause (ii) of section 4271(d)(1)(A) is 
     amended by striking ``March 31, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2013''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on April 1, 2011.

     SEC. 802. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND 
                   EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``April 1, 2010'' in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A) and inserting ``October 1, 2013'', and
       (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph 
     (A) and inserting ``or the FAA Air Transportation 
     Modernization and Safety Improvement Act;''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 9502(e) 
     is amended by striking ``April 1, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``October 1, 2013''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on April 1, 2011.

     SEC. 803. MODIFICATION OF EXCISE TAX ON KEROSENE USED IN 
                   AVIATION.

       (a) Rate of Tax on Aviation-grade Kerosene.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 4081(a)(2) is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
     striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting 
     ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) in the case of aviation-grade kerosene, 35.9 cents 
     per gallon.''.
       (2) Fuel removed directly into fuel tank of airplane used 
     in noncommercial aviation.--Subparagraph (C) of section 
     4081(a)(2) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) Taxes imposed on fuel used in commercial aviation.--
     In the case of aviation-grade kerosene which is removed from 
     any refinery or terminal directly into the fuel tank of an 
     aircraft for use in commercial aviation by a person 
     registered for such use under section 4101, the rate of tax 
     under subparagraph (A)(iv) shall be 4.3 cents per gallon.''.
       (3) Exemption for aviation-grade kerosene removed into an 
     aircraft.--Subsection (e) of section 4082 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``kerosene'' and inserting ``aviation-grade 
     kerosene'',
       (B) by striking ``section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iii)'' and 
     inserting ``section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iv)'', and
       (C) by striking ``Kerosene'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``Aviation-Grade Kerosene''.
       (4) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Clause (iii) of section 4081(a)(2)(A) is amended by 
     inserting ``other than aviation-grade kerosene'' after 
     ``kerosene''.
       (B) The following provisions are each amended by striking 
     ``kerosene'' and inserting ``aviation-grade kerosene'':
       (i) Section 4081(a)(3)(A)(ii).
       (ii) Section 4081(a)(3)(A)(iv).
       (iii) Section 4081(a)(3)(D).
       (C) Subparagraph (D) of section 4081(a)(3) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``paragraph (2)(C)(i)'' in clause (i) and 
     inserting ``paragraph (2)(C)'', and
       (ii) by striking ``paragraph (2)(C)(ii)'' in clause (ii) 
     and inserting ``paragraph (2)(A)(iv)''.
       (D) Paragraph (4) of section 4081(a) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``kerosene'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``aviation-grade kerosene'', and
       (ii) by striking ``paragraph (2)(C)(i)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (2)(C)''.
       (E) Paragraph (2) of section 4081(d) is amended by striking 
     ``(a)(2)(C)(ii)'' and inserting ``(a)(2)(A)(iv)''.
       (b) Retail Tax on Aviation Fuel.--
       (1) Exemption for previously taxed fuel.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 4041(c) is amended by inserting ``at the rate 
     specified in subsection (a)(2)(A)(iv) thereof'' after 
     ``section 4081''.
       (2) Rate of tax.--Paragraph (3) of section 4041(c) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Rate of tax.--The rate of tax imposed by this 
     subsection shall be the rate of tax in effect under section 
     4081(a)(2)(A)(iv) (4.3 cents per gallon with respect to any 
     sale or use for commercial aviation).''.
       (c) Refunds Relating to Aviation-grade Kerosene.--
       (1) Aviation-grade kerosene used in commercial aviation.--
     Clause (ii) of section 6427(l)(4)(A) is amended by striking 
     ``specified in section 4041(c) or 4081(a)(2)(A)(iii), as the 
     case may be,'' and inserting ``so imposed''.
       (2) Kerosene used in aviation.--Paragraph (4) of section 
     6427(l) is amended by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and 
     inserting the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Payments to ultimate, registered vendor.--With 
     respect to any kerosene used in aviation (other than kerosene 
     to which paragraph (6) applies), if the ultimate purchaser of 
     such kerosene waives (at such time and in such form and 
     manner as the Secretary shall prescribe) the right to payment 
     under paragraph (1) and assigns such right to the ultimate 
     vendor, then the Secretary shall pay (without interest) the 
     amount which would be paid under paragraph (1) to such 
     ultimate vendor, but only if such ultimate vendor--
       ``(i) is registered under section 4101, and
       ``(ii) meets the requirements of subparagraph (A), (B), or 
     (D) of section 6416(a)(1).''.
       (3) Aviation-grade kerosene not used in aviation.--
     Subsection (l) of section 6427 is amended by redesignating 
     paragraph (5) as paragraph (6) and by inserting after 
     paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Refunds for aviation-grade kerosene not used in 
     aviation.--If tax has been imposed under section 4081 at the 
     rate specified in section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iv) and the fuel is 
     used other than in an aircraft, the Secretary shall pay 
     (without interest) to the ultimate purchaser of such fuel an 
     amount equal to the amount of tax imposed on such fuel 
     reduced by the amount of tax that would be imposed under 
     section 4041 if no tax under section 4081 had been 
     imposed.''.
       (4) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Subparagraph (B) of section 4082(d)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``6427(l)(5)(B)'' and inserting ``6427(l)(6)(B)''.
       (B) Paragraph (4) of section 6427(i) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``(4)(C) or (5)'' and inserting ``(4)(B) or 
     (6)'', and
       (ii) by striking ``, (l)(4)(C)(ii), and (l)(5)'' and 
     inserting ``and (l)(6)''.
       (C) Subsection (l) of section 6427 is amended by striking 
     ``Diesel Fuel and Kerosene'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``Diesel Fuel, Kerosene, and Aviation Fuel''.
       (D) Paragraph (1) of section 6427(l) is amended by striking 
     ``paragraph (4)(C)(i)'' and inserting ``paragraph (4)(B)''.
       (E) Paragraph (4) of section 6427(l) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``kerosene used in aviation'' in the 
     heading and inserting ``aviation-grade kerosene used in 
     commercial aviation'', and
       (ii) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``kerosene'' and inserting ``aviation-grade 
     kerosene'',
       (II) by striking ``Kerosene used in commercial aviation'' 
     in the heading and inserting ``In general''.

       (d) Transfers to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (C) of section 9502(b)(1) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) section 4081 with respect to aviation gasoline and 
     aviation-grade kerosene, and''.
       (2) Transfers on account of certain refunds.--
       (A) In general.--Subsection (d) of section 9502 is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``(other than subsection (l)(4) thereof)'' 
     in paragraph (2), and
       (ii) by striking ``(other than payments made by reason of 
     paragraph (4) of section 6427(l))'' in paragraph (3).
       (B) Conforming amendments.--
       (i) Paragraph (4) of section 9503(b) is amended by striking 
     ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C), by striking the period 
     at the end of subparagraph (D) and inserting a comma, and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(E) section 4081 to the extent attributable to the rate 
     specified in clause (ii) or (iv) of section 4081(a)(2)(A), or
       ``(F) section 4041(c).''.
       (ii) Subsection (c) of section 9503 is amended by striking 
     paragraph (5).
       (iii) Subsection (a) of section 9502 is amended--

       (I) by striking ``appropriated, credited, or paid into'' 
     and inserting ``appropriated or credited to'', and
       (II) by striking ``, section 9503(c)(5),''.

       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to fuels removed, entered, or sold after March 
     31, 2011.
       (f) Floor Stocks Tax.--
       (1) Imposition of tax.--In the case of aviation-grade 
     kerosene fuel which is held on April 1, 2011, by any person, 
     there is hereby imposed a floor stocks tax on aviation-grade 
     kerosene equal to--
       (A) the tax which would have been imposed before such date 
     on such kerosene had the amendments made by this section been 
     in effect at all times before such date, reduced by
       (B) the tax imposed before such date on such kerosene under 
     section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in 
     effect on such date.
       (2) Liability for tax and method of payment.--
       (A) Liability for tax.--A person holding aviation-grade 
     kerosene on April 1, 2011, shall be liable for such tax.
       (B) Time and method of payment.--The tax imposed by 
     paragraph (1) shall be paid at such time and in such manner 
     as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe.
       (3) Transfer of floor stock tax revenues to trust funds.--
     For purposes of determining the amount transferred to the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the tax imposed by this 
     subsection shall be treated as imposed by section 
     4081(a)(2)(A)(iv) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--

[[Page 1644]]

       (A) Aviation-grade kerosene.--The term ``aviation-grade 
     kerosene'' means aviation-grade kerosene as such term is used 
     within the meaning of section 4081 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.
       (B) Held by a person.--Aviation-grade kerosene shall be 
     considered as held by a person if title thereto has passed to 
     such person (whether or not delivery to the person has been 
     made).
       (C) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate.
       (5) Exception for exempt uses.--The tax imposed by 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to any aviation-grade kerosene 
     held by any person exclusively for any use to the extent a 
     credit or refund of the tax is allowable under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 for such use.
       (6) Exception for certain amounts of aviation-grade 
     kerosene.--
       (A) In general.--No tax shall be imposed by paragraph (1) 
     on any aviation-grade kerosene held on April 1, 2011, by any 
     person if the aggregate amount of such aviation-grade 
     kerosene held by such person on such date does not exceed 
     2,000 gallons. The preceding sentence shall apply only if 
     such person submits to the Secretary (at the time and in the 
     manner required by the Secretary) such information as the 
     Secretary shall require for purposes of this subparagraph.
       (B) Exempt aviation-grade kerosene.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), there shall not be taken into account any 
     aviation-grade kerosene held by any person which is exempt 
     from the tax imposed by paragraph (1) by reason of paragraph 
     (5).
       (C) Controlled groups.--For purposes of this subsection--
       (i) Corporations.--

       (I) In general.--All persons treated as a controlled group 
     shall be treated as 1 person.
       (II) Controlled group.--The term ``controlled group'' has 
     the meaning given to such term by subsection (a) of section 
     1563 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; except that for 
     such purposes the phrase ``more than 50 percent'' shall be 
     substituted for the phrase ``at least 80 percent'' each place 
     it appears in such subsection.

       (ii) Nonincorporated persons under common control.--Under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, principles similar 
     to the principles of subparagraph (A) shall apply to a group 
     of persons under common control if 1 or more of such persons 
     is not a corporation.
       (7) Other laws applicable.--All provisions of law, 
     including penalties, applicable with respect to the taxes 
     imposed by section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     on the aviation-grade kerosene involved shall, insofar as 
     applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this 
     subsection, apply with respect to the floor stock taxes 
     imposed by paragraph (1) to the same extent as if such taxes 
     were imposed by such section.

     SEC. 804. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM MODERNIZATION ACCOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Section 9502 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Establishment of Air Traffic Control System 
     Modernization Account.--
       ``(1) Creation of account.--There is established in the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund a separate account to be known 
     as the `Air Traffic Control System Modernization Account' 
     consisting of such amounts as may be transferred or credited 
     to the Air Traffic Control System Modernization Account as 
     provided in this subsection or section 9602(b).
       ``(2) Transfers to air traffic control system modernization 
     account.--On October 1, 2011, and annually thereafter the 
     Secretary shall transfer $400,000,000 to the Air Traffic 
     Control System Modernization Account from amounts 
     appropriated to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under 
     subsection (b) which are attributable to taxes on aviation-
     grade kerosene.
       ``(3) Expenditures from account.--Amounts in the Air 
     Traffic Control System Modernization Account shall be 
     available subject to appropriation for expenditures relating 
     to the modernization of the air traffic control system 
     (including facility and equipment account expenditures).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) 
     is amended by striking ``Amounts'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in subsection (f), amounts''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 805. TREATMENT OF FRACTIONAL AIRCRAFT OWNERSHIP 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Fuel Surtax.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter B of chapter 31 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 4043. SURTAX ON FUEL USED IN AIRCRAFT PART OF A 
                   FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--There is hereby imposed a tax on any 
     liquid used during any calendar quarter by any person as a 
     fuel in an aircraft which is--
       ``(1) registered in the United States, and
       ``(2) part of a fractional ownership aircraft program.
       ``(b) Amount of Tax.--The rate of tax imposed by subsection 
     (a) is 14.1 cents per gallon.
       ``(c) Fractional Ownership Aircraft Program.--For purposes 
     of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `fractional ownership aircraft 
     program' means a program under which--
       ``(A) a single fractional ownership program manager 
     provides fractional ownership program management services on 
     behalf of the fractional owners,
       ``(B) 2 or more airworthy aircraft are part of the program,
       ``(C) there are 1 or more fractional owners per program 
     aircraft, with at least 1 program aircraft having more than 1 
     owner,
       ``(D) each fractional owner possesses at least a minimum 
     fractional ownership interest in 1 or more program aircraft,
       ``(E) there exists a dry-lease aircraft exchange 
     arrangement among all of the fractional owners, and
       ``(F) there are multi-year program agreements covering the 
     fractional ownership, fractional ownership program management 
     services, and dry-lease aircraft exchange aspects of the 
     program.
       ``(2) Minimum fractional ownership interest.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `minimum fractional ownership 
     interest' means, with respect to each type of aircraft--
       ``(i) a fractional ownership interest equal to or greater 
     than \1/16\ of at least 1 subsonic, fixed wing or powered 
     lift program aircraft, or
       ``(ii) a fractional ownership interest equal to or greater 
     than \1/32\ of a least 1 rotorcraft program aircraft.
       ``(B) Fractional ownership interest.--The term `fractional 
     ownership interest' means--
       ``(i) the ownership of an interest in a program aircraft,
       ``(ii) the holding of a multi-year leasehold interest in a 
     program aircraft, or
       ``(iii) the holding of a multi-year leasehold interest 
     which is convertible into an ownership interest in a program 
     aircraft.
       ``(3) Dry-lease aircraft exchange.--The term `dry-lease 
     aircraft exchange' means an agreement, documented by the 
     written program agreements, under which the program aircraft 
     are available, on an as needed basis without crew, to each 
     fractional owner.
       ``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply to liquids 
     used as a fuel in an aircraft after September 30, 2013.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (e) of section 4082 
     is amended by inserting ``(other than an aircraft described 
     in section 4043(a))'' after ``an aircraft''.
       (3) Transfer of revenues to airport and airway trust 
     fund.--Subsection (1) of section 9502(b) is amended by 
     redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (C) 
     and (D), respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph 
     (A) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) section 4043 (relating to surtax on fuel used in 
     aircraft part of a fractional ownership program),''.
       (4) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter B of chapter 31 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 4043. Surtax on fuel used in aircraft part of a fractional 
              ownership program.''.

       (b) Fractional Ownership Programs Treated as Non-commercial 
     Aviation.--Subsection (b) of section 4083 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For uses of 
     aircraft before October 1, 2013, such term shall not include 
     the use of any aircraft which is part of a fractional 
     ownership aircraft program (as defined by section 
     4043(c)).''.
       (c) Exemption From Tax on Transportation of Persons.--
     Section 4261, as amended by this Act, is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k) and by 
     inserting after subsection (i) the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Exemption for Aircraft in Fractional Ownership 
     Aircraft Programs.--No tax shall be imposed by this section 
     or section 4271 on any air transportation provided before 
     October 1, 2013, by an aircraft which is part of a fractional 
     ownership aircraft program (as defined by section 
     4043(c)).''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Subsection (a).--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to fuel used after March 31, 2011.
       (2) Subsection (b).--The amendment made by subsection (b) 
     shall apply to uses of aircraft after March 31, 2011.
       (3) Subsection (c).--The amendments made by subsection (c) 
     shall apply to taxable transportation provided after March 
     31, 2011.

     SEC. 806. TERMINATION OF EXEMPTION FOR SMALL JET AIRCRAFT ON 
                   NONESTABLISHED LINES.

       (a) In General.--the first sentence of section 4281 is 
     amended by inserting ``or when such aircraft is a turbine 
     engine powered aircraft'' after ``an established line''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable transportation provided after March 
     31, 2011.

     SEC. 807. TRANSPARENCY IN PASSENGER TAX DISCLOSURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 7275 (relating to penalty for 
     offenses relating to certain airline tickets and advertising) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d),

[[Page 1645]]

       (2) by striking ``subsection (a) or (b)'' in subsection 
     (d), as so redesignated, and inserting ``subsection (a), (b), 
     or (c)'', and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Non-tax Charges.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of transportation by air for 
     which disclosure on the ticket or advertising for such 
     transportation of the amounts paid for passenger taxes is 
     required by subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1)(B), if such amounts 
     are separately disclosed, it shall be unlawful for the 
     disclosure of such amounts to include any amounts not 
     attributable to such taxes.
       ``(2) Inclusion in transportation cost.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall prohibit the inclusion of amounts not 
     attributable to the taxes imposed by subsection (a), (b), or 
     (c) of section 4261 in the disclosure of the amount paid for 
     transportation as required by subsection (a)(1) or (b)(1)(A), 
     or in a separate disclosure of amounts not attributable to 
     such taxes.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable transportation provided after March 
     31, 2011.

     SEC. 808. TAX-EXEMPT BOND FINANCING FOR FIXED-WING EMERGENCY 
                   MEDICAL AIRCRAFT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 147 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     preceding sentence shall not apply to any fixed-wing aircraft 
     equipped for, and exclusively dedicated to providing, acute 
     care emergency medical services (within the meaning of 
     4261(g)(2)).''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 809. PROTECTION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND 
                   SOLVENCY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Unless otherwise provided by this section, for purposes of 
     this paragraph for fiscal year 2012 or 2013, the amount 
     available for making expenditures for such fiscal year shall 
     not exceed 90 percent of the receipts of the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund plus interest credited to such Trust Fund 
     for such fiscal year as estimated by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to fiscal years beginning after September 30, 
     2011.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Gallaudet UNIVERSITY

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, 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 men; to lift 
artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable 
pursuit for all; to afford 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 at a campus in Washington, DC. 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 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 in Washington.
  Last Friday I was again on campus and met with members of the board, 
the president's cabinet, and a few students. Some people I admire a 
great deal, with whom I have talked 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 Meredith are outstanding advocates for Ohio's deaf 
community and culture. Jay and Meredith have a son and a daughter who 
are deaf. 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 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 is why the relationship between Gallaudet and our Federal 
Government is so important. It is why our support and encouragement of 
deaf and hard-of-hearing students allow them to explore new 
opportunities and experiences to enrich our workplaces and our 
communities.
  The overwhelming majority of undergraduate students at Gallaudet are 
deaf. About half of the students at the graduate school at Gallaudet 
are deaf and half of them are hearing students. Many of those 
graduates, graduates and undergraduates in the master's program at 
Gallaudet, go into serving the deaf around the country. Many of them, 
as Jay and Meredith's son, go into other professions not directly 
concerned with the deaf. Jay and Meredith's son, for example, is in law 
school in California. Most of these students come from middle-class or 
working-class families.
  In 2008-2009, more than 80 percent of Gallaudet students received 
financial aid in order to get the education they deserve. 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 will be graduating in May 2010. She is 
on the dean's scholar list. She is originally from Atlanta, GA.
  The Gallaudet University women's basketball team, ranked 18th in the 
Nation, was undefeated until, unfortunately, this past weekend when 
they lost to Penn State-Harrisburg. They play in the North Eastern 
Athletic Conference, division III. One of their guards is a graduate 
from the Columbus School for the Deaf in Columbus, OH. Their head coach 
is Mark Ehlen. Their assistant coach came out of one of the great 
women's basketball programs in Ohio, Stephanie Stevens, a 2010 graduate 
of the University of Cincinnati. She went to Pickerington High School, 
which has been in the state finals and final four many times.
  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 State House now is on Broad and Highway in 
Columbus. That school, the Columbus School for the Deaf for Ohio, will 
soon have a new campus on 200 acres on Morse 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 farther it can 
go.
  Last year I gave a speech on this floor honoring Gallaudet as the 
Senate passed a resolution commemorating the 145th anniversary of 
Gallaudet's charter that was authored by President Lincoln. And 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, 10 Ohio students 
graduated from Gallaudet with a degree signed by President Obama. I am 
concerned, though, that funding for Gallaudet may be compromised in the

[[Page 1646]]

budget that is working its way through the House of Representatives. 
Gallaudet's budget has been frozen at $118 million for, I believe, 3 
straight years. They have 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. The 
Federal money they have has not increased over the last, I believe, 3 
years.
  My concern is as the budget makes its way through here, we do not 
just help those students who are going to Gallaudet but we do 
understand that Gallaudet 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 and 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, artificial weight that works toward the good of our 
society.
  Gallaudet is a jewel for our country. It is an honor to be on their 
board. It is an honor, frankly, to me, as 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.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of S. 223 on Tuesday, February 15, at 11 a.m.; 
further that at 11:40 a.m., the Senate proceed to the consideration of 
the Nelson of Nebraska amendment No. 58; that a Nelson second-degree 
amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, there be up to 20 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to the 
amendment, as amended; that no further amendments be in order to the 
Nelson of Nebraska amendment prior to the vote; and that the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table and there be no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I further ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. there be 
10 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form 
prior to a vote on or in relation to Wicker amendment No. 14, as 
modified; that all amendments covered in this agreement be subject to a 
60-vote threshold; that if an amendment does not achieve 60 affirmative 
votes, the amendment be withdrawn; that there be no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the votes; and that the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________