reduce it to below what should be the standard. >> mr. cohen? >> mr. chairman, in defense of the training programs that our regional airlines is that this committee was provided with very detailed information about the training programs, which are every bit as robust. one of the things we talked about at monday's call to action was to look at all of these type of training issues that have been laid on the table. certainly today and over the last several weeks, and to look at them, whether it's environmental, you know, additional training in environmental, additional training on whatever. and that in all my years in the airline industry, and i have been in it since 1971, i have never seen, ever seen a decision by any airline regarding safety

that, you know, would jeopardize safety because of cost. i just want to lay that out. >> senator johanns was making the point, and a perfectly reasonable point that if we are flying through very difficult economic conditions, if regional carriers are smaller companies having substantial difficulty, isn't it likely you will have leslie experience an airplane, you are paying lower salaries and so on. doesn't have an impact on the capability of the airplane to fly through difficult since under circumstances? >> the airline industry has created for the most part in this country to different systems. one is a hub and spoke system and the other is flying between city pairs with cost carriers. in a hub and spoke system, in the old days a northwest airlines would serve my state would fly if the jet carriers into that city, one of four cities in north dakota with 720

sevens, had a pilot and copilot and flight engineer your and i assume the pilots that have been on those routes were probably pilots with less time in the company then somebody who'd been on a san francisco two-door reda root. so i understand that there are longer routes and bigger planes and so on are going to get the pilots with more expats. it just seems to me that the way this hub and spoke system has morphed is that the network carriers have decided, you know what, we're going to move a lot of these spokes onto a commuter carrier and that commuter carrier is going to be out there with smaller planes, in most cases. it's going to cost us less, although they're going to wear our name on the fuselage, but it's going to cost us a lot less because, frankly, they can be a carrier that we have perhaps 100% ownership of or substantial ownership but not the same

contracts we have. so it will have pilots with less expense that they can hire for an entry-level of $18000 a year. it seems to me just inevitably that you do have been, again without demeaning a pilot or the pilots ability, you do have the potential of a separate standard of capability. i'm not talking about training to safety minim standard i'm talking about a separate standard of capability. and so the major question that we started with today is the faa said in the mid- 1990s one standard, and passengers would get on an airplane, when they walk in the airplane door should expect the same standard on the cockpit of a commuter carrier or a network carrier. i think mr. prater says he believes the enforcement to that standard is not as rigorous as passengers would expect or as we would expect. mr. may, which were impression of that?

>> mr. chairman, we all adhere to 121 which is a single standard that was established in 1995. i think the reality is that mainline carriers more regularly far exceed that standard in 121 that our regional partners do. we have with virtually no exceptions local programs, asap programs, more robust training, etc. and as part of the recommendations that we have made before you today, and announced last week, at the faa we would suggest that many of those programs be instituted at the regional level for our partners. >> let me ask you. fact is it is your name that is the name of your companies that you represent on the fuselage of

the fairpoint. >> that is correct. >> in many cases you own the regional carrier for a substantial portions of equity in the regional carrier. so it would seem to me that it would be in the interest of the network carriers to require the things that you have recommended today prior to these recommendations. >> i understand that thought, senator. there was actually a proposal made by ntsb back in about 1994 when this whole debate came to pass and when 121 was created putting the regionals under 121 to have the mainline carriers be the enforcement of 121 for the regional partners. that was specifically rejected by congress and the faa because they wanted to have a single level of enforcement as well as a single level of achievement. and i think that decision was

the correct one. at the time and i think it remains correct that the faa needs to be the principal enforcer. we have openly said here today and will continue to say if we need to change those standards, and upgrade them, then that is something that we are to look at doing. by the same token, i think the enforcement needs to rest with the faa. >> well, you know, i was just in another committee earlier this morning and described federal agency that was willfully blinded cheerfully ignorant for about 10 years. and i don't describe that to the faa except to say that i had a belly full of enforcement requirements by certain agencies that have completely neglected the opportunity. the faa as we said to randy babbitt the new administrator last week, we need new diligence

here, a new level of interest in making certain that we have one standard that passengers can rely on one standard when they board an airplane. and i think that's going to require some effort by the faa and may require some effort by this committee. senator rockefeller and senator hutchison, myself, senator demint and others are going to be working on days where putting together along with my collies the faa reauthorization act. we are right in the middle of that. and many other things. all of which have to do with safety. and so we are going to, i would say to those that have raised the questions this morning about pilots records and so on, my first expectation is that administrator babbitt is going to move quickly to address some of those issues. but we will introduce legislation to be certain that it is done the right way as well. so, senator baggage did you wish

to make any other comment on trenton on trenton? let me thank the witnesses for being here. will have one additional hearing at one point with the airline companies themselves are we appreciate mr. may and mr. cohen, you're a person patient during this hearing. there is one other question i have not asked. i know there's a term of art called to rest, these are the 50. we talked a lot about fatigue today and i think one of the senators raised the issue of true rest. i have been on plenty of airplanes that fly in here late because of storms and so on. wheatland at midnight at washington national. and i know that there is a requirement for a certain number of hours of rest, but i have sat with pilots and walked out of the plane with pilots who say, well, i've got to be back here at ask our. that meets the test of a number of hours i have for rest. but by the time i get to the hotel, by the time i check in, by the time i get to bed, i'm

going to have probably four hours of sleep tonight. that is a crew rest issue and that is a regulatory issue. and i don't want people to think, that fatigue is the only issue here. i think there are other issues with respect to crew rest that we want to talk about as we go forward. >> guesser. i mean, it leads to the fatigue of the next day. if you are not allowed adequate time to recuperate from up to 16 hour duty day that you had the day before and you are only away from the airplane for eight hours, eight and a half hours. it's not enough. we need to ensure that the pilots are getting at least an adequate opportunity behind the hotel door to get eight hours of rest. >> one thing that is certain about this country we are all pretty mobile. we rely on a transportation system that is modern and a safe and reliable. and no insignificant part of that is the commercial airline industry. very important to our country, very important to all regions of our country, and we want it to

be made as safe as is possible. i think the tragic crash in buffalo, new york, has activated a lot of interest in asking questions. did we drift along here and allow the creation of a couple different standards in training and so on and enforcement. we will know more about the answer to that as more disclosures come from the ntsb and so on, and we are learning some from last week searing and this week's hearing and for that we are indebted to the people who are witnessed. mr. mauer, we are especially indebted to you and the families who decided in the name of those beloved find a way to make a difference and make certain that others do not experience the same fate. so we appreciate all four of you being here. this hearing is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> people don't want to think of roosevelts conversation as a policy as much as a passion. he put aside 240 million acres of wild america. >> from crater lake to devils tower and the grand canyon or president theodore roosevelt was on a mission to save the west. >> and so now as people are talking about environmentalism and green movements, roosevelt is becoming a key figure to understand because he was the only politician of his day who absorbed darwin and who was understood biology and understood birds migratory patterns and understood mating habits of deer and elk and antelope and actually did something. >> sunday on q&a the first of two hours with douglas brinkley.

>> and update on the health committee markup of health care reform legislation. the session gets underway today 10:30 eastern. we will have a live coverage on seat under c-span3. you can watch that on line c-span.org. here on c-span2 dabbling in shortly. members opened the day with an hour of general speeches before returning to legislative business. senators will begin debate on a bill apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of african americans. with a vote on that to follow. the senate isn't expected to proceed to the $106 billion war spending bill which passed out in the house on tuesday. most of that legislation is to fund the wars in iraq and afghanistan to the end of september. a vote lightly untrimmed likely later today. legislation promoting u.s. tourism to foreigners. that bill would create a nonprofit corporation to attract traveled from abroad while providing foreigners information

about entry requirements and documentation. now to the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, in whom we live and move and have our being, we

need you every hour, in joy and in pain, in prosperity and in adversity, in success and in failure, in the moment of prayer and in the hours of toil. to the human strivings of our senators, add your divine strength. restrain and correct them when they do wrong, and confirm and strengthen them when they do right. guide them by your spirit and support them by your grace. then in quietness and confidence

may they leave the consequences to your unairing judgment, remembering that your judgments are "true and righteous altogether." we pray in your wonderful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, june 18, 2009. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby

appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business for up to one hour. senators will be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes eesm the majority will control the first 30 minutes and the republicans will control the final 30 minutes. following that morning business, the senate will proceed to consideration of the concurrent resolution relating to an apology for slavery. there will be up to an hour for debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote. we do expect that vote to be a voice vote. upon disposition of the concurrent resolution, the senate will resume consideration of the conference report to accompany 2346, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. we hope to reach an agreement that would allow us to vote on motions to waive points of

order. a time for a vote on adoption of the conference report. but if we're unable to reef an agreement, there would be a cloture vote on the conference report tomorrow morning. we will resume consideration of the travel promotion bill upon disposition of the supplemental conference report. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, americans certainly

want health care reform. there's no dispute about that. people are frustrated with the high cost of care and many are worried about losing the health care coverage they already have. some can't afford care or have to choose between basic necessities and the treatment that they need. these are some of the things that are wrong with the current system and they need to be fixed. but while all of us recognize that serious reform is needed, we should also recognize the necessity of getting it right. and before we rush to pass just anything in the name of reform, such as the bill introduced in the "help" committee this week, americans have a right to ask some basic -- very basic -- questions like, how much will it cost, how will we pay for it, and what will this mean for me and for my family? as to the first questions -- as to the first question, americans have good reason to be concerned about what the bill would cost.

the congressional budget office estimates that just a portion -- just a portion -- of the "help" committee bill would spend $1.3 trillion over 10 years, and that doesn't even include major portions of the final proposal, including a massive expansion of medicaid that will cost untold billions -- billions -- of dollars. these are staggering amounts of money for taxpayers to contemplate, which is why it's troubling to a lot of people when we see committee nems in such a rush to pass -- committee members in such a rush to pass this legislation before the congressional budget office even has a chance to fully estimate its cost. while something has important to the american people as health care reform, cost and effectiveness should be a higher priority than speed. but even if we decide this bill was the right reform, another question arises: how would we pay for it? most people don't walk out on to

a car lot, pick out the most expensive model, buy it and then figure out how they're going to pay for it. even if they wanted to, the car salesman wouldn't let them. we need to take the same approach here. the proposal we've seen is full of creative, new ways to spend taxpayers' dollars, but it offers little in the way of offsetting the cost of the overall bill. we'll have to either charge the money to the national credit card or more likely raise taxes on working families. in other words, more spending, higher taxes, and even more debt. so far some of the taxes under discussion include a tax on soft drinks and juice boxes, the creation of a new tax on jobs, and new limits on charitable donations. but this would just be the beginning. the "help" committee bill would be hugely expensive by any

reckoning, and no one has a plan to pay for it. this isn't a very good start, as far as health reform is concerned. americans are also right to wonder how these changes would affect the family budget. will the "help" committee's so-called reforms raise the health insurance costs for millions of families and businesses at a time when they're already struggling? this isn't a scare tactic or a theoretical question. not only does the c.b.o. estimate suggest that the final bill is far too expensive, but we also have the example of states that have tried some of the proposals it suggests. should we look at the experience of these states to determine whether we want to replicate these proposals nationwide? take kentucky, for example. many of the same concepts embraced by the "help" committee bill were tried 15 years ago in my state with disastrous

results. instead of reforms that were promised, kentuckians were left with higher expenses and fewer choices for health coverage. instead of more affordable cairks one report estimates that 850,000 kentuckians faced dramatically -- dramatically -- higher premiums. instead of increased competition, about 50 insurance companies stopped offering individual insurance, leaving only a handful of private insurers and a government-run plan that wasn't affordable for taxpayers. after years of failure, many of these so-called reforms were repealed, but not without significant damage to the commonwealth. while the market has rebounded some, kentucky's small businesses and families tell me that a lack of competition in the health care market continues to keep prices high. shouldn't this experience figure into our consideration?

when it comes to our approach on legislation as costly as health care, we should learn from our experience with the stimulus. democrats rushed that bill on the grounds that we needed it to jump-start the ailing economy. yet a few months later, we were already hearing outrageous stories of abuse and the unemployment rate actually continues to rise. and when it comes to specific proposals within any so-called health care reform bill, we should learn from the experience of kentucky. we should not be rushed into enacting so-called reforms that cost taxpayers trillions and could increase premiums to consumers. americans indeed want reform, but they want us to do it right. they don't want a blind rush to spend trillions of dollars that they and their grandchildren will have to pay for through

higher taxes and even more debt. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: if you will indulge me, it appears appropriate and necessary to briefly summarize the sorry state of health care in america today. nearly 50 million people in the greatest country and the largest economy of the world has ever seen lack the fundamental ability to care for a loved one. 9 million of those people are children. 8 million fewer people who in 2003 had health insurance through their jobs can say the same today. among those, between 18 and 64 in the state of nevada has the second-highest rate of uninsured citizens. health care cost for a family is more than twice what it was at

the start of this decade. half of all americans who file for foreclosure do so because they can't afford both a house and their health care. more than half of all americans who file for bankruptcy do so because health care is too expensive. more than half of all americans skip the doctor visits or treatments they need to stay healthy because it's too expensive. those fortunate enough to have health care pay a hidden tax just to cover those who don't. your family has insurance, you pay at least $1,000 more for it than you would need to if other families had their insurance. if you're look about everybody i know and not in absolutely perfect health, if you have a history of anything from heart disease to high cholesterol to hay fever, your insurance company can force you to pay exorbitant rates or deny you coverage altogether. insurance companies call these preexisting conditions.