at any rate, there are alternates out there. when we did the health care bill, which took weeks of doing the amendments, because it's very hard to do something in an amendment process and get it right. it's easier in committee than it is on the floor. but in the committee, we put up but in the committee, we put up much. we said wait a minute, that's not a good idea for us. they should have to take a look at these germs of ideas that are in all these different sections. so we started putting them up one at a time. we still lost most of them 13-10. there are a couple of them that did finally pass, but we need to get into a mode of working

across the aisle like senator kennedy and i did on so many bills. in fact, i think we set some records probably. not just when i was president -- or chairman of the committee, but when he was chairman of the committee. we were on our way to getting a bunch done. anyway, deficit reduction. i heard senator durbin talk about deficit reduction, that this bill really reduces the deficit. you've got to be honest. you've got to be honest. if you use phony accounting, you can show huge deficits being reduced. that means leaving out some things that really aren't in the bill, but they're going to be costs that we have to cover. for instance, the doc fix, fix, $250 billion. it's not in there. they say we'll fix it for one year and hold them hostage again for another year so we can get them to join us on something else. that's not the right way to do business. we ought to fix the thing, and if we have all of this extra money in medicare, that would solve some problems for

medicare. on medicaid, we're about to dump a whole bunch more people onto the medicaid system. now, it's nice we're going to be able to do that, but there are some other ways we could take care of those same people and make sure that they have insurance. and they would have insurance that didn't have the same stigma as medicaid. one of the stigmas i'm talking about is the doctor is not willing to take them. if you can't see a doctor, you don't have insurance. if we dump all of these people on a system that already won't take the patients, how many of them aren't going to be able to see a doctor? so we can eliminate that stigma and, in fact, that's what we did in the schip in wyoming. we made a -- in the s-chip in wyoming. we made a provision so they could go through the private market. when they don't go through the private market, the problem the kids have if a dad is working, they have insurance. if they are not working, they don't have insurance or it's the

mom. under the wyoming one, when they go through the private market, they know they have it a year. that's the way it ought to be. of course you have to sign up for it. right now you don't have to sign up. you just go to the hospital, get your fix and we pay for it or the state pays their share. and we're dumping a huge liability on the states, so it's a huge problem. the states are very concerned. right now, they are having budget problems almost across the entire united states. and they're saying so what are you going to dump on us? well, our group of six asked that question and we got this overall c.b.o. score on how much it was going to cost the states as a whole, but we didn't want to know how much it was going to cost as a whole. every one of us has to answer for our state, so we asked for it to be broken down and they broke it down. and it was kind of interesting. i had to call my governor and explain to him how much he was going to have to come up with, even under the extra protection we were trying to build in for states. but the next day we got another

breakdown, and i said so did the c.b.o. change their score? i said no, c.b.o. didn't change their score but we manipulated the numbers a little differently. well, they manipulated the numbers for nevada and new york and i think that's in the bill, too, and their excuse for it was that nevada and new york are particularly hard hit by the recession. one of our complaints is -- and part of the phony accounting is that this doesn't even go into effect for four more years. so how would we know that in four more years, nevada and new york will be the hardest hit? how did we know it won't be wyoming and colorado? so the formulas ought to be formulas that are going to work for everybody all of the time, not just for some of the leadership. so there are some flaws in here that we need to take a look at, we need to clear up and olympic not going to keep everybody much longer because i'd like to go hear the president speak, too,

and i apologize for the time that i've taken, but once in a while a speech gets me kind of concerned and i have to expound a little bit on it, and i think that the people of america need to know -- actually, i think the people of america kind of figured this out. i think that's why the problem is in august. i think that's why we're not going home on the weekends because we don't want people to hear what the people at home are saying. i was home over the thanksgiving weekend and i got -- i got an earful. i like what i'm doing. i don't think i like what's happening in the bill. so with that, i would yield the floor and thank the president and the senator from oklahoma. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. inhofe: i thank the senator from wyoming. i -- you know, -- the senator from wyoming made some references to the august recess and what happened during the august recess, and i admire the senator from wyoming so much for the time that he spent on

this issue. i frankly have not spent much time on this issue. we are kind of a product of our own committees in the united states senate, but i do remember and some people have forgotten that during the august recess it was not just health care. it was also the cap-and-trade bill, because these are the bills that were passed right down party lines, and i have to disagree with the senator from wyoming in one respect and that is that the people during the august recess, they were not upset with the republicans. they were upset with the democrats because both of the bills that were the -- the one is referred to in my state of oklahoma, i say to the president, that they -- they call it socialized medicine, and they have a hard time believing that the government is going to be able to run anything better than what we have today. and i know that those in this -- in this chamber who represent states up in the far north recognize that the hospitals,

like mayo clinic and some of those in the northern tier are filled with people from canada, and they have come down to america because they can't get what they wanted in canada. so i kind of look around, and the people at oklahoma seem to understand that if it doesn't work in denmark and it doesn't work in u.k. and it doesn't work in canada, why would it work in the united states, and the answer is clearly that it wouldn't. but the other issue that was prominent at that time was the issue of global warming, and i several years ago -- six years ago, i made the statement that the notion that man made gases, co2 cause global warming is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the american people. and i notice more and more people are using the hoax statement now. the reason that was such a big issue is it passed again right

down party lines. this was the waxman-markey bill -- that would have been a tack increase on the american people of well over $300 billion a year. now, that translates in my state of oklahoma to about $3,000 a family, a tax-paying family. it's something that we weren't going to let happen and we still are not, but that is a reality, and i would just like to remind my fellow senators, you may think that august was a long time ago, you may think that since we have been in the shelter of these halls here of the united states senate that people have forgotten about those two issues, and they haven't forgotten. however, i have to say that's not why i'm here tonight. i lost a very dear friend of mine named billy joe doherty just a few days ago. i never thought i could sit in one chair for four hours, but i did this past monday, just a couple days ago. i -- i did because -- no, it was

actually just yesterday. they had a memorial for billy joe doherty. he's a guy who came as a very young man to tulsa, oklahoma. he has built one of the largest churches in the nation. he has been all throughout the soviet soviet union -- at that time it was the soviet union and throughout the world and he has been saving souls. this guy was just fantastic. when he died just last week, he was only 57 years old. and i -- i sat there -- i actually sat there, i say to the chair, for four hours in one chair and it was -- i didn't think i would be able to do that because i'm not -- i'm normally not that patient, but as people started giving talks and the eulogies that were given, the best was saved until last. and billy joe doherty has been married for 35 years or so to his wife sharon. she gave the most beautiful, long speech about her life with

billy joe doherty. then one by one, the kids, four kids, john, paul, sarah and ruthie, they stood up and they gave tributes. and i was thinking, my prayer is that when -- my wife and i have been married -- in two weeks from now, it will be 50 years now. and we have 20 kids and grandkids. by the way, we had all 20 kids and grandkids at one table at thanksgiving, something that many people are not aware is even possible in this day and age. but my prayer is that when my time comes and i'm gone, that my kids will revere me as much as billy joe doherty's kids revered him. i remember back in 1978, billy joe died last week when he was 57. he would have been 20 -- about 6, 27 years old. i was mayor of the city of tulsa. i was just elected for the first

time. i served three two-year terms. i'm a morning person. i don't do very well at night. in the morning, i perform pretty well. so i had a policy and i lived all the way through those three terms as mayor of tulsa that i would open up the city hall at 6:00 in the morning and make sure no one else was there, no security, nobody else, and stay until 8:00 so that everyone knew they could come down and visit with the mayor for two hours every day if anyone wanted. not many people got up that early. the first visitor i had -- and this was 1978 -- was this kind of a skinny kid who came in and he said i'm billy joe doherty and i want to pray with you. and that's the first time i ever met the guy. i'm not -- i can't tell you that he came by every week for those six years, but he was the one that was the regular guy that was always -- always showed up. and we did. we prayed for each other and our families and for the city of tulsa. and i can remember his favorite

verse that he used most of the time, the most common verse, i guess the 23rd sawm, "the lord is my shepard. i shall not want. he makes me to lie down in green pastures. he leadette me in the path of righteousness for his namesake." the path of righteousness. billy joe was led by jesus to the -- down the path of righteousness for probably two, three decades ago. and i can't tell you, mr. president, how many thousands of people that billy joe has led down that path of righteousness. although i walk through the valley of the shadow of death, i fear no evil for thou art with me. the rod and the staff, they comfort me. well, billy joe, i'm sure when he was walking through the valley of the shadow of death, he probably knowing him wasn't even walking. he was probably running because

he knew what was on the other side. thou preparest a table for me in the presence of my enemies. anointed my head with oil. my cup runneth over. now, here's the good part. billy joe that i knew. he said surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the rest of my days. now, he might have changed that around. saying surely goodness and mercy and sharon will follow me all the rest of my days. but whatever it was, he did. and he led a life in 57 short years that has accomplished more than people who live to be 100. goodness and mercy shall follow me all the rest of my days. then the final reward in that verse was -- "and i shall dwell in the house of the lord forever." you know, i can look at you folks here today and tell you that i don't think billy joe doherty is in heaven. i know billy joe doherty is in heaven.

and he's looking down on us and thinking two things. first of all, he's saying if you only knew, if you only knew what i know now. and then you have to keep in mind the other thing that billy joe was in a different time zone now so he doesn't think in the same times. he said in just a wink of time, just a wink of time, we'll all be together again. and i have every expectation that that will happen. so i say to you now that this is not goodbye, billy joe doherty. this is so long, we'll see you soon. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. >> more work on health care

tomorrow. we're going live now to west point, new york. president obama is addressing the nation on his afghanistan war strategy. he started talking about 12 minutes ago. president obama: because we know that al qaeda and other extremist seek nuclear weapons. we have every reason to believe that they would use them. these facts tell us to act with our friends. our overarching goal remains the same. to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda in afghanistan anne -- and pakistan and to prevent the allies in the future. to meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within afghanistan. we must deny al qaeda a safe

haven. we must reverse the taliban momentum and deny the ability to overthrow the government, and we must strength the afghanistan security forces and government, so they can take lead responsibility for afghanistan's future. we will meet these objectives in three ways. first, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the taliban momentum, and increase afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months. the 30,000 additional troops that i'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010. the fastest possible pace. so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. they will increase our ability to competent afghan security forces, and to partner with them so for afghans can get into the fight. they will help create commissions for the united states to transfer responsibility to the afghans.

because this is an international effort, i've asked that our commitment be joined by contribution from our allies. some have already provided additional troops. we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in afghanistan. now we must come together to end the war successfully. what's at stake is not simply a test of nato's credibility. what's at stake is the security of our allies and the world. taken together, these additional american and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of afghanistan in july of 2011. just as we have done in iraq, we will execute the transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

we will continue to add a vice and assist afghanistan security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. but it will be clear to the afghan government and more importantly to the afghan people, that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. second, we will work with our partners, the united nations, and the afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy. so that the government can take advantage of improved security. that effort must be based on performance. the days of providing a blank check are over. president karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about hewing in a new direction. going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. we will support afghan ministries, governors, and leads that combat corruption, and deliver for the people. we expect those are ineffective

or corrupt to be held accountable. we will also focus or assistance in areas such as agriculture that can make an immediate impact on the lives of the afghan people. the people of afghanistan can endured violence for decades. they have been confronted with occupation, by the soviet union and by fighters who used afghan land for their own purposes. so tonight, i want the afghan people to understand. america seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. we have no interest in occupying your country, we will support efforts by the afghan government to open the door to those taliban who abandon violence, and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. and we will seek a partnership with afghanistan grounded in mutual respect. to isolate those who destroy, to strengthen those who build, to

hasten the day when our troops will leave and forge a lasting friendship, in which america is your partner, and never your patron. third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in afghanistan is linked to our partnership with pakistan. we're in afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. but this same cancer has also taken root in the border of the region of pakistan. that's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border. in the past, there have been those in pakistan that argue that the struggle against extremism is not their fight. the pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. but in recent years, as innocents have been killed from

harachi to islamabad, it is clear. they have waged offense in swat. and there is no doubt that the united states and pakistan share a common enemy. in the past we too often defined our relationship with pakistan narrowly. those days are over. moving forward, we are committed to a partnership that is is built on a foundation of mutual interest, respect, and trust. we will strengthen pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries. and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who's location is known and who's intentions are clear. america is also providing substantial resources to support pakistan's democracy and development. we are the largest international supporter for those pakistanis

displaced by the fighting. going forward, the pakistan people must know. america will remain a strong supporter of pakistan security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent. so that the great potential of its people can be unleased. these are the three core elements of our strategy. a military effort to create the conditions for a transition, a civilian surge that reinforces positive action, and an effective partnership with pakistan. i recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. so let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that you heard in which i take very seriously. first, there are those that suggest that afghanistan is another vietnam. they argue that it cannot be stabilized. we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. i believe this argument pend --

depends on a false reading of history. we are joined by 43 nations that recognized the legitimacy of our action. unlike vietnam, we are not facing the broad-based popular insurgency. most importantly, unlike vietnam, the american people are attacked from afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremist who are plotting along its border. to abandon this area now, and to rely only on efforts against al qaeda from a distance would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al qaeda and create a risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. second, there are those that acknowledge that we can't leave afghanistan in its current state. but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already

have. but this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through. it would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in afghanistan because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train afghan security forces and give them the space to take over. finally, there are those who oppose and identify the time frame for afghan responsibility. indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war, one that commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. i reject this course. it sets goals beyond what can be achieved at a responsible cost. what we need to achieve to secure our interests. furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in

working with the afghan government. it must be clear that afghans will have to take responsibility for their security. and that america has no interest in fighting a endless war in afghanistan. as president, i refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. and i must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. i don't have the luxury of committing to just one. indeed, i'm mindful of the words of president eisenhower, who in discussing our national security said, each proposal must be weighed in the light of broader consideration. the need to maintain balance in and among national programs. over the past several years, we have lost that balance. we failed to appreciate the connection between our our --

too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggles. too many americans are worried about the future facing our children. meanwhile, competition within the global economy has groan more fierce. so we can't afford to ignore the price. all told, by the time i took office, the wars in iraq and afghanistan approached $4 billion. going forward, i'm addressing the problems. our new approach will cost us $30 billion dollars for the military this year. i'll work closely with congress to address the cost as we work to bring down our deficit. but as we end the war in iraq and transition to afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. our prosperity provides a foundation for our power.

it pays for our military, it underwrites our diplomacy, it taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. and it will allow us to compete in the century as successfully as we did in the last. that's why our troop commitment in afghanistan cannot be open ended. because the nation that i'm most interested in building is our own. now let me be clear. none of this will be easy. the struggle against violet extremist will not be finished quickly. and it extends well beyond afghanistan and pakistan. it will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. and unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that define the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly region, failed

states, a fierce enemies. as a result, america will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. now just how we wage wars. we'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. where al qaeda and its ally attempt to establish foothold, many in sow mole ya or yemen. we have to invest in our homelands security. because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist. we have improve our intelligence so we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks. we will have to take away the tools of mass disruption. that's why i made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world

without them. because every nation must understand that troop security will never come from an endless race from disruptive weapons. true security will come to those who reject them. we'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of the a interconnected world acting alone. i spent this year renewing alliances. we have forged an alliance between america and the muslim world. one that with the promise of the future that those who kill innocents are isolated by those that stand up with peace, prosperity, and human dignity. finally, we must draw on the strength of our values. for the challenges that we face may have changed. but the things that we believe in must not. that's why we must promote our values by living them at home.

which is why i prohibit torture, and will close the prison at guantanamo bay. we must make it clear to every man, women, and child around the world that lives under the dark cloud that america will speak out on behalf of their home rights in the light of freedom, justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. that is who we are. that is the source, the moral source, of america's authority. since the days of franklin roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great grandparents, our country has bourn a special burden. we have spilled american blood on many countries in multiple continents. we have spent our revenues to help others rebuild.

we have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions from the united nations to nato to the world bank for the prosperity of human beings. we have not always been thanked for these efforts. and we have at times made mistakes. but more than any other nation, the united states of america has underwritten global security for over six decades. a time that for all of its problem has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress in advancing frontiers of human liberty. for unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. own union was founded in resistance to oppression. we do not seek to occupy other nations. we will not claim another

nations resources, or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. what we have fought for, what we continue to fight for, with is the better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others peoples children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. [applause] president obama: as a country we are not as young, and perhaps not as innocent as we were when roosevelt was president. we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. now we must summon all of our

might and moral persuasion to meet the challenges of a new age. in the end our security and leadership buzz not come solely from the strength of arms. it derives from our people. from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy, from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries, from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home. to it the diplomats and peace corp volunteers who spread hope abroad. and from the men and women in uniform who are part of the sacrifice that has made government of the people, boy -- by the people, and for the people a reality on this earth. [applause]

president obama: this vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue. nor should we. but i also know that we as a country cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the me mentous challenges of our time if we allow ourself to be split by the same rancor. it's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united. bond together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack. and defending the homeland and the values we hold dear. i refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. i believe -- [applause] president obama: i believe with every fiber of my being that we

as americans can still come together behind a common purpose. for our values are not simply words written in the parchment. they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people. america we are passing through a time of great triumph. and the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear. that our cause is just, our resolve unwaiverring. we will go forward with the confidence that right makes might. and with the commitment to forge an america that is safer, a world that is more secure, and the future that respects not the deepest of fears, but the highest of hopes. thank you, god bless you. and god bless the united states of america. [applause] president obama: thank you very much.

thank you. [applause] :

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> as we continue to watch the president at the west point military academy in ice and i are all a speech that ran about 35 minutes, a speech that the white house is calling the way forward. in afghanistan and in pakistan. as always, we want to hear from you, your reaction to the president's speech, if you support his war strategy give us a call at (202)737-0001. if you oppose, (202)737-0002. and if you're a veteran of our war in afghanistan,

(202)628-0205. we'll continue to watch the room inside isenhour hall and get your comments in just a minute. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> they call they call this work in the room as the president greets the cadets from the west point military academy, the oldest continuously operated military academy in the world. about 40 miles north of new york city as presidents depart along with members of his national

security team. we want to hear from you and a couple developments we've heard from "the associated press" secretary of state clinton will be traveling to nato on friday. she will join secretary gates tomorrow on capitol hill to begin discussing with members of congress the way forward and also how to pay for all of this. and the u.s. commander in afghanistan general stanley muckler mcchrystal. forces as rapidly as conditions will allow. he's saying that in a statement the president will allow us, with the strength and nato support to do basically what we need to do. not from general mcchrystal who outlined his strategy with the president over the summer. ten meetings tonight and the outline of the policy by the president. let's hear from you. frances is joining us from new jersey. good evening. your reaction. >> caller: i think we should send more troops over. >> why do you support the

president? >> because i think wizards and more troops over. >> do you think that he effectively outlined why we need to be in afghanistan and also our relations with pakistan? >> yes, i do. >> will go to jason and brick, new jersey. >> good evening. i oppose the president's position. i respect our brave soldiers and their families. i think c-span to let me give my opinion of this. i'm a proud american, to look at the history of afghanistan and ask every american, what is the mission and when you look at that, you realize all war is political from the beginning of time and it consisted now and we learned a lot of lessons from the history of afghanistan this is a country that has been war-torn and savaged by brutality. i respect the president, and he

is a decent man who has young daughters myself, i do want our troops over there. i'd rather have been here for connecting our. >> jason, thanks for the call. >> gas, good evening. i do support the president's decision to support our troops and to get a job done that we have kind of been in. and we kind of need to finish what we started there. and help rebuild the country and do what we need to do. >> if you missed any of the speech it will be posted online on our website at c-span.org. it will be rebroadcast it tonight when the house closes for its business on c-span. we're going to continue here on c-span 2 and will go to larry and louisiana. good evening. your reaction. >> i strongly oppose. >> why is that? >> i do still believe is where

the human life, the money that's being spent, when this country is arty and an economic crisis. it just doesn't make sense. i don't understand why they are going in this direction. it's making my daily life more complicated and it's scary. >> larry, when the president says that we must and the war in iraq and transition into afghanistan and responsible manner in order to strengthen us here at home to protect us for our national security. when you hear that, what is your reaction? >> it's not his children over there fighting. it's not his kids. i have a nephew and friends that have children over there. and it's just not worth the price. i just don't understand how people can take this so lately. i mean, these are children that are dying over there for a cause that really just doesn't seem justified. >> the president also took aim at some of the other criticisms include insane this is not like

vietnam. agree or disagree with that argument? >> i disagree. >> because? >> i just think that is very much like vietnam. i don't believe we can win. >> larry, thank you for the call. we'll go to mary from rhode island. will point out that jack reid, a west point graduate class of 71 in attendance at the event tonight at west point. go ahead, mary. >> i am calling not because i support or oppose his stance, but because i'm curious how many of the cadets attending were forgiven, in other words for the attendants i'm sure they were promised something and probably a forgiveness for a certain number of the merits of every cadet usually collects. >> why do you say that? >> it's pretty obvious from those attending. i think the venue is

questionable for obama. >> worship he delivered a speech? >> perhaps where most president delivered his speech, from the oval office. i would've expected that. >> thank you, mary. will go to jacqui in louisville, kentucky. evening to you. >> good evening. i'm here to support the president. he stated so many points and it's true that, you know, there are people over there fighting and people's sons, daughters, nephews, and all that. that is true. but we didn't really ask the last president, you know, he didn't even go through this much to even try to get strategies or to just go in. he went in first not really thinking of anybody because he thought it was weapons of mass distraction which we found out it wasn't. so, i mean, the president has a lot on his shoulders at this

moment and i just think we have the american people who we can see that he cares about, this gives him some support. all the stuff that he's doing, he's doing it with consideration. it's not like you just going gung and put enough out there. and i really don't think this war is like vietnam. i really don't. i don't think that we should try to decide when or not. this past weekend stating that if he had nothing to do with this, he was the vice president. he didn't speak up then when his president was telling him that we were going to war. so, you know, there's so much he wants to oppose on this, but he tried his best to make everybody happy and he cares. so just go forth and support him. we will continue to support this work for three more years, but if we don't fight this for the last time and go in there and bring our troops home, uncertain

support. >> thank you for the call. earlier today the president met with members of his national security team for the final time for the speech tonight and members of congress including junkies members doublebilled the founding of the war in iraq. many just reduce some of the names. nancy pelosi, in the year, john day off, also james clyburn was the majority from south carolina. from the senate, senator reid and senator durbin, senator mcconnell. we're going to listen to some of what's yet to say. senator jon kyl who is a republican and some of the members including richard lugar who is the ranking republican on the foreign relations committee and john kerry who is the committee of the committee. on the house side the armed service committee has issued a statement saying i commend obama for his my main concern has been that the president listened to

our military leaders and the commanders on the ground does congressman skelton and he did. i have urged the president to give general mcchrystal the resources in the times to do the job and i am pleased that the president has agreed to provide the resources to get afghanistan right. that statement from mike skelton. or if your reaction including lancaster, pennsylvania. >> thank you mr. scalia. thank you for c-span. thank you for allowing us to air our opinions. i'm calling because i support the president but i don't support his afghanistan war strategy. i think that this war was a good war in the beginning when we were attacked on 9/11. guess they were based in afghanistan and it was right and it was bush's fault. he diverted all the resources to iraq which was a huge mistake. and i think one point this war

was winnable. when i hear every day about people who are my age or younger, i'm 24 and i hear about 19 -year-olds dining in wars, thousands of miles away. i just can't spare that. i don't want to explain to my grandkids why we fight this war. >> so what is the alternative in your mind? >> the alternative, i know that president obama did touch on this. he said maybe we should cut our losses and leave. and i will break my heart. and i know that is not a positive solution, but i think it's the only one. i don't see that 730,000 will do much. i think they be a huge surge, but that's not going to happen. i think if we are going to escalate the war, there should definitely be a war surtax so we

can be paid for it's better. >> so you support what congressman toby has been saying? >> yes, i support that effort. thank you. >> thanks for the call. you're looking at the president from earlier this hour. he is now heading back in his motorcade to the stewart airbase at the west point academy in new york, about 40 miles north of new york city. the president returning to the white house this evening. a headline from the speech, the three points first of all. the president calling for an extra 30,000 troops to afghanistan, the deployment will begin this month and continue over the next six months. also, the withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan will begin in july 2011, according to senior white house officials and a conference called earlier today. when the streets will be out of afghanistan, that is yet to be determined. so it's the beginning of the process in july 2011, but no firm deadline on when the u.s. troops will ultimately be out of

afghanistan. that could ultimately be in 2012 or possibly beyond. james is a veteran joining us from fort hood, texas. go ahead. turn the volume down on your side, we can argue a lot better. [inaudible] >> james, are you with us? >> i did a 12 month tour in afghanistan and you could see that we were making a difference over there. i fully support the president. 100%. i just think it's kind of sad when i'm watching the presidential speech in 19 other cadets falling asleep in the audience. i think that's a little ridiculous. >> how do you think where making a difference in afghanistan? >> you can just tell that to people. we've are on ground there patrolling villages and the people there totally, some of them give us a lot of support and helps us a lot.

i'm sure the overview is a lot better than what people get to see on television at home. >> james -- thank you for the call. >> it's sondra. i do support the president. i don't think there's any great scenario in this bull situation. i just really believe that it's now russia, but used to be the soviet union when they went in and laid waste to afghanistan and we provided the means for them to actually win back your country, but then did not stay and help them build infrastructure. i feel like we left the job undone. i do really feel like it is a bizarre situation that we find ourselves than back in afghanistan again. but i think it's important to get it right. i'm glad to hear from the soldier who just said that he

feels like we're making a difference. i'm just really scared of the alternative that the taliban just sort of lay waste to the country again. >> sondra, thank you for the call. again tomorrow on capitol hill some of those in a attendance tonight including admiral mullen and secretary clinton testifying before a number of committees including the senate armed service committee, we're going to have live coverage in the proceedings pending underway at 9:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span 3 and also on c-span radio. and then secretary clinton and gates and admiral mullen will head to the other side of the capitol for testimony before the house foreign affairs committee. live coverage as well also on c-span 3 and c-span radio. tony is joining us from silver spring, maryland. go ahead please. >> i do agree with obama that he doesn't have too many choices. this is the way to go. i have a concern that the problems aren't in afghanistan. i believe the problem is

pakistan. what does he think is going to happen between the u.s. and pakistan. i think that's the main problem and, you know, the troops aren't going to be able to go to pakistan. what's going to happen with that? i think he doesn't have too many choices, but the problem in afghanistan, the problem is in pakistan and what to do at that. >> thank you. more reaction. we covered a news conference on capitol hill with a number of so-called progressive democrats opposing the war in afghanistan. one of those in attendance, senator russ feingold was issued a statement. he said i do not support the president's decision to send additional troops to fight the war in afghanistan. that is no longer in our national security interests. he went on to say it is an expensive gamble, says senator feingold, 200 undertake it under a corrupt government. sending more troops could further destabilize afghanistan and more importantly pakistan says senator feingold, a nuclear armed state where al qaeda is

headquartered. canada is joining us from detroit. your reaction to the speech tonight. >> yeah, i'm a veteran. i just think that cnn and nbc and c-span and all these people, why was the president of the united states of america go on national tv which is broadcast in afghanistan and in the salome style of a community and give up his secret and his worst strategy. nobody ever did this after world war i and world war ii. you don't give up your strategy. you are telling these people that you're going to go over and do this. it's too much news conference, too much stuff that the people -- those people don't have to know. >> so from your mind what is the alternative? >> people need to know because they are the taxpayers. >> so, what is the alternative? >> the alternative is do what you have to do and being a

veteran and being in a situation where i don't want nobody to know my game plan. just go over there and do it. go over there and do what you have to do. i'm a republican, but i voted for him. i voted for mr. obama. i love the man. he's doing an outstanding job. he's trying to get this country back on an even keel here. we're dying here man. we are dying. we're being owned by the chinese. we are in a deficit. we need a structure here. but the people forward and give us something to look forward to. we are starving. i mean, i'm in detroit, one of the worst cities in the states in the world in the country. >> and the president talked a little bit about the economy and the impact of the war is having on domestic programs including jobs. >> we can't put our foot in our

mouth and go forward and tell the pakistanis on your mac >> thanks kenneth. i think we lost your cell phone. next up is jeff from cleveland, ohio. >> because the al qaeda is an organization. they have the ballots all over the world and were going to send troops to indonesia, yemen, europe. their leadership is concentrated in pakistan. we are fighting them in pakistan with the cia and with the predator drones. and if they reestablish in afghanistan, we should fight them the same way they are. i mean, if they become so oppressive dan afghanistan that

the people, the fda still want them there. we can use the cia to get them out the way we use the cia to get the russians out of afghanistan. and i mean we have to many problems here at home. the way to strengthen this nation is, you know, to take care of some of the problems we have here, i mean, with health care, with the economy and, if you know, we can't be trying to build nations and trying to establish government in the nation that's never had a successful central government. >> okay, thank you for the call. earlier today senior administration officials on a conference call with reporters outlining a dance of the president's speech had one of the points they made is the effort to try to stabilize the economy in afghanistan in

particular for the farmers. in a couple of minutes were listening to another conference call from senator mitch mcconnell who is the republican leader in the senate. we've also get his reaction to the president's speech. the next will go to david from long island. go ahead please. >> hello, i'm going to say that i am opposed to the war. i believe that the war is a fraud. we spent billions of dollars and can't it be the group. they fight out of pickup trucks. they used missiles left over from the 80's. i think it's similar to vietnam. vietnam was based on a place which is now considered a fraud. i think 9/11 is questionable. there are documentaries that supplement a movie to that. alex jones predicted 9/11 in the summer of 2001. >> 9/11 is questionable in what way? >> i think there's a lot of problems with what happened there. u.s. people pleasing options on the airlines that were attacked.

they made a lot of money off the bat. you can look at 9/11 options. peter jennings covered it. so did 9/11 families. the 9/11 commission put out a book called on president and commissioners hamilton and kean said the commission was set up to fail. >> david, thank you for the call. carla is joining us from pennsylvania. do you support the president? >> yes, i support the president. i would like to address the comments made by an earlier caller. we need to remember that george w. bush flu on an carrier and stood under and said the mission accomplished. i think that it kind of difficult to question the president when he stands before the troops or future soldiers and use that as a venue for his speech. i think it was quite

appropriate. we also need to remember the mass that barack obama inherited from the previous president. i mean, afghanistan is the way it is today because of george w. bush. okay, they tried to fight the war on the cheap. they didn't get the needed resources in the troops that were needed to get the job done. and now barack obama is going to finish the job. so i think we need to stand behind our president. all of this other criticism and nitpicking as to the venue of the speech are just too rabid the obama haters who are criticizing the matter what he's done. >> was there anything that concerns you in terms of the 30,000 additional troops, the timeline, the announcement that we will begin withdrawing from afghanistan by july of 2011. so in a sense, giving at least the start of an exit strategy or anything else that you might've heard tonight? the mac well, i think the president clearly took the time, even though he was criticized

for that to analyze the situation and to figure out wha the best would be. i have a great amount of faith in him. i was a supporter of his. in fact i was eight obama delegate for him in the primary last year. i got to meet them twice when he came to pennsylvania here. and in each of his speeches, he told us about what he saw as important issues of the day. and like i said i firmly believe in him. i think that he is not going to make the mistake that lyndon johnson did in to continue to feed world war that has no end. but there's no light at the end of the tunnel, you know. and i think that if he realized this that the afghan government is not going to move forward with what they need to do to pick up on their side, that he's going to make adjustments. i don't think this is an endless, you know, and the

situation here as far as he's concerned. >> thank you for the call. palm springs, california, veteran. good evening. >> hello. i am angrily opposed to this war. i am not an iraq vet. i am a vietnam vet. and, do we have to lose as many young people in this time that we lost in the 60's to prove that this is exactly the same war? >> gland, when did you serve in vietnam? >> i was there at the end. i was in the air force. i took care of said.

and because i was at the end i really kind of noticed how much we lost. i mean, do you realize how much potential this country had that we lost at that time? >> i'm going to stop you on that point. thank you for the call. there is no official republican response, but senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky is on the phone talking to reporters, giving his reaction. here's part of what he seen. this is life here on c-span 2. >> we owe it to the brave americans who are now or will be deployed in pursuit of this objective to provide every resource necessary to prevail. as the forces produces results in security and governance and capabilities of the afghan security forces, we must ensure that the transition of responsibilities is based on conditions on the ground and not purgatory timelines.

with that, -- >> senator, what do you think about paying for this? >> well, one good suggestion i would offer would be to pay for the balance of the stimulus. that clearly is a program that failed. only about half of it has been spent. it was passed with the representation that it would hold unemployment at 8%. it is now up to 10.2%. that has been appropriated. that would be a good place to look. the appropriations bill this year are way over what would be either a freeze or cost-of-living increase. that would be an other way i'm certainly open to looking how to pay for it. >> senator, when paying for it out of the stimulus kind of politicized the war? >> i don't think so.

you know, i can't imagine the president is going to endorse a tax increase. that means you're going to have to find it out of additional resources. i think it's pretty widespread consensus that the balance of the stimulus might not be a better way to spend those funds than providing the security of our country, by preventing the taliban from taking over afghanistan to attack us again. >> senator, do you think this is a case where the president will get more support from your side of the aisle? >> well, i was in a meeting this afternoon. it was certainly a broad bipartisan meeting of national security and leadership on both sides. hopefully he'll have good support across the board. i think most of my members are on board. we think the surge in afghanistan has a very good chance of working just like the

surgeon i backed it. >> senator, do you think this will encourage other countries to make a stronger commitment? >> well it is a nato mission. there are other nato troops that are in the president has indicated he anticipates in the coming weeks additional nato commitments. and i think that's very good. >> and what about your calling to have expressed some of your colleagues have expressed concern about the karzai government and the charges corruption. do you feel like this is a -- >> it's just one of the problems we have to deal with, but i do think is important to remember we're not there just, you know, to build a jeffersonian democracy in kabul. we're there to protect the united states of america from another 9/11 attack.

it would certainly be desirable if we had a better government to work with. but, you know, the national government in iraq was pretty shaky as well and that improved. and hopefully this one will as well. >> you're listening to senator mitch mcconnell as he talks with reporters live in a conference call. by the way, if you want to listen to the entire conference call is available online at east end.org. will also be posting the speech the president delivered back in march we outlined the strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. and of course the president's speech tonight running about 35 minutes at the west point military academy. inside the eisenhower hall. good speech by president obama. i stand in on the troops after he explained why he is anymore. tj is joining us from charlotte, north carolina. you oppose the president and his policy in afghanistan, why?

>> well, i say that we've lost enough of our troops. the president was speaking there when the camera was panning the audience, the cadets they are in west point, new york, you could actually see the confusion and the fear on the faces of those young men and women and i believe that the president needs to speak to his original plan when he was elected when he said he would pull our troops out of that area. and i don't believe that we need to have another bloodbath, at least our troops. and it's also going to weaken our nation by letting these 30,000 plus go there and fight this war. he needs to pull those out there and keep them safe here in america. we need those troops and america. and when he lets those soldiers go there it's going to definitely begin our forces here

in america. >> when the president left the white house earlier this evening to fly up to west point he was joined by laurie clinton and robert skates. he will both be on capitol hill tomorrow. both the house and the senate testifying before two key committees as they provide members of congress with more details on the obama plan and the strategy in afghanistan. we of course will be covering those hearings. live on c-span radio you can also watch them on c-span 3 and they will be posted online as is everything else at c-span.org. mary lou is joining us from wellington, new jersey. good evening. >> i have two concerns about the speech tonight. while i support more troops being sent to afghanistan, i think he really should've listened to the advice of general mcchrystal. because i don't think general mcchrystal would've asked for a certain number of troops unless he thought that number was needed to get the job done properly. and i believe he asked for

60,000 originally with a minimum of 40,000 we're only sending 30. the other concern i have is i agree with the battering that all the little bit earlier. i don't think it was good for obama to announce the exit strategy nationally on television. i can just see al qaeda and the taliban sitting there, thinking all we have to do now is holed up for july of 2011 when the americans leave and afghanistan will be ours. so that concerns me. i thought that part was poorly done. but i do support more troops going over there. >> and this may not surprise you, but general mcchrystal issued a statement saying the coalition is encouraged by president obama's commands and we remain resolute to empowering the afghan people to reject the resurgence he and build their own future. and also the president calling for an additional 10,000 nato troops, calling on the 43 nations that are currently in afghanistan, sending from a few hundred to a few thousand troops

as a way to supplement or complement u.s. troops. >> all right. do you think they will do that though, steve? i don't know that that is a given. that's my concern. >> okay, thank you for the call. we will continue the conversation on the "washington journal" which gets underway at 7:00 a.m. east coast time. 4:00 for those of you on the west coast. joe sestak will be our guest and congressman mike coffman. an opponent of the president's policy towards afghanistan and pakistan. and governor brian schweitzer will be joining us. that's all tomorrow morning on the "washington journal." and a reminder that the president's speech will be airing on c-span, her companion and the two hearings will be covered tomorrow. the senate armed services in the house foreign affairs with secretary clinton and secretary gates and admiral mullen will be testifying on the hill. secretary clinton will be

traveling to brussels to meet with nato allies on friday. she talked about that earlier today at the state department. here's that event as we continue our coverage of the president's speech and the effects and impact here in washington and to our allies around the world. >> something about a certain country beginning with an a. okay, welcome. i think as you all know the secretary is going to accompany the president up to west point tonight for the speech by the president to talk about his strategy toward afghanistan. the secretary will have about seven hours of hearings tomorrow, beginning with senate armed service committees getting

at 9:00 and then that will be followed in the afternoon by the house of foreign affairs committee. she'll be joined by secretary gates and admiral mullen as both of those briefings. on thursday, the same three will participate in the hearing at the senate foreign relations committee that starts at nine akaka. there will also be a hearing in the afternoon with the house armed service community with deputy secretary abu will participate in that one. secretary clinton tomorrow goes to, i'm sorry not tomorrow, thursday to brussels for meetings on december 4. there will be a meeting of the north atlantic council at the level of foreign ministers at nato headquarters. on the agenda, there will also be a meeting of nato foreign ministers with non-nato isaf contributing nations and a nato russia council working lunch.

she of course will also meet with the nato secretary-general rasmussen as well as with the newly appointed belgian prime minister and foreign minister stephen do not care and eu leaders. and that's all i have at the top and i'll take your questions. >> presumably almost all these people are at least the leaders of these countries. i birdied then briefed about what the president plans to say tonight. what exactly is she going to be doing their? >> well, as you know this is an international effort and this is an opportunity for foreign ministers or their representatives from all of the isaf contributing countries and i think that's 40 some countries in one place. so this is a real opportunity

for the foreign ministers, 43 ministers are in isaf. so this is a real opportunity for all the foreign ministers to get together and coordinate and talk about the strategy going forward. there's also going to be a fourth-generation conference of the same nation on monday that will be -- i think that will be at the military representative level. so a lot of things are coming together and it just highlights that this is a -- not just a u.s. effort, an international effort. and we all share common goals and a common thread in afghanistan. >> but what is she going to be telling about? >> well, it's not a matter of her telling them. it's an opportunity for

everybody to share approaches to discuss how they can coordinate to make our efforts a lot more effect this. it will be a wonderful forum for them to talk about trying to avoid duplication of efforts and trying to leverage where countries have certain capabilities and certain advantages. this is not just, of course, it's not just the military. this is a meeting of foreign ministers. they'll be talking about developmental efforts and diplomatic efforts as well. >> does holbrooke have any role in this? >> you know, i don't know if holbrooke's plans at present but i know he plans to participate in the brussels meetings.

i don't have this whole schedule, but there will be also meetings with his special representative colleagues in brussels. >> and one more. is this issue coming up at all at the usc? >> this issue of afghanistan? a big they have some rules in certain training efforts, especially counter narcotics training efforts. >> you better read up on that. >> i will read up on that, matt. >> who is holbrooke meeting with this week bikes >> well, like i say i don't have his whole itinerary. he does plan to participate in these discussions in brussels. this very important coordination of meetings. he will have meetings with his counterparts. >> is either already?

>> i don't think he's there already. >> speaking of mr. holbrooke, could you please tell us, give us a little more detail of high commissioner or something akin to that. >> i don't think it's idea necessarily. i think it's more -- i'm not sure exactly who came up with the idea, but i want to be very specific about what this concept is. it's about -- it's a coordinating role. it's about coordinating civilian developmental and other resources among international herders. this is about helping build the capacity of the afghan government as it is not about bypassing as i saw it.

there was one media report today. we are trying to better support the afghan government. this is the main object is of having a civilian coordinator. and it will include a role for the u.n. as well. so i just wanted to get that on the record that this is not in any way to undercut or bypass the afghan government. >> where does it stand right now? is this a formal proposal? is this something being discussed informally among the allies? >> i think it's more the latter. i'm not sure exactly what they did then and i think this will be a matter for discussion in brussels. i am not sure if this will be a decision meeting in brussels,

but this idea will certainly be discussed. >> is this a requirement, though? it's different. people have compared it to where it will build into the process if you had a high commissioner with a lot of power and is granted is not that situation. >> i wouldn't use that particular matrix to put on this role. we're not talking about someone who has some kind of proconsul type mandate or anything like that. this is to click coordination. >> is this something the u.s. and its allies would require president karzai to do or how would they -- >> i don't think it's a matter of putting it on anyone. as i said before, it's a way for us to better support the efforts of afghanistan to provide for its own security and provide a

better economic future for the afghan people. it's not designed to replace local governance by any means. think of it as a coordinator. that's really what it is. i'll get to you in a minute. >> are they unanimous on its role? does the secretary itself think this is a good idea? >> i think she looks forward to discussing this idea. and i think -- given that's multipronged international effort. i think everybody thinks it makes a lot of sense to have one person be the coordinator for it. [inaudible] >> i remember from my days at nato that there was discussion discussion -- kind of a counterpart to the isaf commander having civilian

equivalent. >> is there some reason it has new energy today? >> i'm not sure. i think were all very focused on the international effort to your entry to make the effort, this multibillion-dollar effort -- >> has karzai rejected its? >> i'm not sure. >> including certain candidates who have been discussed. >> i'm not sure. i do remember some media reports on that, but i'm not sure if it was rejected. >> a name was put forward with a great global experience and that idea was completely quashed by karzai. how has he been persuaded to allow something like this to proceed now? >> well, like i say, i think there has to be a lot of

consultation and coordination with the afghan government. i think that's a requirement. i think that the emphasis in this particular role i think will be more coordination of international resources. and it's important that there not be any suggestion that all of this person having any kind of proconsul rule or anything like that. >> is the consultation underway today? >> with the afghan government? >> yes. >> i'm not sure. >> does the secretary clinton -- will they be there or is this a group of people telling you what's going on in their country. >> normally the afghan minister of foreign affairs is there. >> i would expect her to have a conversation, but will have to check to see if the afghan

foreign minister does plan to come. normally that's the case. that he comes. >> are you willing to put iran on notice because a lot of the military light weapons, some of the ied and other military objects that are being given to obviously both the taliban and al qaeda are coming from iran. are you willing to put them on notice much the way that you put over last year to iran with its nuclear program in the same general sense? and a lot of people say that this particular talk tonight by president obama at west point is going to be for a grassroots effort, not necessarily the central government and to the

people of afghanistan. >> yeah, in terms particularly to the president's speech, i'm not going to go into that. we have a few more hours to go. i didn't have enough patience to wait till 8:00 tonight. on the other question that you raised, yes we have raised concerns like this and our concerns with iran, of course, first and foremost concerns about the intentions of the nuclear program, our concerns about proliferation, potential for it. we also have raised our concerns about their record in human rights. but at the same time, we are extremely concerned about their support for international terrorism, too. so i don't know about the exact -- i'm losing my voice -- but the exact particulars of

what you're referring to in afghanistan, support for al qaeda and i wouldn't be at liberty to discuss particulars like that. because we would be getting into areas that we shouldn't be getting into. but i do do in general terms we have concerns about iran providing support materials, support to terrorists. >> but are you willing to put them just on that aspect alone with further sanction somehow from getting b's black markets materials to help them manufacture and distribute all this equipment? >> we have american men and women and soldiers from our allies facing the wars of these kinds of weapons in places like iraq and afghanistan every day. it is of course a real top priority to try and stop these flows of weapons.

we have a number of sanction places already with iran. ..

>> if that's not forthcoming, we're going to have to look at other optioning. including pressure options. >> with all of the people in the iea? >> with the p5 plus one, there wasn't an agreement principal to meet again. not receiving answers to that. we're not optimistic that we will get an answer soon on it. 5, 3 plus one has decided they will meet again. we're running out of time. on the iaea, they announced sunday that they were going to build another ten enrichment

facilities. iaea has ask the iran to clarify what their intentions are. we don't have any -- we haven't gotten a positive response to the proposal that we all know about the, the tehran research reactor. >> the iaea has asked ivan to clarify what it meant. >> uh-huh. >> isn't that clarified already enough? >> well -- i think -- >> any time you ask iranians for clarification. they have given you more about public. everything you ask, we haven't gotten any clarification. isn't it obvious now what it is they are doing? >> well, it's becoming more and more obvious, i have to say. i mean we still prefer to pursue the engagement route. we think that we've made some

very good proposals. that we'll address their concerns, and it will help them reap from rewards for their own nuclear program, reap rewards in the sense of greater cooperation, integration with the international community. but if they continue not to -- not to give us a positive answer, then they will leave us with no other choice than to go down the second track. jill? >> yesterday you were talking about all of the foreign ministers that secretary clinton has been talking to by phone. i just wanted to clarify. there are reports that when she had that conversation with mr. kuo sin mare, she asked for troops. that correct, or could you clarify the conversation?

>> i don't know exactly what i said yesterday. what i should have said that we don't go into the details of our diplomatic? >> can you give us some direction? >> i think clearly they focused on our shared effort in afghanistan. and looking forward to the nato meeting, looking forward to the force generation conference on monday, she gave the broad outlines of the president's strategy that will be rolled out tonight. but i think for details of what france is willing or not willing to do, i think you have to ask our allies on that. >> of course the question isn't what they are willing to do, it's what you want them to do? >> right. because we know -- >> it's not so much what we want them to do. >> oh, that's exactly what it is. that was her question. >> i know.

but don't make demands. >> you can't change our question. >> i'm declining going into details of the contents of their conversation. >> well, the french would say that they asked -- that they will not go -- they will be there as long as they need to be. but no more turks. -- troops. that would seem to imply that she asked for more troops. >> i'm not going to imply one way or the other. expect france does have some valuable capability that a lot of nato allies don't have in terms of -- >> be as specific as you can here. >> rapid development. >> yeah. yeah. >> and other capabilities. >> you say -- >> other capabilities like france. >> the france have better

development efforts than the united states? >> no, but it's an international efforts. we want to do this in concert with our allies. there's 43 countries involved in afghanistan. only the few have the kind of capabilities that france and the uk and the united states and other countries have.

>> now a conference on pilot fatigue. this is a little less than two hours. >> we're going to call the hearing to order. this is the hear of the senate commerce subcommittee on aviation. my colleagues will be joining me shortly. but i want to begin on time. the discussion today is on the subject of pilot fatigue. let me describe my concern about this issue. and the concern of a number of my colleagues. the issue of pilot fatigue is not new. it's been on the national transportation safety boards most wanted list for 19 years, since the list was created. pilot fatigue has consistently been an issue with the ntsb and the faa. the current flight rules i believe have been in existence with respect to duty time and so on have been in the existence for some 40 or 50 years.

without much change. the ntsb investigation have found that pilot fatigue was the probable of contributory cause of 273 fatalities between 1989 and 2008. so this is not some issue without substantial consequence. we call on the faa to revise the flight and duty time limitations to take into consideration search findings on fatigue and sleep issues. while the faa also limits the amount of flight and duty time a pilot may work in a day, these limits have existed for decades. commuting time, which is an increasing phenomenon in recent decades is not factored into

this requirement at all. i'll talk just a moment about that today. the stories that we have heard are fairly frightening. and i want to say from the onset, my goal today is not to alarm the flying public. far from it. we have the safest skies in the world in my judgment. but the issue of pilot fatigue is serious, and merits attention. while the skies are safe, they are not perfect. and two events that focused more recent attention on pilot fatigue. there is a minneapolis flight recently, an incident on how two pilots overflown their destination by 150 miles. there was speculation that perhaps the pilots were asleep. they indicated that they were working on electronic devices.

no one quite knows all of the answers at the moment. the crash of colgan air flight 3107. we have held a couple of hearings on that. the ntsb is still conducting the cause of the report and has still to issue the cause of the accident. two pilots went across country to reach their duty stations in newark. what i want to do is go through a few charts, if i might, and let me begin on the front side of this with the first chart talking about crew rest. these are just some things that most of you and i have heard and seen on investigative reports and official reports. this happens to be wall street

journal article about fatigue. they tribed the commuter flight with short layovers in the middle of the night. take a shower, brush your teeth, pretend you slept. well, i don't know mr. wycore, but that kind of comment by somebody in the cockpit takes you question the issue of fatigue in the cockpit. another pilot, and again pilots are are not in a position to be able to speech very effectively on candidly about these things. this is an enormous pilot flying to denver. nbc new was the quoting the pilot was discussing fatigue.

the quote is i have been doing everything in my power to stay awake. coffee, gum, candy. but as we entered one of the most critical phases of flight, i had been up for 20 straight hours. fatigue by that pilot? perhaps. "new york times" report, by the time he parked at the last gate of the night he was exhausted. but he would be due back at work eight hours and 15 minutes later. at the very most, if you are the kind of person that could walk into the hotel room, strip, and lay down, you might get four and a half hours of sleep. fatigue? seems to me probably so. and i happened to have heard this sort of thing from a lot of pilots coming in late at night to an airport. and by the time the late flight

flying around weather and so on, by the time they get to their hotel and get some rest and are required to report back, the question of fatigue is very real and a very serious question. i also wanted to discuss just for a moment the issue of commuting. i've showed this chart once before. this was the colgan air chart. colgan air pilots commuting to the newark base. this is a different issue than duty time. but you can see pilots commuting all across my country to the duty base. the person commuted all night long from seattle, washington to newark. next chart shows part of the product of commuting. it's a "washington post" report. a pilot watches a mu see on his computer in a crash house.

the houses which can have up to 20 to 24 occupants at a time, are designed to give flight crews from regional airlines a quiet place to sleep near their base airports. many can't afford hotels. so they use the crash house where rent is generally $200 a month for a bed. incidentally on this issue, i ran into a pilot about two weeks ago at an airport. a young pilot who told me he had just started his career, but now he was quitting. he said why? because i'm going to work for a city police department and my salary will be twice as much as my salary flying the commuter jet. it relates to the question, why can't someone afford a hotel, in many cases across the country in order to reach their duty

station. the faa announced earlier this year that they are going to revice the flight and duty time rules. i'm glad they are here today to tell us about that work. they plan to issue rules by the end of next year. given the history, i think it's important that they complete that work that was begun by soliciting the recommendation by a rule-making committee. another false start, and there would be several, would be in my judgment unacceptable. i hope the hearing will bring some renewed focus on flight and duty time rules. also the issue of commuting. and i hope that we can take steps to remove fatigue as a factor in aviation safety. as i indicated when i started, there have been a fair number of accidents that the ntsb attributed to fatigue.

with respect to commercial airlines in my judgment, there is not room for fatigue in the cockpit. we need to have duty times and flight times and crew rest periods that are sufficient. so that we are not running into that problem. let me make one additional point. some will make the case i think today, and perhaps in questions and answer we'll explore it more. there's a change in the way we fly in this country. a lot of smaller planes, smaller commercial airlines, regional, commuter planes, that are up and down all day long. and the take off and the landings where the pilots are straining. and straining is not the right word. paying a great deal of attention. there's no room for mistakes in takeoffs and landings. so there's a lot of tension in the cockpit, and a lot of attention paid to the way the airplane is being flown. that also creates fatigue. i think this hearing can be a catalyst, with and hopefully

will be helpful in trying once again to put all of the spotlights on the same spot when it comes to the issue of fatigue in the cockpit. let me call on you for a couple of minutes in the opening statement. then we'll begin with the witnesses. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. when we look at details when we look at the questions that are being raised now, and borders shocking, too much is demanded of our pilots, too many hours on too little sleep and operate complex machines with people's lives in their hands. the slightest tip in this risky balancing act can cause disasters we saw on the colgan flight number 3407. and i heard the chairmans review of that matter. and the stress that was on the

co-pilot. and it's -- it's unfair to the individual that was disastrous for all of them, including the pilot. but the whole airplane of the travelers. the last thing the traveling family wants to worry about is a sleepy pilot. it's an invitation to disaster. now we have a great system. and it's been safe. but i think we are nimble at the margin. just the courage, the response of a lot of well meaning people has averted some significant miscued. weather it was over the hudson river where two planes collided,

one landed in the river, no area and this is turning for a moment away from the pilot. but turning to the rules that the faa lays down for a pilot training. you couldn't ask a brain surgeon to go take care of your need. if he was up eight houred. it was inappropriate with the system and the value that we have in our aviation system, that we should ask pilots were make in many cases barely above the minimum wage. the national minimum wage with $15,000. they are pilots who are going to work $20,000 a year. the incident that you talked about with the fellow going to the police uniform because he was going to make so much more

money. a private in the army makes $16 $16,800. private in the army. and here we're asking someone who have substantial amount of training in order to get as far as they do to get a commercial pilot's license. and we're discarding what is fair and appropriate to keep that person in the best of condition. athletes don't go out on the field without being ready to do it, or should not. we see the consequences of those incident occurring. so mr. chairman, it's the right thing to do. and i thank you for holding this hearing. >> well, thank you for your attention to all of the aviation ashes. as we held hearings, you are come and been very active. i know you spent a lot of time.

mr. basil. let me as i call on ms. gilligan, we should not have to learn the same lesson twice or three or four or five times. we've been through this. this is ground hog days. the same is true with the ntsb. having it on the most wanted list for 19-some years. it's unacceptable. i appreciate that babbitt is in the process of taking action. we're going to hear that from ms. gilligan. this hearing has to be a

catalyst after some 40 years or so that we take a hard look at this and make the changes that are necessary. ms. gilligan? >> thank you, sir. chairman dorgan and senate and members of the subcommittee, i'm pleased to be here to discuss the efforts to mitigate pilot fatigue. as you knowing the agency has been involved in revicing the regulation on flight and duty time for some time. we are all frustrated by the amount of time we've spent. i can tell you that this time or efforts are different. administration babbitt, himself a former commercial airplane pilot has made this a high issue. in june, he chartered a committee come prisoned of labor, industry, and faa representatives to develop recommendation for a rule based on the current science of fatigue, and a review of international approaches this to issue. it was chartered to provide a

forum to discuss the current science of fatigue, to discuss approaches to mitigating fatigue found in international examples, and to make recommendation to the faa to that the united states could modify it's regulations. the 18 members of the arc representing airlines and union associations were selected based on their extensive operatal experience and their commitment to address the safety risk. the arc met for over six weeks beginning september 7 president the administrator has committed to issue a notice of proposed rule making early in 2010. let this effort -- this effort is a difficult and complicated effort. it has taken longer than any of us wanted or expected. the events of the last 15 years are evidence of the complexity of the issue. and the strong concerns of all of the parties involved. those concerns are clear in the

current rule making process as well. at the same time, our focused efforts since june demonstrates the high priority that administrator babbitt places on overcoming these challenges and updating the regulations to enhance safety. while we will need additional time to complete our analysis, and make sure that we get it right this time, i am confident we will get there. chairman dorgan, senator demint, members of the committee, this concludes my remarks. i will be happy to answer questions that you may have. >> ms. gilligans, we will have a lot of questions. i appreciate you being here, and your testimony. mr. basil is barimo? >> yes, that's correct. >> you may proceed. let me say to all four of you, that the entire statements will be made a permanent part of the record. you may summarize. >> thank you, i am basil barimo

the vice president of the air transport association of america. i appreciate the opportunity to join you this morning as you consider the impact on pilot fatigue of aviation safety. it needs a science-based response. ata participated in the arc. it was a productive effort. but we must all recognized that the arc operated under significant time constrained. it wrapped up its work in a six-week period. consequencely, we may expand upon the views that we expressed in the arc in the outline this morning. we supported duty day regulation designed to account for fatigue risks, including circadian cycles, acclamation to time zones. our goal is to mitigate fatigue risk by reducing the duty time of pilots, expanding scheduled rest opportunity, and increasing pilots awareness of fatigue risk

in their personal role in mitigating that risk. as another aviation safety efforts success here will spend on data driven only cease in rigger and translating those only cease into regulatory action. the recommendation that we in conjunction with the cargo airline association and the regional airline association provided to the arc were devices into substive anti-and procedural consideration. we have five substive issues. we recommend they establish a minimum of 10-hour scheduled rest before the beginning after flight period at a domestic and 12 hours at a international station. we went on to suggest that additional detailed rest requirements for appropriate for certain international flights. second, any new regulation should require each air carrier to adopt an faa approved fatigue-mitigate program. an advisory could provide

guidance in the necessary flexibility to update fatigue mitigation programs as we gain experience. third we urge that any new regulation account for the wide variety of operational environments. just as the current regulation does. these include domestic and international passenger operations as well as cargo operations. and on demand charter operations. science-based principals judicially blended with decades of operational experience will allow the various air carriers models to continue to operate safely. fourth, there also needs to be a focus on the individual in the regulations. regulatory language should clearly prescribe the responsibility of the crew member to properly prepare him or herself for flight. no fatigue policy would such can be recorded as presencive. in 5th, the faa should endorse controlled-cockpit napping, conducting in door dance with

faa procedures to facilitate alertness during the critical phases of flight. research has shown overwhelmly that controlled napping significantly mitigates fatigue risk. on the procedural side, we had three issues. we are concerned about the ultimate scone, consideration should not burden our efforts to improve aviation safety. a rule making proceeding is not the forum in which to resolve collective bargaining issues. second, we are also concerned about the effective proposed duty and rest regulation on managers who are also qualified as line pilots. if time sent on checking e-mail or making a phone call count as duty, we risk losing line-qualified pilot managers. these pilot managers have played an essential role in safe operations in the consequence

and those managements positions must be carefully considered. finally, as within any major regulatory change, cover partied will need time to complement, requiring programming and training. that is particularly so here where crew schedules would be impacted. we therefore ask that faa provide a transition period of at least two years after the regulation is published. ata members are committed to using the best science available combines with proven operational experience to better manage pilot fatigue. we look forward to working with the committee, the faa and other stakeholders in this endeavor. that concludes my statement. i look forward to your questions. mr. >> mr. barimo, thank you very much. we appreciate your testimony. captain prater, welcome, you may proceed. >> thank you. thank you for having us here to

represent the views of the pilot association international. pilot fatigue has been an safety issue for our union since it was founded in 1931. during the difficult years following 9/11, these long-standing concerns have intensified with bankruptcy, concessionary contracts, and the layoff of thousands of pilots were forcing many of those who are still working to fly longer hours and more grueling schedules. this is a dire situation that i have experienced in my own cockpit. just one example from several years back. flaying on the backside of a five-day trip that took me from newark to japan and back to newark, my co-pilot and i were sofa teed from crossing and recrossing that we were barely able a to stay awake from make a predawn landing during a stop in honolulu. at the time i was in command with a 767 with over 240

passengers on board. while it was legal to fly with only two pilots, because it was a few minutes short of the eight-hour limit, it would have safer had we had the third pilot to augment the crew, as had been the case for every other leg of that specific trip. that would have allowed both me and my first officer to catch a couple hour nap in the cabin. current u.s. flight and a duty time rules date from 1954 when the dc3 was the state of the art. times and equipment has changed. but the rules have not. since 1989, the national transportation safety board has issued more than 70 fatigue-related safety recommendation. new would condition that modern science-based regulations are urgently needed. from our view from inside the cockpit, it must be grounded on three basic tenants. one, it must be based on science. two, it must be apply equally to

all flight operations. no exceptions, no carve outs, no loopholes for air cargo or charter operations. three, a new rule allow and encourage air carriers to implement fatigue-risk management systems known as frms. during the past 60 years, scientist understanding of sleep, fatigue, and human performance has grown significantly. several studies have focused directly on aviation fatigue. this science gained through field and stimlaytive confirmed that current rules can lead to fatigue that impairs pilot performance. the 190 nation international civil asian aviation organization or iko has limited that they be based on scientific principals to ensure they are well rested and alert. unfortunately we don't apply with the standard, because the

faa current rules are not science-based. second, one level of safety in flight and duty time regulations is absolutely essential. the current faa flight time limit for passenger carrying pilots is 30 hours in seven days for domestic and 32 hours for international. but air cargo can fly up to 48 hours or 60% more than domestic passenger carrying pilots. no science exist to support multiple sets of flight time, duty time limits. no rational argument can be made for different fatigue rules for pilots based on whether they fly passengers or cargo, domestic or international. alpa maintains we need to truly address pilot fatigue. exceptions or carve outs would kill efforts to make sure pilots were well rested. worse, it would undermine the

one level of safety that must remain our ultimate goal. finally, the new regulation must enable to transition to a fatigue-risk management system, a collaborative, nonpunitive environment where management and flight crews boric together to make sure they operate alertly and safely. it is also imperative that the faa require air carriers to implement fatigue education and training program for their crews, their managers, and their schedulers. i'm very encouraged that we finally appear to be on the verge of securing the modern science-based flight and duty time rule that is we know are vital to enhancing aviation safety. alpa will continue to do all we can. seven alpa pilots worked on the faa aviation rule-making committee. in october our executive board unanimously approved new policy that reflects our values of science and the one level of safety for all.

and it ensures our vision for ensuring pilots are well rested. we look forward to evaluating the faa proposed rule, and we aplay laud effort to create a final rule by mid next year. the current regulatory flame work struggling to stay aloft in supersonic age. i ask your help to give a new consistent level of safety by ensuring that pilot starts every trip alert and rested. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> captain prater, thank you very much. i appreciate you willing mere. mr. william r. voss is the respect of the flight safety foundation. >> thank you, chairman and subcommittee, thank you for giving us an opportunity to testify. fatigue and aviation have been in the headlines. but it's been scientific researched for decades.

199, they first studied fatigue and decision making. decades of research has followed by institutions around the world. it's taken a long time, and a lot of data for industry to research consensus. but the tragedy of the colgan air crash has pushed us along. regardless of how we got here, we support the current effort to develop rules to get the scientific understanding of fatigues. in writing the rules, they are faced with the dawning ask. human fa fa tee is too complexed. just the class aic approach of regulations and compliance. but it's unrealistic to think that every operator would adopt such an approach. so the faa will have to it write traditional prescriptive rules while also allowing large operator to make a more advanced approach. these should address the

relationship between assigned duty and time of day, the effects of consecutive duty periods and the effect of multiple flights. these provisions will not be perfect. there will be a compromise. for smaller they will be fraudulent call. and they will improve the level of safety. now for those operators who are able, they should be encouraged to go beyond the basic rules of the system. frms decreases fatigue. it decides the responsibility of the operator to jointly manage the risk. broadly speaking were frms offered three layers of protection, prevention, which is the proactive fatigue, such as scheduling correctly based on science, mitigation, at operational level to make sure you execute the plan you put in place. and you have a realistic execution of that plan. intervention also.

when everything else goes wrong, you still need to have the ability to intervene and reduce of risk of a flight, no matter what you do. there will be times things don't go right. this brings me to the subject of one of the controversial. that is the dock bit napping. no matter what rules, there will always be times when pilots become fatigued. when that happens, mr. countries have determined that safety is best served by allowing and regulating rest in the cockpit. regulations ensure this is done safely, they specify what happens, who's responsible for various as, and post-rest briefing. of course, controlled rest cannot be used to replace responsible planning and scheduling. every flight must begin with a well-rested crew. controlled rest is an important tool to keep things safe. there are some other issues that deserve consideration. even though there's much research, there's still gaps. more research is needed in the

area of collaborations. we understand the association is willing to lead studies in the area, the foundation strongly supports those efforts and calls the faa to consider the findings in the mr. posed rules. we focus so much on the flight crew that we often overlook fatigue in the rest of the industry. they published air an article about maintenance workers. the foundation strongly urges the faa to consider maintenance personnel in future rules. finally, a concerted effort should be made by the faa industry and labor to educate the work force unmansers associated with fa fight risk.

>> i heard you say there should be two different standards of regulations. that would not be comforting to a passenger that gets on the airplane that is not one of the larger area planes. seems to me fatigue is fatigue. no matter the size of the plane. and people that are flying it.

if they are fatigued there are risks. so expand on us. you are telling us there should be two standards? >> thank you. actually what i'm frying to say is that regulations have to be written in a way they can be complied with. and sometimes you need straightforward rules as i believe we will be able to put together through the regulatory process. to serve as the limit as the safety net. however, there is still an opportunity here to go beyond the basics. we can ensure a strong level of safety, make a big improvement in the industry. we need to pay attention to the fact that there are new processes out there. which allow us to take the data we get from everyday operations and see where problems are developing and implement thing that is even go beyond the rules. and so i'm saying that we need to put good rules in place. we need to also make proare visions for us to go beyond the rule that is exist. >> but again maybe captain

prater you can respond to this. we have developed in recent years the system of the large trunk carriers and the regional carriers. the regional carriers are a very important part of our system. they have one-half of the flights that carry xix 1/4 of the passengers. they get on an airplane that has the markers of the large air years. but it's not the large carriers, it's the regional carriers. it seems to me that the question of fatigue is a question that is not separate by the size of the cockpit or the size of the airplane. captain prater, you describe fatigue, you use of term quote, dire, unquote. what's your sense of whether there should be one standard or two? as mr. voss suggests, i understand why he's suggesting it. i have a difficulty degreing that we should move in that direction. we says it would be more

difficult for the smaller regional carriers to comply to more comprehensive rules. >> let me by again with -- i'll restrait. we believe that there should be one set of strong underlying regulation that creates the foundation regardless of the size of airplane or the cargo. that would be the first. the second level then would say how do we enforce it, and how -- i think bill was eluding to, how can we improve on the level of foundation. the first should apply to all equally. it doesn't matter whether you have one passenger or 500 in the back of the airplane. the frms would allow us to look at specific situations, just take one case. the ultra long range. if i get into a triple seven and go from newark to hong kong,

it's going to 16 and a half hours. that proceeds the current regulation. with frms, we could come up with the rules on how to conduct a specific flight like that. i think that's where bill is trying to go. >> cap pain prater, you said that the fatigue rules in the u.s. do not comply with icao standards. what do you mean? >> icao is called for the flight time ruled to be science-based. ours currently not science-based. the future ones, when we get them done, as long as someone doesn't try to delay this like they have the last several attempts will be science-based which would bring us into compliance with the icao provisions. the last thing i would say on the first suggest, sir, was the controlled napping. again, napping should not be seen or viewed as somehow keeping pilots on duty even longer. in other words, i can hear the scheduler now, well, i'm pretty

tired, i shouldn't start the flight. don't worry, you can catch a nap en route. no, that's not a sound strategy for being alert on the other end. you are once in a while going to be caught in a position where you need a nap, and you'll coordinate it with the other pilot. but remember at that point, there's one pilot in the cockpit. our system of safety is based upon redundancy of redundancy. and now you want to say only one pilot has to be awake? well, i can tell you right away, trying to come out of a nap to make a long-range decision is difficult. it has to be well planned. thank you. >> ms. gilligan, can you respond. what is the agency response to the difference between mr. barimo and captain prater on the one-size-fits-all approach on the respect to fatigue. ata argues that you don't want one size fits all, captain

prater said that one size fits all ought to be the min pulmostandard. what's the faa say to that? >> well, the arc has one approach. i think what the science does indicate that the things that contribute to fatigue are common across individuals, across humans. and it has less to do, perhaps with the environment. there are some environmental issues that need to be issued. you, yourself, mentioned multiple takeoffs and landings to the long-range that captain prater referred to. the rules need to acknowledge that. so the framework will be a common framework. i think what you'll see in the proposal that the arc put forward is a bit of a sliding scale that allow us to take into account of time of day that the schedule may encompass and the number of takeoffs and landings

to properly balance the contributing factors. >> i want to call on senator latchenberg in a moment. can you give us -- give us the time line on fatigue. you're talking about the arc and so on. this goes back 40 and 50 years. what's the timeline? >> the administrator has announced that we would have a final proposal out by the first of next year. unfortunately, we have run into some additional analysis. what the arc provided was again as i said a very good framework. but they did not provide particular recommendations on particular elements of the rule. and we are now having to fill in those balance and analyze the effect of those based on recommendation that the arc made. but again without their specific agreement on what particular hours ought to be included. >> are you saying the first of the year is a time deadline that

has been sliding? >> we will -- unfortunately, miss the first of the next year. we have agreed with the administer administrate -- administrator that we will complete our analysis by the end of january. then it will need to go through administration review. >> all right. i'm going to ask a series of questions about you and others. but i want to have my colleagues have the opportunity. senator latenberg. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i must say what we have heard from our panel here today confirms the view that what it is is notated ". we have to make changes. the rules are based on the where the system is today. the number of passengers that come, the different types of aircraft, and i would ask you

this: might we will looking at something more than just the fatigue factor? is the stress factor? even if there's adequate sleep, with there are other thing that is are -- k that can interfere with clear thinking. not the at least of which is income. not -- and i don't know how we get this across. but there ought to be some standard. what does -- what are the requirements now for commercial pilots license, captain? >> about 250 hours of flight time, instruction time, in a single engineer -- engine airplane. >> are there any other educational requirements? >> there are no other educational requirements for even up to an airplane transport pilot rating. >> are there any physical? what are the physical

requirements that must accompany the application for a license? >> there are solid physical requirements -- basically good health, correctable vision to 20/20, and most pilots twice a year have to meet those physical standards. once a year, i believe if you are under 35 -- >> 40. >> 40. >> are there any prohibitions about alcohol use in advance of taking command or getting into the pilot seat? >> yes, sir, very strict rules both timewise as well as blood alcohol content. >> but they don't give a blood sample every time they go. >> no, but we are subject to random events. and i will tell you that the --

it's a rule that pilots take very seriously. obviously, and some companies are -- even have time limits that exceed the safety limits that the faa has established. >> because with all of the these things that do exist, and you get back to the starting pay for a pilot or co-pilot, if someone is in that seat, are they fully prepared in your view to take over command if necessary? >> that is one of the responsibility of command in fact, is to assess your fellow crew member. and whether or not it was as a -- you site the concern of alcohol. most of us watch that very, very closely in each other. and i'm proud to say that we

have very, very good success in recognizing those individuals that have a problem. and we have very good success. >> well, the problem. doesn't suggest that that's a long-time thing. it can be a single episode. >> right. >> and bob -- but the point i get to here is that the requirements it met even to the current standard are pretty heavy-duty things. but still in all, we had these outrageous examples of pilots not responding to a radio inquiry. and should there be a list of infractions kept that says that if a pilot doesn't answer a radio call in five minutes or three minutes or something like that, that they ought to be listed as an infraction?

and a record kept on that? >> sir, i think we would quickly determine that the air space and flying an airplane is very complicated. and the fact is there can be either missed radio called or miscommunications. but we are very successful in trapping those errors, either using other airplanes, whether it's monitoring the emergency frequency, we do catch those errors. and in fact, we take it to the next level. when a professional makes an error, under the asap systems, you turn yourself in. you report yourself. to me, that's the height of professionalism. you want somebody else to not make that same air. those are the systems. they are working very well. >> well, when you hear a pilot say that we were distracted, that's not sufficient reason to

fly for lots of lots of minutes, more than an hour, not quite without responding to the tower or a station along the way. it's shocking. we should -- that there should be a rule that's consistent with rapid response on radio calls. it is crowded up there. and equipment is moving more rapidly than it used to. so that i think there are rule that is have to be established that demand of the pilot a certain behavioral things. so that the tower knows what's going on and can be responded. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator? >> thank you. when someone walks on to the a

lane. you know they are entrusting their life it to you. and i think there's a larger issue here about fatigue that goes beyond pilots. there are fatigue in society. and you only have to go to the back of the plane to -- once the plane takes off, nearly everybody is asleep. i think because we are all under increasing demand, we're on their blackberries, we're staying up late with kids, we're doing all of the things that we have to do with life. not only may you have dc3 or 8 or whatever it was rules, you also live in a world where people are a lot more tired. i think the sleep study showed that america is one of the worst nation in the world for how many sleep the average americans gets every night. i'm encouraged that you are going to get the rules done, and get them done as soon as you possibly can to have a scientifically based research. i want to bring up three things to occur to me as frequent

traveler. i've done a lot -- in florida, i've done a lot of the short lag trips on the continental airplane which were similar to the crash that occurred in buffalo. there's a couple of things. one is i see that folks who are airline crews often times commute to their work. so they -- and i think this happened in buffalo, where you are a tampa-based pilot. it concerns me that you're -- we are talking about being well rested for the start of the flight. not just being able to say, okay, i can take a nap when i'm on the plane if that's the way the rule changes. but to be well rested when the flight begins. how important is that the crew member spend the night before they start on their leg, you know, in their home bed? i mean it worries me that we are flying people from tampa to buffalo to go to work. and that that's the first part of their segment. and then they are going to start flying when they get to buffalo

or atlanta. i experience this all the time in talking to crew members, how many people don't live in atlanta, for example. delta has their base there. there are a lot of crew members who fly to atlanta to go to work. is this something that's going to be addressed about the initial getting to work, commuting to your job as a crew member which has to also increase the wear and tear on the crew members. i'd like to discuss that. the second thing that i'd like to have the comment on, what availability for sleep rooms are there for pilots? how good are those sleep rooms? is this something that's being discussed as providing place as where pilots can sleep in between flights. something that's not going to be a place where they are sitting in a lounge where they are not going to really get good rest. but where they have an opportunity to get in a cot or bed and get some real sleep between flights. and the third thing is, who's in charge? my sense, and may be it's wrong, that the pilot is in charge.

are there supervisors that are at the airports, looking over the pilots, maybe other senior pilots and say, you know, captain prater is too tired. he just came in hong kong, he thinks he can go on the flight. i don't think he can. i'm going to tell him he has to take some time off, because he's not ready to make this flight. is there a chain of command that puts somebody in the charge to make these decisions. traveling to destination, sleep rooms, and supervision. and i'll ask ms. gilligan if she would like to start on that. >> thank you, sir. on the issue of commuting with the the aviation rule-making committee recommended that the pilot be required to report to work fit for duty. that is consistent with our regulations at this point. they did not make a recommendation to change that. this is one the areas that we are looking at as we prepare our proposal to see if there's additional requirements that we

want to include. so that is something we will address and ask for comment on the proposal. on the issue of sleep rooms, two things. first there are -- especially for the cargo carriers, they actually provide rooms, temperature control, for pilots to sleep. one of the recommendation for the arc was to give consideration to that kind of rest to perhaps additional time to the duty day. and again we will look at proposals in that area, and ask for comment on that as well. for the ultra long flight were or the flight where we have augmented crew, there is sleeping facilities on board the aircraft. and the arc recommended that the higher-end facility will given more carrot than perhaps where an operator might expert where a pilot to sleep in a first-class

seat. the proposal will look those, and credit given to those areas as well. we are trying to address all of various issues that have -- that are -- you know, not the main issue around fatigue, but certainly can contribute to how we can help the pilots better manage that fatigue. >> what about supervision? >> i'm sorry. and the last issue, the regulations are -- will likely propose that both of the operator and the pilot will have responsibility. so the rule will say the operator may not allow, anded pilot may not accept. many of our rules are written in that way to have that shared responsibility. so that as captain prater pointed out, we can be sewer that we have the checks and balances that we need within the system. >> captain prater, can you talk to those three things? >> i'd be glad to, senator. first of all, we need to understand that commuting is a

fact of life. whether i'm driving in richmond to dc that will take me three hours, or flying from saint louis to dc, i am starting my day. it comes down to the professional responsibility of what do i have ahead of me. if i'm just flying an easy trip, one leg to florida, yes, i'll come up that morning. i'll be there for several hours. and then i'll go to work. and i'll feel fine. before and get some rest during the day. those are facts of the light but we live in now. you have to know your schedule. it is more difficult for reserve pilots. most are within two to three hours of their duty station. it can easily take three hours to get there. you have to plan ahead. i do not see it as a problem.

the first officer committed from seattle to add new wornewark tor trip, but what should have been pointed out is she should have floated the night before. it is not just commuting, at the overall issue of how the flight time duty rules work. it was in charge? i think it starts and ends with >> who is in charge? it starts and ends with the captain but the carrier does have responsibility. the carrier has the responsibility two except my word and they will not fire me your discipline me if i say i am too tired. we still fight that problem because of the airplane does not go the revenue sits on the tarmac perk up they do not have enough pilots because they have cut back, the trip is canceled. those economic pressures

live every day. we have to fight them. the last point* is the sleeper rooms they are totally wholly inadequate at most airlines. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator klobuchar? >> i also want to a knowledge i know some of the families are out there from the crash and thank you for being here and being a moral compass for us as we work on this important topic to get the rules done and i appreciate you saying these will get done ms. c59 was shocked to learn at a hearing a few weeks ago the de-icing rules are 12 years old and have not gone into recommendation and finally i talk to the director and secretary lahood and they are finally out for public comment after sitting there in bureaucratic red tape for

12 years and thank you for doing this as quickly as possible. one thing to follow what the senator was talking about is that changing culture and the rules that we have on the fl eight -- faa's policy they are half a century old and doesn't reflect with new technologies or ways of living or new affirmation about fatigue. one of the ways i was focused on is what senator dorgan said half of the flights are regional and one quarter of the passengers are regional but the rules seem to be different with regional and national propose some of the large carriers reimburse for hotel cost so they can get some sleep for the regional character eight -- carriers do the same thing? is this a solution? capt. prater? >> i would say most carriers

do not provide for the reimbursement of the expenses for coming to work to be well rested. they do not pay for hotel rooms where you start and and your trip. part of the problem problem, senator, the system does not provide for a mechanism to provide the pilots with a decent salary because we have a marketplaces some with over 160 failures of airlines. we keep calling the airlines something that what they are parker regional carrier? a flight from canada to mexico. we need to get away trying to pigeonholed because they fly just 50 passengers. >> one of the things that we

discussed the are you believe the regional pilates, some of them are flying shorter flights but the flight time is more stressful because it involves more takeoffs and landings and actually doing more during that time. wonder should we take that into account as opposed to looking at time in that her? >> yes. take that issue into account of the frequency of the legs and the workloads that involves. it is interesting that area is that have the least amount of research done in a lot of work has done old trial long haul and time zone shift. more work is being done in that area and it is critical to take into account. and as they understand the rules described will take this up and down into account. >> what to redo about learning from what other countries have done? one thing they talk about it

is allowed 91 piloted to nap if the other one is the way. is that controlled now paying idea of make any sense for longer flights? >> absolutely. we support that very much in the foundation since 1994 is when the first airline started to do controlled and mapping and it is very effective countermeasure. when you tried to do everything right but you still end up with a fatigued crew this is a last-ditch effort and it is proving to be a very safe procedure and has been adopted in many countries around the world. >> ms. gilligan? >> the reimbursements with the idea of a more stress on pilates whether they are regional or not it to have shorter flights and also the idea should weekend -- look at the controlled and napping. >> they did recommend we

consider when the pilot begins a schedule as well as the number of operations or segments they will fly as part of the sliding scale as in duty time and flight time they should be permitted. the ark did not agree exactly how many hours of flight time and do the time that ought to allow. we are now in the midst of vandalizing that but the framework they presented will take into account the time of day if you are flying at night, the backside of the clock that made reduce your number of hours available, if you have a high number of takeoffs and landings that may reduce the number we will see comment on that how to understand better how to accommodate what can contribute to 58. on the issue of controlled rest we have not issued standards or post to permit

that. at this point* i don't expect we will be proposing that. we do believe the crew needs to coming to work prepared for the schedule that they are undertaking. we believe we can manage and mitigate fatigue through the new regulations is sufficiently they should be alert throughout the flight. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> senator snowe? >> ms. gilligan we hope the faa will move expeditiously on this proposed rule making it is horrible it has lagged for more than half a century and then on the ntsb since 1990 so clearly this is an issue that deserves immediate attention and i think with the testimony presented to this committee on the factor of fatigue. but to follow up on the

question with respect to commuting. many regional airlines have pilots that can you long-distance. one of the regional characters-- carriers when a quarter of the group can use more than 1,000 files how do factor that into rule-making? will that be part of the process next year that contributes to fatigue? >> that is an issue that i mentioned the aviation rulemaking committee did not recommend that we make changes in recommended we continue to see that as a pilot responsibility as capt. prater indicated we're wondering if there are additional elements we can or should regulate and that may be a part of our proposal but we have not completed that analysis but asking for comments on why there is additional regulatory requirements to be put in place as it might affect commuting.

>> captain prater, how would you see the faa's addressing this question, if at all? is essential on the commuter issue? >> if anything, i believe that as a personal responsibility, thrust upon you by the circumstances come you could live in your base and the next day it is closed and you are expected to fly out of new york instead of cincinnati. you have three kids in the school do cannot do with overnight. most regional carriers do not pay for a move. pilots have had five base changes in one year. route he just cannot move. it is not a lot different than many jobs in our society except on the other and we have to be in command of the cockpit. it does start with personal

responsibility. when those circumstances, the carrier must assure the pilot can get to work with the least amount of hassle. it is no different than flying from st. louis to d.c. to begin your work day here it is the same for us but it should not take me a tour 10 hours to fly from st. louis to washington d.c. to start. i believe it will be done more unfortunately maybe but in the collective bargaining arena where we come up with a solution with employers vs. a man day by the faa. >> is a workable about the private and the operator making the decision as to whether or not a pilot is 250 days to fatigue to make the trip? >> the operators will resist the pressure of the situation because they need

the pilot. it seems it would be most likely. >> it comes down to the physical that we take every six months. we have to determine our we fit to fly? it does not matter if i have pickoff or cold i did not sleep last night because my baby cried all night. i have to make that decision we just ask the protection and of the employer's responsibility should be will except when a pilot calls in and says they are to fatigue to fly you will accept the call. >> on another issue i happen to to run into one airline pilot last week for a legacy carrier was very much concerned about the lack of experience about pilots and copilots on the regional aircraft with the requirements of 300 hours of

flight time compared to what he had for example, as a commercial pilot of 3,000 hours. in fact,, asking some tips of the captain of the regional carriers and the co-pilot was not even a familiar with some of the issues they discussed and he described it as a scary. could i have your views? if you come by and fatigue, low salary and lack of experience in the house of representatives their one piece of legislation is considered 15 hours is a minimum requirement for flight time experimentation experience. can you address that? >> we are fully supportive of h.r. 4371 and hope the senate will pick that up in the near future. it does raise the bar for experience before a pilot can become an airline

transport pilot in a service of carrying passengers. first of all,, let me say i believe we're one of the most critical professions on ourselves. you never have enough experience. the fact the senior captain and sharing and discussing issues with the crew is not a bad thing. two years ago ari economy was going in such a way that pilots we're being hired right out of flight school with two men 250 hours and it did show a crack. we can do better than that progress may take more trading at the airline level but it is expensive. many airlines like to cut costs but we cannot. we need to expand some of the training requirements and much of that is covered in a that house legislation. >> i appreciate that. thank you. >> thank you senators no.

ms. gilligan on the question of when, the fact is that this issue has been around ntsb is on the most-wanted list 19 years i appreciate the fact you have started the process but it is more important that you and the process and you do that with recommendations other science based letter implemented and we don't have to have hearings. indicate the time is sliding which is not unusual disappointing given the circumstances that we face and the urgency we have communicated we want to move on this. give me your best judgment about when those of us who were waiting for these recommendations and the implementation of new rules and regulations and when we can expect action? >> the administrator is completely committed to completing the project i need to make that clear and

he will share that with you next week when he appears. he is committed to getting it right. this is an area he is knowledgeable given his own experience as a pilot. as we have presented the framework we aviation rule-making committee provided the details pacific's that we have to analyze he has agreed we need additional time to make sure we get it right. we have committed to have that analysis completed by the end of january, one month later than we had hoped and less than it will go into final review through faa's and the administration and we have a commitment to keep that as short as we can keep it we will work with the office of management and budget in that same vein. the illustrator is to competed -- committed to getting it out next year as

quickly as we can. >> thank you for the answer but you have just described that ff eight -- faa's come a dot come on the, all agencies that have to take her reasonably effective and expeditious action to get something in place for i have had too much experience with faa's and dot and elan be to believe that this works very well. because i referred to two abortive attempts in the 1990's two do this and i refer to i think 19 years on the most-wanted list, i am losing my patience. use a one month? let me ask a different way. i assume when the faa decided to embark on this and set a deadline it was based on their judgment of doing it the right way? now you say you need more mark time but my guess is

u.s. at that time line based on that? >> that was our expectation but to the arc gate was a good framework and not all the specifics that need to be included in the rule to be fully analyze so we can present those for comment. i think the arc members would knowledge they did not give the specific recommendation to some extent with that time and and how complicated and difficult the issues are. the administrators and we're prepared to make those decisions and that is what he is facing right now. the requires additional time >> i do not disagree. they're complicated, difficult. are a understand all of that. i think when i started today by citing the number of people who lost their lives in the last 20 years because of accidents related to fatigue and then understanding we have the issue of fatigue in front of

us and cannot come to closure, and will certainly ask the administrator next week and is some detail but i will write an official letter month after month as we go along to find out where will it happen? who has a now? how long do expect them to have it? i will write to them as well. we need to move and get it done. it is complicated but it is not like sending a person to the new rican sure the figure out what we need to do to address what mr. prater says is a dire problem. when i showed the charts, we are talking about and senators their talks about commuting -- to new team. we should not do it and you say the process will ignore

commuting? again, and the call did crash somebody that flew all night long from seattle washington to finally get to a duty station and then hang around in a lounge for a couple of hours based on what we know, that is not a pilot that is well rested purpose aside from the other questions putting pilots and copilots in the cockpit that had never trained on a stick pusher. never trained. that is unbelievable. at least the piece that we can understand or should understand is fatigued. nothing else. and tried to move as expeditiously as we can. couple of other questions. the issue of napping. the notion of solving the fatigue issue by taking naps in the cockpit, i anders

stand why somebody might suggest that as an alternative but i also understand captain prater notion i have flown planes very minimal a when i was younger but very few hours but i understand in the cockpit, if you are now being and day bell or whistle or a light goes off as an emergency you do not wake up feeling just like that to say here are the experiences that i take the action to take in an emergency right now. you do not do that when you wake up from the napa. you are drowsy i do not understand solving the fatigue issue by napping. mr. barimo? >> i am glad to elaborate. we do not view napping as the silver bullet for fatigued. it is one of the many tools

in that toolbox. airlines would not build schedules that incorporate napping as a requirement to complete a trap. it is a way to manage fatigued as it arises on a real-time basis and we think it is a smarter approach managing that process than allowing things to revolve the way they have previously hot we run the risk of both pilots falling asleep. there is a way to do it and we believe nasa has done an adequate research and bill voss is the expert but it is one of the many tools that give factored into the new equation that is the beauty of frms take advantage of break rooms and sleeper

rooms in on the ground and integrated into a comprehensive program that helps you to effectively manage risk. >> i am suggesting there are layers to be applied. first we have to make the rules better in the first place of people show up to work and have the opportunity and they have to live up to their responsibility to do so. last, in the event that all of the best efforts are spoiled with weather and everything else somebody meet -- they need to take one last layer of defense with a control procedure. it is the exception, not as the rule. >> mr. prater? >> i think i addressed adequately prepare you could not prevent a nap if a pilot is that tired but it has to be a last ditch effort so at least you can feel good enough on the other end.

the trip we used before with the all-nighter was five minutes before landing to buy into a fresh cut london to give you such a jolt. that is pushing the human body weight to far. we don't need that. >> the chairman's questions about when the report might be done, or questions to our understanding to talk about that as well but i think the ground has been covered. what i would suggest is when you talk to the chairman, mr. babbitt, one of the things we have not discussed is safety and totality.

another part is to make sure the towers are in the condition they should be. when i look at the schedules and i see newark liberty has standard staffing their 26 + 8 to trainees and kennedy has 37 full-time and 24 full-time and eight trainees. i think one of the questions i would like to review when mr. babbitt is here is whether they doing in contemplation of the retirements and including the staffing levels right now? the other thing, mr. barimo, i do think $20,000 per year is

acceptable for someone who has the responsibilities of the pilots? >> senator, what i would say is seniority is keying in the airline industry. what that means is salaries are negotiated between the union and the company and generally favors the more senior pilots. what we're talking about is a pay scale that store is fairly low and ends a fairly high. there are ways to level that out to have pilots coming in better less and pilates out the senior and earn a little less and there are ways to do that with a negotiated element of a pilot's life style. that is an issue that certainly has been at the

forefront of many discussions but again, an element that is negotiated between the airline and the union. >> i know that. i do not mean to be impatient but this simple question is whether or not someone making $20,000 per year, but you can do with those that have to commute distances. some pilots drive 150 miles from their home to get to their flight. the question is, whether or not with the responsibility that is inherent in the job whether $20,000 is a decent salary? because many times there is a second job these folks have to take in order to keep their heads above water. that plays a terrific role in establishing th