poland. it's a remarkable speech that essentially lays out the coy principles of -- core principles of woods. free trade, principles to protect labor which didn't quite get into bretton woods. the removal of exclusive or preferential trade arrangements, so on and so forth. i say in the paper and this is something we could debate, that if you wanted to name one person who was constituent or the person who constituted a logic of the post-world war ii era, it would be dean acheson first in the treasury department and then as assistant secretary of state and then, of course, secretary of state under truman. ..

i haven't heard in a new warehouse say that and maybe it is so obvious that it doesn't require a repetition, but it was possible in 1991 to see a long piece not in the cold war as john said at a long piece developing which was almost impossible to imagine the major industrial powers not counting russia and china, china, of course, was not a major

industrial power at that time. in some my colleague, john, who is a friend of mine talking about the return of franco-german enmity with the french nuclear weapons in germany is, in fact, the future, it is simply i think it proudest ament and it is because of johns assumptions about how the world was. so i don't want to dump particularly on jonathan, iran, the engines of the world economy

and but not the former military powers and then by 1947 and 48, the third major problem was in the soviet union and its allies but the one thing was the enormous force deployed by anti colonial peoples movements in vietnam, especially by many other places. it is hard for young people i think to recall the towering influence of a third of world leaders just 30 years ago ended movements that abscessed the united states, vietnam been a particularly good example, but most people in their generation didn't believe the peoples could raise the figure in their own defense or cause major problems, ratio discrimination or racial prejudice was also involved in this. it was something entirely new in the world because there were 30 years, in vietnam fundamentally

anti imperial war when all was said and done. anyway, from the standpoint of either acheson it or can lynwood have been rather predictive of the first world of the world economy and containment of the soviet union and it would have been flabbergasted if someone told them he would fight to major wars in korea and vietnam, have a still lake or a tie and lose the other. a sudden this as i try to develop in my paper was at the level of assumptions to pay attention to so many millions of people who were at that time in colonies trying to get out from under them. the number of other points i wanted to make but if you -- i see i have four minutes left. my analysis of an september 11th can be the very brief, i more or less agree with john mueller that we have been grossly overestimated the threat that

came in from that terrible act. on the other hand, i understand perfectly well what policy makers were saying just a few minutes ago about the extraordinary shock that this produced in the unknown who years that something like the anthrax attack, what ever you want to call that, we generated by a and the idea you don't know what's around a corner. and i can understand that. i couldn't sleep for five days after 9/11, i was watching the tv all the time and have never gone mad long without being able to sleep so it was an extraordinarily shocking evidence about one of the things we need to do is to be able to step back from the evidence like that and ask ourselves if these 19 hijackers resemble something like the soviet union or nazi germany or militaristic japan and they clearly did not have the time but the passage of time and cannot live seems to have told us i think that they got

lucky as johnson this morning. north korea. and you can read what i have to say about north korea in the paper. i think my encounters with the beltway consensus on north korea, bipartisan won over the last 20 years, has been in that the images people have and the assumptions they make about number three again in the way of figuring out a policy that actually might have an impact on that regime. it on any given day in los like communism you can't take seriously. my research in my career has taught me that to underestimate the north koreans at your peril. that happen when douglas mccarthy said he had turned back the north koreans with one hand tied behind his back a couple days after the war began in 1950 in a month later he said they have better artillery and service, tang formations and the japanese did in world war ii.

it just goes on, but if you have an independent army of over a million men you have a garrison state dug into some 15,000 underground national security chambers or facilities of one type of another, and a leadership that believes that both the soviets and the chinese have screwed them in recent years, the soviets all the will of the other history, you can begin to appreciate why that regime has a collapse. there are not plus easy to pull on that regime. and we might discuss that evening -- discuss that question in the question and answer time. in my last minute i will tell you please read my last section where i quotes friedrich nietzsche on metaphor. and the way in which we human beings have a wonderful and terrible tendency to sink in that report terms to say the word terrorists in our minds,

someone who looks like osama bin laden, but in general is two constantly try to examine every examine it in that area examining data the premise, concepts, metaphors we bring to bear on our work because of the whole point of my paper is in those days, the important than the daily lives of tens of some of what kind of information might become a across your desk is a policy maker or a scholar. thank you ran much for your attention. >> thank you. >> thank you, john, thanks again for inviting me to the conference. thanks to the miller center for organizing and things to all of you were bearing up this whole -- and still being here looking so attentive the last speaker on the last panel of years up. in my paper really holds a near to us, that is to say

independent nongovernmental scholarly experts, and for short al use the terms dollars or experts and i ask you in my paper how well do we do when paradigm shattering events have been? we didn't do a particularly good job predicting as dollars. my question i asked my paper is how well do independent scholars do at policy evaluation? back to the of massacre that alter the foundations of a major geopolitical his equilibrium. how well do we do? in the key to this is in a policy evaluation involving an assessment of criticism of a given policy, usually experts, the one government contemplating or hauling and implies either endorsement of that policy or recommendation of another policy. in either case it implies a forecast about the world namely that the world will be better off with the follow the policy i advocate. so how good are scholars at

forecasting end of the circumstances? i will get this question in the evidence considered by this project. 9/11 and the fall of the and berlin wall, i bring these events down into for evidence, or decisions. immediate decision that happens after the shock and a key apollo up to the immediate decision, the immediate decision in 2001 is to use force to respond to the al qaeda in afghanistan. a follow-on decision in the worst case is to expand native two central europe and a follow-on decision in the second case is to seek a serious resolution. by use of force unnecessary. if you look at these four decisions what stands out from the outside expert committee is opposition and criticism. three of the more decisions i think we're opposed met with

strong skepticism by strong majorities of outside scholarly experts. and that is the only exception, the invasion of afghanistan which i think along security, scholars of international security was widely endorsed. sort of a consensus decision, the immediate post 9/11 decision. all the other three -- when i want to do in the next few minutes is look at the conventional wisdom, what do we generally think ought to be the case of a scholarly policy evaluation, and then in take a look at the three cases in which you saw very strong sky early consensus against the government's policy. how well did we do? so that is where i'm going. the first section i want to talk about conventional wisdom, and scholars is that the government really ought to pay attention to

us. now, of course, normally how can the government really pay attention to us, it's a squabbling bunch of people, but if the scholarly community, independent experts conferred upon this, consensus among experts outside the government, what the government is doing is a bad idea there their view is they ought to pay heed to this consensus and why? scholars bring some pretty good assets to the table. and that our independence. and they are not necessarily higher level their products -- it does exist in derrin i have heard and where underling say when they think. if they are not in all too deeply. but they generally aren't party people. finally most importantly they

have years of hard scholarly experts with peer review. put into understanding the process and they bring this to the table and if they are normally squabbling can read the says that the government is taking a wrong step in the government ought to step up to this. it argues that, in fact, there are scholarly expert opinions and debate is one of democracy's big advantages over autonomy. however, this basic conventional wisdom fails to distinguish between what we might call normal international relations and the profound the pollen paradigm shattering events like the call, the berlin wall and 9/11 and i suggest to the paper along the lines that were two reasons at least until a scholars may not be in putting their best foot forward and in

precisely this circumstance this topic is there in the first reason is that scholars may need a strong informational discipline. the government is going to have critical information. and they are going to know more about what others in scholars to na. there are going to be in a particular disadvantage. moreover and more impressively strongly brought up in my paper is the government angelenos and the scholars may not know what the government really wants to do and may not be clear to the scholars and other government concern happens to be a powerful one you know what you were going to do. that can affect the it future a lot so scholars are an information source but more importantly in the paper independent scholarly experts

might be at a cognitive disadvantaged. that is, they may make particular kinds of investments in particular kinds of reason and which are particularly ill suited to a very of very uncertain times. what do scholars have? they have two things that differentiate from government. they have a theory which they care a lot about as opposed to most government experts, nongovernmental experts who make huge investments in general theory. they also have systematic research. whether they are historians or whether there are political scientist or other kinds of social science, they keep to understanding things in general. historians may think they don't do this and i beg to differ it is a partial explanation.

it is a very different point in deciding what to do in a massive leak fluid situation and such as happened after the fall of the berlin wall or on september 12th, 2001 said the very strength that scholars normally have in normal times, they may be handicaps i'm suggesting in these very uncertain rapidly moving times. in a sense when the paradigm, with a geopolitical equilibrium changes, that the values that investment of scholars so i looked at the evidence and ask, how well do we do? first let's look at the strengths and hopefully we can discuss it some more. in 1989 the bottom line is scholars were way behind the curve. they were much lower than the government to see what was

happening and when they did figure out what was happening the overwhelming preponderance of scholars who were experts on these matters whether international relations dollars, european and, they all fought the use of rapid unification was a very dangerous move. overall their views were much closer to the views of margaret thatcher than it used of george w. bush. this was very dangerous, very dangerous for a variety of reasons. one thing in their theories predicted a rapid change particularly one of the decline of a great power is almost associated with war. you thought in general theoretical terms use of this is a move with the possible war and that is what motivated the back to the future reference, namely bipolar division of europe to maintain peace, rabin duplication that germany will overcome bringing war so if you

want peace prop up the soviet union and prop up the gdr. i didn't recall from the policymaker testimony that people in government actually paid in that advice much he and i doubt in hindsight people wish they had. so there were a lot of reasons but the bottom line is scholars were way behind the curve and a radically over i think to the extent we can think in hindsight overestimated the risks involved with rapid unification and i think for reasons that are connected to this kind of style that i'm talking about. the second case as almost a clearest case we have is a nato expansion that began to take, hit the radar screen in the middle of 1990's. here we have a very powerful scholarly consensus against the idea in central europe and this wasn't the exception because i

do recall a lot of historians not all shy about contemporary politics. john said i have never in my life encountered a policy decision by the government that met with more unanimous opposition on the part of historians and expansion data. they predicted a lot of very bad things to occur if we insisted on forcing nato into central europe, that russia would align with china in massive geopolitical alliance, that russia democracy would collapse, that russia would oppose the united states consistently throughout the world, and overall that it would result in a very significant near-term cost to the united states. george kennan call said i can't remember the exact words but the most catastrophic decision the united states has made in the post cold war world. the reason they made this

assessment was for the evidence by a grounded in theory and their medical analogy and then keep the rate was the theory of the balance of power and the analogy was the analogy of tyrrany. essentially a situation in which you have a humiliated great power excluded from a postwar settlement that would inevitably balance both internal balance in building up its own power and external balance and the alliance with the key other great power out there, china. and again it was a political scientist of making this argument, this was probably with historians. what this argument failed to do was update the theory of the power to completely different setting, the world was not more bipolar and resident pays more changes analogous to the faces of the 30's and '40's and although russia arguably did take a course less favorably to the united states interests, the magnitude of the costs incurred to even if you associate -- let

me interrupt myself -- even if u.s.o.c. today's relatively recalcitrant russia, if you associate back causally with a new expansion and say it is because of native expansion we have today's russia, the magnitude of russian opposition in an alliance behavior is a pale shadow of what was predicted by the scholarly opponents to the nato expansion. they were talking about a real geopolitical shift that would change the fundamental landscape. finally in the two minutes i have left and a very interesting case of iraq. here we have a build up to the war and actually a very short window for scholars to develop and their arguments because it was only late in the game it became sort of clear that this invasion was actually very likely to happen so i can get into the details but the window for scholars to figure out what was happening to come up with cogent arguments was smaller than you might think. the scholars who opposed this in some ways was a collection of

scholars exactly the same people who exhibited in hindsight what seems to be shortsighted analysis in the previous two cases and what did they argue in this case with very little time left -- they argued that this was a bad idea. primarily on the following for arguments very quickly -- it is not irrational which means policies containment and sanctions can work so they were defenders of a policy in washington that was so discredited by this time. were they said would be very costly, saddam hussein would use wmd, he would probably engage in urban warfare so war is costly. third, the pottery barn china shop argument. you indicated, you own it, they would be fractious and difficult to hold together and would be a prolonged obligation and forth it would divert resources from the important struggle against

al qaeda. in afghanistan. so those are theç key planks of their argument. i don't have time to go over this because my time is up. i would say of all the arguments adopted to of the decisions i talked about, this one looks best in hindsight. that's sad, it is very dear friend in many other arguments you hear now. very different from the arguments you hear around but nonetheless it is relatively -- the final thing i will know about it, in some ways it connected to the scholars on theory. that is to say, the scholars and they were making this analysis disconnected them sounds in many ways from their previous intellectual investments in grand theory an explanation. so to conclude in going over my time, i was a over all this coli performance in these three episodes is not a mesa, it is

after the attack into the green the scholars seem to have got to write it seems to be the competition that i mentioned, the disconnect between building general theory an explanation and making decisions under circumstances. i would say that's the implication that i will and my talk with, number one is the scholars are of frequently criticized with many calls here for humility. my paper certainly on that part but secondly i think we can do better. and i think we can actually provide our policy maker colleagues with a better insight. but it will involve a very very difficult trek in uniting the general with particular, which is the hardest job i scholar has to do. >> thank you, for those rural

but fair comments. [laughter] things to all three panelists for the provocative talks in the papers. we have a bit left. i feared we would have a lot less than an hour but the panelists have seen too soon and i am more like putin and then gorbachev. when that i'm more like kim jong il, little did they know they got that wrong. let's go ahead. rather than comments, i want to ask general questions to get the q&a started. there are many questions but i'm struggling to narrow it down to one it is this, a question of three and i want to win on. there are many particular disagreements among our three panelists. let me ask a general question. if we agreed that there is such

a thing as a disruptive moment, punctuation of moment, political scientist talk about political juncture is in turning points, two questions -- i ask this for a couple reasons. one is we turn to 1989 and there are questions here about whether the bush administration, bush 41 and the government responded in the right way or as well as they might have, the soviet union was still around in 1989 or 1991 was the big moment when the collapse. i'm just highlighting the disagreement on just how much potential there was a 9891 or 9/11 how much of a turning point was 9/11, that the argument, the leading argument the bush

administration overreached they thought the world had changed more than it had on 9/11. how do you know you are in one of these? and second in you can pick that out, how you decide how much leeway in the unitedç states h. how much has the world changedç in 1989 or september 11th, 2001? how much can be received by the united states? so anybody care to take a stab at this? >> in my paper that i talk about international relations, with biological theory.

the idea that changes the ball. he did not believe that was true. you have a lot of times of equilibrium. and so inç the broader over al, as i talk about look wait these punctuation of moments. i suspect they are profoundly significant, indeed, and the long shadow passed itself over much of the future perhaps unrelated to the punctuation of moments so the policy provides for a crisis. so this is what. two your question have you know it is a punctuation, and, if you don't now it is these are really

world changing evidence that are very clear that something is quantitatively different. in the broader context, those are one of the things that were apparent but the timing is of the essence. in particularly enemies off balance. mr. wohlforth

especially in the light of the class of eastern european in this country is more predictable i think. it's something one would arty began conjuring brit really for

a couple of years. and do not fence, it strikes me as an event one could plan for it. i said during my presentation that the seniors of world order in the form of the world economy with printing words and united nations and so i didn't mention nato. but that is one that was extremely important in the getting together of europe after the fall of the central front in the berlin wall. i would never predicted that nato expansion would've gone to the degree of detaching the ukraine detaching itself to the soviet union. i just think that something that you can't anticipate because everything that went before that for a decade after decade and monday for the soviet union, long before world war ii would've told you that that's extremely unlikely. so, i mean, i'm not going to go cry about that or something.

there are things that happen in the world that tell us that we are wrong. and those of us anything policymakers and scholars were probably quite united on this. maybe they weren't, i don't know. those were dealing with the day today may have had a batch better perception of it. it's a very instructive lesson of things you think are absolutely critical to your understanding of the soviet bloc or the soviet union turned out to be false. so you have to deal with that and figure out where you go from there. >> was just very quickly, that's a great question because it's easy to say in hindsight when you're in such a moment when it's unfolding, it's much harder. the work that i did compare nongovernmental and governmental experts suggest that the government and certainly the governments in the u.s. but i also think arguably in moscow and don were quicker to realize that the verities comedy

assumptions, the contingent predictions that would offend you for the last four years were not true under these circumstances. the scholars, the outsiders were slower to update. and i think that's part of the result of information. the guys in government have better information, but i also think the scholars were more formally wedded to a way of thinking of developed over the last 40 years. to answer your question, how do you know? you know, when one thing happens that outside of the expectations , that is perfectly readable to accept that's an anomaly. but as the event continued to pile up that are not consistent with the paradigm that you have in your head, that's when you should start to update. i have to say in hindsight, looking back i planned community of international relations scholars i am struck at how long it took them to realize that much of the stuff they thought they knew based on the cold war bipolar experience did simply

not apply to the great power politics anymore. a quick comment on that front. we may debate that in a sort of position halfway between john mueller and a john mueller's opponents in the debate over 9/11. the question on 912 was are we in a world where russia fundamentally miss estimated between nonstate actors and states. our governments suddenly now because of something we now know on 912 fundamentally weaker vis-à-vis these nonstate terrorist than we thought. and with the passage of time, is less and less plausible that that event is a harbinger of a new era in which governments are particularly powerless. very hard for john mueller is one of the reasons why governments seem to be prevailing is because of all the stuff they are doing. if they weren't doing all the counterterrorism they are doing that we don't know that this ballots would've worked out the way it has so far. >> if i could just add to that,

and say something i wanted to say about 9/11. i think maybe i disagree with mary that 9/11 is a moment to the fall of the soviet human or the berlin wall. and what was it then? if you think back 100 years before that to the amicus attacks that happened time and time again, bombs going off or a comrade secret to at the greenwich tower in 1894. the combination of anarchism that this event 9/11 represented , then of course we fact during the history of the last eight years, it appears increasingly i think that what john and i are saying, i'm seeing it differently than john is that 9/11 wasn't the kind of feature and world affairs in american policy but it was taken to be won by the bush

administration. and i often do you think if i were in their position i probably would've done the same thing because the political cause of standing up and say well be are such a anarchy if ms is unlikely to happen again. you just can't do that. so it may be likely that policymakers are much more headstrong by political forces that just won't let them get away with singing what i just said, even if it happens to be true in the light of the last seven or eight years. maybe it is, maybe it isn't. >> just very briefly, for the purposes of this paper with defining punctuation or moments which had a dramatic impact on the shape of u.s. foreign policy, the intersection of a chipper really changes the force. and it seems to me that 9/11 under that contract qualified. >> good. thank you. let me open it up for questions. if you identify yourself as you ask.

>> one of the interesting question and i really enjoyed the presentation is are there other turning points punctuation are moments that we didn't see? i would argue that there is quite a long potential list of 1945, 1946, the beginning with respect to professor reeler of the soviet expansion in eastern europe. 1953 [cheers and applause] fifty-seven. one of the issues that the government internally debated was the reality of the soviet split, which had profound geopolitical effects. i would actually argue that the real punctuation only fanned with paris strike a beer at that once paris strike i started in a serious way.

a lot of these other events, even the fall of the wall became much, much more likely. and as historians, and do you think there are mr. punctuation all moment in post-world war ii and back before that? >> i certainly do as a person who works out of east asia. i think the cold war begin and end in east asia in the 70's and that economic forces, starting with the nixon opening and going on, economic forces have essentially run by shot over the division of east asia that came out of world war ii and the korean war. and they punctuation all moment is certainly dumb things that reforms in december 1978. everybody retrospect realizes that and at the time we did too. we knew it was important, but i think it's not seen as something like a fall of the wall.

it's not thought of that way because it fits with our preconceptions about what the chinese are going to do sooner or later. sooner or later they'll wake up and read it now with them and join the world system. and that's what they've done. i think it makes it less of an earth shattering event, simply because it's what we would expect or predict. but i think it's a huge thing. it's just transformed china in ways that are almost immeasurable. >> i just wanted to say that your absolutely right. i say in the paper that punctuation all moment are by no means related to 1999 and 2001 as the two that concern us here. these are between two very dissimilar events. the challenge of this conference was to find ways to productively compare them. and it seemed to me to be a way to productively compare them at this moment i dramatic impact on the future of u.s. foreign

policy. but by no means is it limited to those two. just one to narrowing of the term if i may in a way that i'm trying to use it and this may be completely specie is, but the way and tried to use is as they long-term and short-term combined worry of long-term forces that have been developing that suddenly industry green event, this paradigm shift as thomas kuhn has written an ancestry science, it suddenly becomes apparent to even the most obtuse that things have changed. and so i'm trying to think of these sort of fairly specific moment that the night at november 9, the morning of september 11th. try to find those moments that are specific they get symbolize the result of changes and also how they impact with them. i'm not thinking of these as multi-year span. i'm thinking of these as when commodore perry gets out the vote. these specific moments. it is meant to be western or european. so that's a way which i'm using match. now that maybe a vision that

people would like to attack, but to use it when it comes together in a particular moment and everyone has to say right now that's changed it would have to do things differently. >> break here. >> bill is always at his best when he castigates his own profession. and your rights by the way that i was one of the few historians that supported the czech republic and so to choose freedom which defensive alliance will be members of, which was not a popular point of view in the mid-1990's. the one that really concerns me though and the one i'd like to give is the one when there was a great deal of consensus, which was afghanistan. which as i pointed to in my

paper is the one that has come to concern. not so much the decision itself, but what happened after it had actually been carried out. and i wonder about this. do you think when you look back at what's been happening since the invasion of afghanistan in 2001 that one of the points that really stand out in the whole decade is the sense with which to some extent in western europe there was an understanding because of the overwhelming support that that operation had had. but the problem could be solved much more easily. in a way, the kind that can sense it is, it was in a full consensus, the general consensus of existence carried over onto policymaking for afghanistan after the u.n. because this is easier to solve with regard to domestic public opinion atop it would also be easier to solve.

who actually argue along those lines. this was so easy to achieve with regard to achieving consensus that afghanistan in terms of its own deeds was really shouldn't happen in the period between 2001 and 2005 could have been rich and much more easily. >> i have no -- should we answer each or are you collect data? >> just one at a time. a >> i have no scholarly warrant for answering your question because i studied the immediate post-9/11. rather than studying how did nongovernmental security experts update. in the years after that, particularly after they started to argue that we were diverting resources from the necessary struggle against al qaeda. it was this position. yes afghanistan, no iraq.

or scholars is not some recent thing from the very, very beginning. and i don't know whether they followed it up with real analyses of afghanistan showing that they needed more resources. but what i can say and i think this goes again back to a point made in the bellicose paper. there were of course some people on the left he said we should have this go through the u.n. we should ask for osama to be handled over the international court, multilateral. but overwhelmingly that was not the position that most mainstream security scholars who are very supportive but they were just wondering if it could possibly work. they never thought this would work. they thought we would have to go to troops and then when they started estimating the number of troops they thought it would be a least half a million troops to deal with afghanistan. so they bad boy, i don't know what they're doing that when it worked to their credit, the scholar said, holy moly, these guys i mean they deserve credit

for brilliant strategy. they're paying off these people are doing to specialize. and it's important to remember how unexpected the fall of the taliban and wise and how much you seem to be just a smashing success. and so that definitely, there was skepticism that it would work, but widespread applause when it didn't seem to work. >> i just remember going to nyu for a series on the american empire and they gave a lecture in the fall of 2001. and they said i don't know what your view on the afghanistan war was. all i know is i can't imagine an american president not going after the taliban. it would just be thrown out of office the next chance the american people got. that was created with a lot of hostilities. it still seems to me much more than the other responses to 9/11 that that particular invasion of afghanistan was just

predetermined by domestic policies if nothing else. and i thought on the other hand that the invasion of iraq was not only a wrong war of choice, but self-inflicted wound on the part of the bush administration as it develops. and i don't agree. i think someone in the afternoon earlier said that al gore probably were might've done the same thing. al gore would've gone into afghanistan i don't think you would've thought the war in iraq and all argue about that. i remember and i still believe that those two wars were fundamentally different. >> john mueller. >> i've been keeping a list so. >> john mueller to issues. i wish would explain more who these people are for the unification was already then bashed enough today. and also on your last is very well taken except it was also: powell who was set at the time

will going to be able to take the northern part and winter will come and then there's thousands more troops coming in. so it was surprising everybody how spectacularly spec developed it was. i asked a question about to marry when you mentioned the issue of baker talking about bringing pressure to the soviet union into nato. as you know there's a article by paul schrader who argues that every single alliance in europe in the 19th century, and most of the 20 century, was designed apart to control the allies and in many cases the alliances that was the main point of the alliance. alliances aren't necessarily against enemies. and of course nato is to keep the americans and the russians out and the germantown. i think the germans would agree with that in many respects. would you talk more about the idea of expanding nato to include either russia or possibly even the soviet union? what happened to that idea and

you know how is it the mess or whatever? >> your question to me is the paper has a lot of footnotes of various people and is even lengthier footnote in zelikow and rice's book about where was the thinking and the kind of commentary pontotoc receipt at various points in this game. if you carefully look, you'll see that people who were skeptical and were not just the international realistic international relations scholars like stephen walt and john meer shiner gossipy for wal-mart emersed east european politics and certainly you were specials and the soviet union. his fitness will be expanded, but the key point i want to make in response to this is not to sound pretensions, but the paper is really not analyzing scholars. it's analyzing scholarly evaluations are scholarly

analyses. so i don't want to necessarily get into a story about who's good, who's bad. i myself was wrong about most of this stuff. >> i didn't realize you are ending on that strong note. the issue of nato turned out to be huge. when i started to read this book on german unification it did not expect it. and as soon as they come into the sources in russia and germany and france and england and america it became clear to me that's bargaining over the future with nato as an integral part of the german unification process which surprised me because i had read often that it was really an issue more for the clinton era. and so, there's a huge section of the book on it in this country a separate article in diplomatic history. so, i'm just going to sketch out a few ideas here, but there's going to be more imprints.

on the question of our alliance is about controlling allies as well as enemies. of coarse. in this time. there is also a separate organization which is the two plus four which is a lot about managing british and french expectations on top of nato. so certainly that's a component of it. on the question of expanding nato, that comes after -- expanding nuclear aggression, yes. it comes up very early in the discussion about moving nato eastward not only into east germany, which is clearly part of the negotiations, but beyond that. that's what surprised me because i'd read a lot of places that no one ever thought of expanding it into eastern europe. well, it turns out that i kind of have a running tab with myself at the earliest mention of data going into eastern europe. and for a while it was bob zoellick who talks about it in july and then the holder was the house of planning committee at the state department starts writing about it in march 1990.

the current holder of the record as cancer and was talking to her in february 6, 1990, but putting nato in hungary. and bob zoellick also said that throughout the negotiations he had in his mind thinking about keeping up in the population of moving eastward. the very early on there's discussion about nato moving into eastern europe. some of this is an internal policy discussions, so this is public. polls, hungarians publicly for consideration. the massing nato membership but kind i have partnership. it's not uncontroversial. the polish calls are received coldly in the state department at first. and the whole issue gets pushed out the agenda by saddam hussein. but when he invades kuwait. but there's enough of it that gorbachev picks up on it and in conversations with baker, she says, you know, well the decision is a relic phase where he tried to come up with structural to post-cold war europe. you've come up with this common

european home and it's not really working and he says to baker you guys had the g-7 and the ec 12 and the m-16. how about we have an e. seven and a bridge organization. and baker says that's not really going to work in gorbachev says went away but russia and nato. the soviet union, i'm sorry. the soviet union nato and baker says while that's a fantasy. let's take an world of reality. in gorbachev keeps saying why do we think about this. so it comes up, but it's never really, it's never taken seriously in the west. and baker later then says to the public. you know, if russia embraces democracy and free-market we should include it. so that's an interesting open question. and where he finally came down in the book is i don't, i finally come down on nato expansion. you were talking a scholar's

positions on it is that i can see two different cases for nato expansion said they lead you to different endpoints. either you say that nato post-1990 whatever it might be called has really become a development agency. as a political organization to help new democracies develop, become more like us to provide the most security, advice, and an acceptable game. that i find justified particularly because there are calls from the people of poland and the czech republic and so forth for it to happen. later as well. but then in that case they should be offered to the soviet union/russia. it should have gone further. or you say no, nato is and always shall be a military alliance in which case don't expand it. because then you're going to take an obvious areas of eastern europe and the new liabilities without capabilities. and the point of the military alliance is to create military security for the members. so where i come down as i can see the justification for not

expanding nato. i can see the justification for expanding nato but to your convictions all the way through to the end. not good. next up admiral prater. >> i've got a question that's in a different land it on the same highway. if one looks at the definition of great nations, one of the criteria along with secure borders and things like that is an environment strong economy. if we look at times that i've changed our nation. september 14, 2007, which had to do with bear stearns and laymen for those of you who are not tracking those states. brought to our attention both a long-term deficit trends that we've had as well as a short-term tremendous blow to our economy.

should i ask bob zoellick this, but i didn't get a chance to. but for the people in here i'll ask for any comments. should that date symbolizing that the aps along the lines of the berlin wall, 9/11, that have affected our nation in that way. because it looks like a trend that's going to happen for a wild. >> sure, well i think it's important for us -- this goes back to john owens first question. how do we know when were in one these transformative moments? and they think is important if you're an analyst to consistently set yourself benchmarks and say look, if i see this come about in the other thing than i think i'm in one of these moments and start rethinking fundamentalist associations. if you want my own answer to your question i would answer that in a negative that i don't see the financial crisis of such

a moment. and the reason is perhaps a pretty old-fashioned way of thinking about things and they may be no victim to the very same scholarly cognitive problems that i just talked about. namely, you know, if we are counting these moments don't you think of the most powerful actors, most consequential act is in the world, some of them should at least be changing their strategies. you know, if the entities with the most capability are not altering their strategic frameworks and you don't see a sign of them them right now we don't have evidence for this being one of those fundamental geopolitical type moments. whereas in 89, what we were gaining with each passing event, with each passing college routine that changed, with each passing bit of evidence about what the soviet union would or wouldn't do we were learning that the fundamental assumption about the other pole in the bipolar system about that power

was going to do were wrong. so i don't see as a result of the financial crisis, china, europe, japan, india, or the united states dramatically changing their fundamental approach to their strategies. >> i agree with that and i would say that if we want to take a date that would live in infamy that would of course be the stock market crash of 1929. and what was characteristic at that time was charles kindleberger and other people have pointed out that the british can no longer hurt the world economy in the u.s. was not ready to try and do so. and in this most recent crisis a year ago, september, the u.s. acted with extraordinary vigor in trying to both stem the bleeding from the financial crisis and also still a year later trying to come up with either all regulations like

glass-steagall or new regulations that would prevent them from happening again. the characteristic of the last year as there is nobody waiting in the wings to replace the united states. i mean, what could say in 1929 or 30, 31 day keep the u.s. was waiting. it had been the most reductive industrial economy since about 1890, but it didn't have the political will to do so because of isolation and so on. but in the current situation, there is nobody that can turn to. you can't turn to china and you can't turn to the european powers to try and put humpty dumpty together again. eight you have to rely on the u.s. and work with american leaders and be the u.s. will pass along about of the problem to the rest of the world. some would like a poker player passing it to the left of him. when you do well and good times and in bad times. so i think it's a very important to the level that we're talking

about with 9/11 and these other ideas. >> bruce, first i have a question for you and i have one for mary and for bill. hopefully i'll stick them quickly. bruce, i'm not clear what your assumptions our about 1989 and 2001. i understand perfectly well what you're singing about the assumptions about your sin in 1945. i understand what you're saying about the realist assumptions and i understand what you're saying about the assumptions of north korea. but what are you trying to say about the assumptions of policymakers in 1989 and 2001 tax essentially you're saying it was not threats, not interest, not values essentially that shape posing. something about the assumptions in 1989, 2001. i'd like to have a clear idea what those assumptions were. mary, my question to you is the

following. you seem to want to have it both ways. you're saying on the one hand that in the long run the architecture that was created in 1989, 1989, 1990 was a pre-found architecture that really miss the punctuation or moments in the sense that it didn't provide for long-term satisfactory answers. so basically there's a strong element of your analysis that's critical of the long-term architecture that was created. on the other hand you are very quick to say that it was very possibly architecture. so how do you reconcile these two things. what are the implications of those statements? and my question to you is just on your third or your fourth example about iraq or your

critical of scholars. and you say that the policymakers had it more correct than the scholars. but it seems to me -- in the decision to go to war against iraq is seems to me you are saying that the decision-makers had it more rights than the scholars. and it seems to me that the scholars were saying that the cost would exceed the benefits. and that was their argument. and i'm not sure i understand why you say that you know when we look back at it now their views, you know, should be reconsidered or that they've given up this view. basically their view is cost would exceed benefits and therefore what is not a prudent decision to undertake. seems to me that was, you know, a correct call. what do you think was not a

correct call? [inaudible] >> that's a really tough question to give a sustained answer to. i first of all did not make myself clear about my assumptions regarding 1989 either in the paper or in my presentation because i -- i guess if you push me i would say i agree with george kennan circa 1992 or three when he wrote that article in foreign affairs where he said that by 1950 the fundamentals of our relationship with the soviet union with the european countries and with japan were hammered out. he expected a negotiation and instead, you know, we got a korean war and 40 years of cold war. in that sense, the seniors of the european system or the global system were already in place and direct any of her lindvall in 1961 doesn't change that fact.

it just delays the reckoning that the inevitable. there is no way that an isolated soviet or communist system can compete with an open, the kind of open systems that the u.s. helped to reestablish elsewhere after world war ii. but i really think what i said that is really true is that it was like going over niagara falls in a barrel both first scholars and policymakers because things unraveled and things started happening that you could get any number of predictions that never happened. like the soviet troops would be mobilized in east germany or anywhere else. i think what needs to be humbled before a plastic case of the coming of history. for all of us i think at our assumptions happily asunder by the people of eastern european able to take great list and a man named gorbachev even been

wonderful or hapless i don't know how one sees it in terms of the soviet relationship to the west. so not a very good answer to your question, but it's a tough question. i just think that we all need to constantly subject our own basic assumptions and concepts and so want to examination and re-examination of the time. >> and yeah, thank you for giving me a chance to talk about this a little more because i realize i might have been a little bit unclear and sort of rushed comments that i made. i don't mean to say they missed the punctuation of moments. indeed when the arguments in the book is that a very successful response to a punctuation a moment and that there is a lot of logic to it. what i do talk about is these alternative futures, these counterfactual that at some point has some potential for

succeeding, obviously not as much as prefab to it is crucial that this is the time in fact your and bob zoellick emphasized the. it becomes apparent that if you want to. let me put it this way. the confederation approach is that he announces out his policy. he sees that there are other ways to unify the germany's that have historical precedents that he thinks were, they been internal team of people working this. he changes his mind. he goes to dresden in december of 1989, which ironically is his first sort of immersion in the erskine revolution because he's based in bonn, he's in poland, he's in hungary. he's everywhere but in east germany. and when he finally gets to east germany in december 1989 he realizes he is a better option. he realizes he can be the chancellor of germany. there is a massive shift in his rhetoric. it was about caution and pay off

and then after that it's so terrible, we have to do this, we must do this. east germany is falling apart. we must rush quickly which is quite interesting because literally two, three weeks ago he was saying we must not rush because it could be dangerous. please see this conscious quickening of the tempo and bob zoellick is very explicit about this weird when you see these russians are not able to put their together you have to keep them on the back foot. so there are other alternatives which are likely but once you get is quickening of tempo, then they become much less likely and from that point on then you have to do prefab because you don't have time to. i see papers being exchanged so i sent them about to be quoted back to myself with dread. i guess what i'm really trying to say in the book is i'm trying

to question the notion, this is from bob hutchins. he wrote that even 20 years later it's hard to see the german reunification could've been any better handled. i would have done nothing differently. what i'm trying to offer in the book is a point of view from other countries that was well because that's not something russians would agree with your that's not something the dissidents in poland or east germany were pacifistic cause the evolution to agree with. i'm trying to look at what alternative outcomes were and why they ultimately were not viable and why prefab was viable. >> well, i didn't mean to say that. i try to be very, very careful and very quickly there are two different ways, to different tasks that are entailed in assessing and a valuation after the fact. the biggest task and in a way it's almost impossible is to answer the question, would u.s.

interests have been better served by a different policy? that is very tough. so that's asking what our interest today be better off, more secure more prosperous, more free if we had not expanded nato to central europe. or if we have included russia and nato. so those kinds of questions you can sell books. those kind of counterfactual of our difficult. he goes this is a conference paper, i try to limit it to the more specific forecasts that policy critics made. more short term, more tractable, things we can analyze. and on that front, if you want to look at a pre-policy criticism that looks better in hindsight out of a group that i looked at. it was the iraq war critics because the rack were critics were emphasizing the cost of a war that turned out to be costly. they were emphasizing the difficulty of holding together under iraq and that turns out to

be difficult to hold together. but they were not talking about several things. so i'm trying -- on balance they are, they look more impressive in hindsight. there are specific forecasts but other than some of the forecasts we associate with the government policy. but that said, many of the criticisms that loom large in postwar scholarly evaluations, namely the prospects for prolonged and expensive counterinsurgency. the fact there aren't the weapons of mass distraction. none of that figured in the prewar criticism. we must distinguish hindsight from forecast. so my little critical of those callers. i don't idolize them. that compared to the other groups, they look relatively good in hindsight. and the final point is the weird thing is on this particular case, they are not actually deploying most of their own previous scholarly investments in theory and systematic research. you're looking specifically at

what do we know about whether saddam hussein is rational or not. and outside way 90% of the debate. 90% of it was on this case and the gathering storm by paula that the evidence we had at our disposal is sufficient to conclude he cannot be deterred. and that's what they spend 90% of their time on. interestingly, not deploying their general realist theories or they are, or their great power analysis or any of that stuff. so to quickly and my answer to your question, the scholarly analysis that looks best in hindsight is the one that was disconnect did to the big scholarly project of building general theory and general explanations. >> thank you. time is really running out and i'm going to have several people left. i'm just going to ask that the next two to ask their questions in a row and we may have to stop at that point. i apologize if you have a question we didn't get to.

the next two on the list are just gross and kyl asked her out. yeah, he's right they are. [inaudible] >> i like your thoughts, john, you call them punctuation a moment and what was your term? >> i have lots. turning point, >> i'd like to suggest a degree that one of the big punctuation a moment that the united states missed was the reaction of the government after the taking of the hostages in iran in 1979. when you look in the past dirty years that was a transformational moment that we did so little in that time.

>> my question is for professor sarotte. i was just wondering what explanation you provide, if any for why one particular blueprint went out after 1989 versus the others. and from your research on that specific case if you have anything to say more generally on what can explain what types of blueprints are likely to win out. professor wohlforth has dismissed one possibility that it's not the blueprint that scholars are all getting behind. but there is certainly viable alternatives to that. >> yeah, i mean, most of the book is exploring. i use it as the organizing framework for this competition that's going on to try to reestablish order in the week of the break out of the cold war order. so that is basically identified and basically what the book is about. i tried when i was looking up

the proposed models for going forward, i tried to imagine scenarios under which the other models could have succeeded and were less likely than the prefab model which were less likely to succeed. and so these counterfactual. and the restoration model, the idea of restoring the status of 1945. in other words, where you have the qualifying powers. that becomes more likely if there's an outbreak of violence, a serious outbreak of violence, which when you strip away the hindsight looks a lot more possible. and there is even a brush with the state of terror in january 1990 were dished out the headquarters is finally broken into when there is actually violence used. if this does the agency in return been sought protection from soviet troops and their 380,000 of them in easterner germany. they are hungry, the other dependent there, there selling

weaponry organizing tanks for cash. it's not that they would obey gorbachev. for help from the eastern colleagues, it seems that the violence in the headquarters was instigated by the agents themselves and hoped this would happen. if you have soviets shooting the germans, comment germany in this kind has more weapons per square mile and not under its control and it's the potential for a lot of violence and chaos. and then you get the quadra portion authority has what else are you going to do if your bloodshed. you probably wouldn't have 1945 restored. it doesn't happen thanks largely to the east german protest leaders rush this meeting and keep it peaceful. there is a venue by which this happens. the revivalist model, federation seem to be viable because the

generation of german leaders believed it might be. it was the idea behind the two states and the german nation. so that seem to me to be a viable alternative. the heroic model never really crystallizes, so it's harder to judge. do you see similar sentiments throughout the him a threat eastern europe and the soviet union. one thing that emerged very clearly and this is relevant to punctual ocean all moment not just in 1899 but there is a real dichotomy between the people who caused the event and the people who shaped the reaction. so the people who bring down the wall, and communism, solitary, gorbachev, reagan, those are not the people who shaped the post-world war. that really happened at a relatively small group of policymakers in paris. the ec is a big part of it. we haven't talked a lot about economic issues but that should be considered as well.

if gorbachev had gotten its act together with a number of eastern european leaders who are pacifists, who wanted the lesson of the cold war, the lesson of world war ii to be a central europe should be permanently demilitarized, denuclearize, forever become the neutral zone, not just in nuclear germany by the neutral zone. when he showed up instead we don't want nato. the only democratically elected leader of east germany was the strongly opposed east germany and going into nato this foreign minister resigned over this. if they had gotten their act together and come up with some coherent alternative, that perhaps. bob zoellick wanted out that we were aware that all these other alternatives that you could propose it would make our lives very difficult. and so our job is to keep the pace moving because one of the great virtues of prefab and i must interest again is one of the great virtues is authority they are and you don't waste

time on conceptualizing. and this is the last point so it's very important. people in east knew what they were getting and they wanted it. they saw the benefits of having the dam are. and when push came to shove in the election in 1990 which by virtue of its timing is really the endgame in the competition. east germans voted overwhelming numbers for prefab. so it happened because they wanted. it was legitimized. >> could i just say one thing? on the panel or aside from the chair, the most powerful country in the world one of prefab. the most powerful country wanted prefab. a >> prefab it was. >> well, thank you very much. let me thank the chair's privilege and ask one last 32nd comment. this panel and the papers have really helped sharpen something for me. this problem i think you can sense is a concern about prefab

or about metaphors or about social science paradigms, dragging down and providing excessive weight to our analysis when walls come down. so assuming we can all agree that a wall is falling there seems to be a concern on the panel that analyst, academic and policy realm and not lose sight of what's happening. we understand that something is fundamentally changed. of course this raises the question that is emerged from you, is it possible to make the opposite error to have no balance, no wait, no basis for analysis. can bruce cumings have no sand in it? we want that if you were not possible? this to me as one of the questions that emerges from this analysis. please join me in thanking our panelists for a fascinating talk. got

[applause]

>> now a senate hearing on airline pilot or two. we'll hear about northwest flight 188, the planet overshot

it is nation by 150 miles in october. fatigue has been cited as a possible cause of that incident. byron dorgan of north dakota shares the transportation subcommittee on safety. this is about an hour and 45 minutes. >> we are going to call the hearing to order. this hearing in the senate congress 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. now 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 most wanted list for 19 years, since the list was created. tyler 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 a duly time and so on have been in existence for some 40 or 50 years, without much change. the ntsb investigations have found that pilot fatigue was either the probable or the contributory cause of 20 air carrier accidents in the u.s. and has caused 273 fatalities between 1989 and 2008. so this is not issue without substantial consequence. the ntsb's outstanding pilot fatigue related safety recommendation calls on the faa to revise the flight and duty time limitations to take into consideration research 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 and as i said these limits have existed for decades, commuting time, which is an increasing phenomenon in recent decades is not factored into this requirement at all. and they'll talk just for a moment about that today. the stories that we have heard are fairly frightening. and they want to say from the offset my goal today is not to alarm the flying public, far from it. we have the faintest guys 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 in the two events that focused more recent attention on pilot fatigue. he was a minneapolis overflight recent lee, an incident last month that sparked much comment on how to pilot could have

overflown their destination by 150 miles. there was speculation that perhaps the pilots were asleep. the pilots indicated that they were working on electronic devices. no one i guess quite knows all of those answers at the moment. the second is that tragic rash of 3407. we thought a couple that i've discussed that at some length. the ntsb is still in its investigation into that tragic accident and has yet to issue a report on the cause of the accident. but we do know that both eyelets commuted from across the country earlier that day one from florida and one from seattle to reach their duty stations in newark. what i want to do is go to a few charts, 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 a wall street journal article about fatigue. time worker at an 18 year bench and later described it was short layers in the middle of the night says, take a shower, brush our teeth, pretend these flats. take a shower, brush your teeth, pretend you slept. well, i don't know him but that kind of comments by somebody in the cockpit makes you question the issue of fatigue and whether we have done all that is necessary to make certain that fatigue is not a contributing factor to problems in the cockpit. another pilot, and again, pilots are not in a position to be able to speak very effectively or

very candidly about these things. this is an anonymous party of the 737 jets flying to december. nbc was quoting the pilot when discussing fatigue. the quote is, i have been doing everything in my power to stay awake. coffee, gum, candy, but it's entered one of the most difficult phases of flight i had been up or 20 straight hours. fatigue in the cockpit by that pilot perhaps. "new york times" reporter on fatigue. by the time captain ahmed purchased aircraft he was exhausted. he would be due back eight hours and 15 minutes later. quote, at the very most he said if you're the kind of person that would walk into a hotel room, strip, and lay down you might get 4.5 hours of sleep. fatigue seems to me probably so.

and i happen to have heard this sort of thing from a lot of pilots coming in late at night to an airport. and by the time on the latest flight flying around weather and so one. by the time they get to their hotel and get some rest and are required to report back, the question of fatigue is a very real and a very serious question. i also wanted to discuss just for a moment the issue of commuting. i showed this chart was before. this was the golden era chart. cold and air pilot reporting to the new york-based. and this is a different issue than duty time. that you can see pilots commuting all across the country to the duty base. and in this case, the tragedy that occurred in buffalo, new york, the person flying under great seat committed all night long from seattle, washington, to newark. next chart shows part of the

product of commuting. this is a "washington post" report. the pilot watches a movie on his computer at a crash house in sterling park, virginia. the houses which can have up to 20 to 24 occupants at a time are designed to give flight crews are michel airlines a quiet place to sleep near their base airports. many can't afford hotels, so they used a 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 very young pilot to told me that he had just started his career, but was now quitting. and i said why? he said because i'm going to work for a city's police department. and my salary will be twice as much as my salary flying the commuter jet. and it relates to this question

of why can't someone afford a hotel? and instead uses crash pads as a part of their commuting across the country and in many cases across the country in order to reach their duty station. the faa announced earlier this year that they are going to revise the flight and duty time rules. so i'm glad they're here today to tell us about that work. the faa administrator babbitt associate minister he begins to administer those rules by the end of next year. and given the history on this issue i think it's important to complete that work that was begun by soliciting the recommendations of an aviator rulemaking commission. another false start and there've been several would really be unacceptable. i hope this hearing will bring some renewed focus to the issue of pilot fatigue, flights, and duty time rules. also the issue of commuting and i hope that we can take steps to remove a fatigue as a fact or an

aviation safety. .. string is not the right word, but being a great deal of attention, there is no room for mistakes in takeoffs and landings so there's a lot of

attention in the cockpit and attention to the way airplanes are being slowness of that also creates fatigue. i think this hearing can be a catalyst and hopefully will be helpful to the faa and the ntsb in trying, once again, to put all the spotlights on the same spot when it comes to this issue of fatigue in the cockpit. mr. lautenberg, let me calling you for opening statement and begin with the witnesses. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. when we look at the details behind the questions that are being raised here now, it borders being shocking. too much is demanded of our pilots. too many hours on too little sleep, operate complex machines with people's lives in their hands. the slightest tipped in this risky balancing act can cause a disaster as we saw in the flight

number 3407. and i heard the chairman's review of that matter and the stress that was on the copilot's it is unfair to the individual. it certainly was disastrous for all of them including the pilots, but the full airplane of travelers. in this holiday season planes are packed. the last thing a traveling family wants to worry about is a sleepy pilots. is an invitation to disaster. now we have a great system and it has been safe but i think we arbb the margins and just the courage, the response of a lot of well-meaning people has a bird and some significant

miscues. and whether it was over the hudson river where two planes collided, one landed in the river, noaa area and this is turning for a month away from the pilot, but turning to the rules that the faa lays down for pilot training, you wouldn't ask a brain surgeon to go take care of your needs it he was up eight hours doing surgery someplace else. and it's inappropriate with a system with the value that we have in our aviation system that we should ask pilots to make in many cases barely above the minimum wage, the national minimum wage is $15,000 a year, they have pilots who are going to work for $20,000 a year.

the incident you talked about, mr. chairman, with the palo going to a police uniform because he was going to make some much more money. in private in the army makes $16,800 a year. a private in the army. and here we are asking someone who has substantial amount of training in order to get as far as they do to get a commercial pilot's license. we are discarding what is fair and appropriate to keep that person in the best of conditions. athletes don't go out on the field without being ready to do it or should not and we've seen the consequences of those incidents occurring. so mr. chairman it's the right thing to do and i thank you for holding this hearing. >> thank you, senator lautenberg for your attention to these

aviation's, you have constantly come to these hearings and been active. you spent a lot of time and i appreciate that. let me appreciate the witnesses being here. we are joined by miss peggy gilligan, associated and illustrator for faa, mr. basil barimo, of the air transport association, captain john prater, president of air line pilots association, and mr. william voss, president and ceo of the flight safety foundation. let me as i call on the peggy gilligan say in response to senator lautenberg, we should not have to learn the same lesson twice or three or four or five times. we have been through this. we haven't been this groundhog's day, a discussion after discussion after discussion about fatigue. the same has been true with the ntsb and having it on a most-wanted list for 19 years is unacceptable and i appreciate the kind that the administrator babbitt is now in the process of

taking action and we will hear that from massengale again but this has to be a catalyst. for an assistant at last after four years or so that we take a hard look to this and make the changes necessary. ms. gilligan. >> thank you, sir,. chairman and in senator demint and members of the subcommittee, i am pleased to be here to discuss the faa address to mitigate pilot fatigue. we've been called in revising the regulations of flight and duty time for some time. and we are all frustrated by the amount of time we've spent but i can tell you at this time our efforts are different. administrator babette himself a former commercial airline pilot has made this a high priority issue for the faa parity in june he chartered and aviation rulemaking committee comprised of labor, industry and faa representatives to develop

recommendations for their role based on the current signs of fatigue and a review of international approaches to the issue. it provides a forum for the u.s. aviation committee to discuss the current signs of fatigue and discuss approaches to mitigating fatigue out in international examples, and to make recommendations to the faa so that the u.s. can modify its regulations. the 18 members representing airlines and union associations were selected based on their extensive direct operational experience in their commitment to address the safety risk. they met for over six weeks beginning july 7th and on september 10 the dark delivered its final report to the faa. the administrator has committed to issues and noticed proposed will begin early in 2010. but this effort is a difficult and complicated efforts and 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 concerns of all the parties involved. those concerns are clear in the current rulemaking process as well at the same time are focused garrison june demonstrates the high priority that administrator babbitt places on overcoming the challenges and updating the regulations to enhance safety. well 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. members of the committee, this concludes my remarks and i'll be happy to answer questions that she may have. >> ms. gilligan, we will have a lot of questions so appreciate your testimony. >> thank you server. >> basil barimo, vice president of operations and save the air transport association, you may proceed. let me say for entire stevens

will be made part of a permanent record in human semi's. >> thank you good morning, i am basil barimo, vice president of air transport association of america. i appreciate the opportunity to join you this morning as you consider the impact of pilot fatigue on aviation safety. the importance of it demands a collaborative it there'll and science base response. we participated in the art that she mentioned. it was a productive effort to but we must all recognize that the are operating under significant time constraints. it wrapped up its work in a six week time. consequently we may expand upon the views that we expressed in this before in the outline this morning. we supported duty day regulation designed to account for the t brisk including circadian cycles, time away, time on task, acclamation to time sons, our goal is to mitigate which egressed by reducing and the

duty time of pilots, expanding scheduled rest opportunities to ensure adequate rest an increase in pilots awareness of a team dressed in a personal role in mitigating that risk. as another aviation safety efforts success will depend on data driven analyses in rigor and translating those analyses into regulatory action. the recommendations that we in conjunction with a cargo airline association and the regional airline association of provided to the the arc were divided into procedural considerations. we have five substantive issues. first, we recommended that any new regulation establishing minimum of 10 hours scheduled rest before the beginning of a flight, and a domestic station 12 hours an international station and we went on to suggest that additional detail rest requirements for appropriate for certain international flights.

second, any new regulation should require each air carrier to adopt faa approved and fatigue mitigation program. and analyze three circular can provide guidance and the necessary flexibility to of david t. mitigation programs as we gain experience. on third, we urge any new regulation account for the wide variety of operation and rents just as the current regulation does. these include domestic and international passenger operations as well as cargo operation and on the man charter operations. assigns based principles judiciously blended with decades of operational experience will allow the various air carrier models to continue to operate safely. fourth, there needs to be a focus on individual in the regulations. regulatory language should clearly prescribed the responsibility of the crew member to properly prepare him or herself for flight. no fatigue policy without such

admonition could be regarded as comprehensive. fifth, the faa should endorse conative napping conducted in accordance with faa approved procedures to facilitate alertness during critical phases of flight. previous nasa research has shown overwhelming the controlled mapping significantly mitigates which egressed. on the procedural sign we have a three issues. particularly concerned about the ultimate scope of any proposed regulation, extraneous considerations should not burn and our efforts to improve aviation safety but ruling in proceeding is not the form in which two resolve collective bargaining issues. second we're also concerned about the active proposed rest regulations on managers who are also qualified as line pilots. and time spent on administrative duties such as checking e-mail or making a phone call count as duty, we risk losing qualified pilot managers.

it used by the managers who played an essential role in safe airline operation and in consequence of this rule -- management positions must be carefully considered. and finally as with any major regulatory change covered parties will lead time to implement policies requiring programming in training, that is particularly so here worker schedules will be impacted. we therefore ask that faa provide transition time of at least two years after the regulation is published. ata members are committed to using the best science available combined with proven operational experience to better manage pilot fatigue. we look for to working with the committee, the faa and other stakeholders in this endeavor. i conclude my statement and i look forward to your questions, thank you. >> mr. barismo, we thank you. capt. john prater.

welcome, you may proceed. >> thank you. chairman, ranking member, members of the subcommittee, thank you for having us to represent the views of the more than a 53,000 members of the air line pilots association international. pilot fatigue has lived as a safety issue for our union since it was founded in 1931. during the difficult years following 9/11, these longstanding concerns have been intensified with bankruptcy, concessionary contracts and the layoff of thousands of pilots. forcing many of those who are still working to fly longer hours and more in cooling schedules. it is a dire situation in that i have experienced in my own cockpit. just one example from several years back, five on the backside of a five day trip it took me from newark to japan and back to work, my co-pilot and i were so fatigued from crossing and recross and numerous times zones that we were barely able to stay

away to make a pre-dawn landing during a stop in honolulu. at bedtime i was in command of a 767 with over 200 and 40 passengers on board. well this segment was legal to fly with only two pilots because it was a few minutes short of the eight hour limit, it would have been far safer had we had the third pilot to augment the proof as had been the case for every other leg of that specific strip. that would have allowed both me and my first officer to catch a couple hour nap in the cabin. current u.s. flight and duty time rules date from 1954. when the dc-3 was the state of the art. times and equipment have changed but the rules have not. since 1989 the national transportation safety board has issued more than 70 fatigue related safety recommendations, he would deny that modern science is regulations are urgently needed.

from our view from inside the cockpit, a will must be counted on three basic tenets: one, and must be based on science. two, it must apply equally to all wide operations. no exceptions, no car routes, the loopholes, or air cargo our charter operations. three, inouye will must allow and encourage air carriers to implement the tivo risk management systems known as that r ms. during the past 60 years scientists' understanding of sleep, fatigue in human performance has grown significantly. several recent studies have focused directly on aviation 13. this science been through field and simulator studies confirms that current rules can lead to fatigue that impairs pilot performance. the 190 nation international civil aviation organization has mandated the plight limitation rules be based on scientific principles to ensure that flight

crew members are well rested an alert to. the united states is compelled to comply with this standard but unfortunately we don't because the faa current rules and nonsense based. second, one level of safety in flight and duty time regulations is absolutely essential. the current faa of flight time limit for passenger carrying pilots as 30 hours and seven days for domestic operations and 32 hours and seven days for international flights. but air cargo pilots can fly 48 hours in a 60 time or 60 percent more in domestic passenger carrying pilots. no signs exist to support multiple sets of flight limits, no rational argument can be made for different pitied rules for pilots the sun with a fly passengers or cargo. domestic or international. alpha maintains uniform rules are indispensable in our industry is two truly address pilot fatigue.

exceptions or car bounced would kill long overdue efforts to ensure all pilots are well rested. worse they would undermine the one level of safety principle that must remain our ultimate goal. finally the new regulation must enable carriers to transition to a fatigued risk-management system, a collaborative non punitive environment where management and flight crews worked together to ensure the crewmembers operate alertly and safely under all circumstances. it's imperative that the faa require air carriers to implement the teacher education and training programs for their crews, their managers and schedulers. i'm very encouraged that we finally. to be on the verge of securing the modern science based flight into the rules that we know are vital to enhancing aviation safety. malveaux will continue to do all we can to carry on this momentum. seven out papyrus work, the

aviation will make in committee. in october of our executive board unanimously approved new policy that reflects our values of science in the one lowell of safety for all and it ensures our vision for ensuring pilots are well rested. lipitor into a evaluating faa proposed rules and we applaud the efforts to create a final rule by mid next year. the current regulatory framework is a fabric and wire by plane is struggling to stay aloft in a supersonic age. ask for your help in giving the five public a new consistent level of safety by ensuring that every pilot in the u.s. start every trip alert and rested. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> captain prater, thank you, appreciate you being here. mr. william voss is the president and ceo of the flight safety administration in a alexandria, virginia. >> thank you. distinguished members of the

subcommittee, thank you for giving us the opportunity testify. fatigued in aviation has been at the headlines lately by the scientific research for decades. it 1979 nasa first had simulators, decades of research filed by institutions around the world. it's taken a long time in a lot of data for the industry to reach consensus on the issue but the tragedy of the air crash as bushes along toward a conclusion. regardless of how we got here the foundation supports faa and riss to develop rules that reflects scientific understanding of the tea. in writing these the faa face of the daunting task, even fatigue is too complex to deal with. just a classic approach to regulation is compliance and ideally we implement a comprehensive risk-management system from across the whole industry but it's unrealistic to think that every operator couldn't offset have such an approach so the faa will have to write traditional prescriptive rules. and while allowing large

operators to take a more comprehensive fatigue risk management approach. as a minimum these progress of minimums should address the relationship between the science duty in time of day and cumulative consecutive to the times and the atlanta multiple short flights. these provisions will not be perfect but they will be compromised. but for smaller operators there will be practical and will significantly improve the level of safety. for those operators who are able, they should be encouraged to go beyond the basic rules of adoptive fatigued mismanagement system. it addresses fatigue systematically and increases the responsibility of the operator to jointly manage the rest and broadly speaking it includes prevention which is the practice strategic risk reduction such as scheduling correctly based on science, mitigation at the

operational level to make sure you execute the plan you put in place and have a realistic execution of that plan, intervention also. when everything else goes wrong is still have to have the ability to intervene and reduce the risk of a flight the matter what to do, there will be time things go right. that brings me to the subject of one of the more controversial interventions and that's the control, could rest for mapping. the matter what will seven there'll be times when i was become fatigued. when that happens many countries have determined that safety is best served by allowing and regulating rest in the cockpit, regulations insure this is done safely and specify what happens during the rest, who is responsible for actions in a post rest briefing. of course, control the rest cannot be used to replace responsible planning and scheduling. every flight must begin with a well rested crew but when things go wrong control the rest is an important tool to keep things

safe. there are some other equity issues that deserve consideration even though much research has been done, there are still some gaps. in more research is still needed in the area of high frequency high cycle operations. we understand regional airline association is willing to lead studies in this area, the foundation supports those efforts in calls to consider the findings in the proposed rules. the focus so much on the flight crew that we often overlook fatigue and the rest of the industry, last to the foundation published an article about the danger of fatigue among aviation maintenance workers. this has been examined by accidents in which 15 among main as workers has been contributing factor. the foundation strongly urges faa to consider maintenance personnel in future roles. finally a concerted effort should be made by the faa industry and labor to educate the aviation safety workforce on matters associated with its egress. countless operators are in the process of developing fatigue

materials for their workforce. if we pull these efforts we can do much more to do it quickly and just as regulators, labor and industry came together 20 years ago to deal with the problem of control flight in its train we can come together again to deal with this threat. the flight safety foundation is working with regional airline association and others to make this happen in summary and ratified by the cooperation we're seeing around this issue and i'm optimistic the faa proposed rules would be scientifically based and will include all the latest research and experience. thank you much for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you very much. let me begin with you. and i think what i've heard you say was there should be two different standards of regulations and processes dealing with the take for the larger carriers which into a mark comprehensively and then separate approach with a smaller carriers. that would not be very comforting to a passenger that gets on an airplane that is not

one of the larger carrier planes because it seems to me fatigue is fatigue nevada the size of the plane and the people in the cockpit that are flying it, and they are 58 there are risks. so expand on that. you are telling us you think there ought to be two standards? >> thank you mr. chairman. to be clear what i'm trying to say is regulations have to be written in a way that can be complied with and sometimes you need straightforward rules as i believe we will be able to put together to this regulatory process to service the limit as the safety net. however, there is still an opportunity here to go beyond the basics here come we can ensure a strong level of safety, make a big improvement in the industry. but we need to pay attention to the fact there are new process is out there called fatigue risk-management which allow us to take the data we get from everyday operations and see where problems are developing and implementing things that go

beyond levels. so i am saying that we need to put good rules in place, we need to also make provisions for us to grow beyond the rules that exist. >> but again maybe captain prater you can respond to this, we have developed in recent years the system of the large front carriers in the regional carriers. the regional carriers are very important part of our system. they have one half of the flights that carry one-fourth of the passengers every year. they are on regional carriers, they get on an airplane and has the markings of a large carriers but it's not the large carriers and it seems to me that the question of the t. king is a question that is not separate by the size of the cockpit of the size of the airplane. captain prater, you described using the term meyer. what is your sense of whether there should be one standard for

to or as mr. william voss suggests and i understand why he suggests, i just have difficulty agreeing that we should move in that direction. it would be more difficult for the smaller regional characters to comply to more comprehensive rules. >> well, let me begin, i will restate, we believe that there should be one set of strong underlying regulation that creates the foundation and regardless of the size of airplane or the car go behind the cockpit door. that would be the first. the second level then was say how do we enforce that and how and i think maybe the bill was alluding to how can we improve upon the that level of foundation, but the first foundation, the regulations should apply to all equally and doesn't matter whether you have one passenger or 500 in the back of your airplane. it would allow us to look at

specific situations and i just take one case. the old truck long range. if i get into a triple seven and go from york to hong kong is going to be seen in half hours, that exceeds the the current regulations. but with the farmsv could come up with the rules on how to conduct a specific flight like that. i think that is where bill is trying to go. >> captain prater, you send that to the fatigue rules in the u.s. do not comply with i see a you standards. what he means? >> we have called for the flying time to the rules to be signed space. first currently or not science based. the future ones when we get them done as long as someone doesn't try to delay this month and have the last several times will be science based which would bring us into compliance with the i cato provisions. the last thing i would say on of the first subject was of a

controlled mapping. again, napping should not be seen and reviewed as somehow keeping pilots on duty even longer. in other words, i can hear the scheduler and out -- i'm pretty tired, i should start this white. you can catch him snap out of rich. now, that is not a sound strategy. you are once in awhile going to be caught in a position where you need a nap and you will coordinated with your other pilot, but remember at that point there is one pilot in the cockpit. our system of safety is based upon redundancy after redundancy. and now you want to say only one pilot has to be awake. i can tell you right away try to come up out of a nap to make a snap decision or making long-range decision is difficult. ..

and the rules need to acknowledge that. so, the framework will be a common framework but i think what you'll see in the proposal

that the arc but ford is a bit of a sliding scale that allows us to take into account the time of day that the schedule may encompass and the number of takeoffs and landings it may encompass so we can properly balanced the contributing factors to fatigue. >> i'm going to call on senator lautenberg in a moment but one final point, we will have a minister babbitt before us next week for the week after. give us the timeline on t. you are talking about the arc but as i started, this goes back 40 or 50 years and then to two abortive attempts in the 1990's to deal with this issue. what is the timeline here? >> the administrator had announced that we would have a final, a proposal out by the first of next year. unfortunately we have run into some additional analysis. what the arc provided as i said again a very good framework but they did not provide particular recommendations of particular elements of the row and we are

now having to fill in those plants and analyze the effect of those based on recommendations that the thune mitt-- arc mate but without their specific agreement on what the ours ought to be. >> are you saying the first of the year is the time deadline that has been sliding? >> unfortunately we will miss the first of next year. we have agreed with the administrators we will complete all of our analysis by the end of january and then we will need to go through administration review. >> i'm going to ask a series of additional questions of you and others about this but i want to have my colleagues have the opportunity. senator lautenberg. >> thanks mr. chairman, and i must say what we have heard from our panel here today confirms of you unanimously that what is now is not adequate. and, that we have to make changes. the rules are antiquated based

on where the system is today, the number of passengers that come, the different types of aircraft, and i would ask you this. might we be looking at something more than just the fatigue factor? there is a stress factor, that even if there is adequate sleep, there are other things that can interfere with clear thinking, not the least of which is income, and i don't know how we get this across, but there ought to be some standard. what other requirements for commercial pilots and a licensed captain? >> about 250 hours of flight time, instruction time in a single engine airplane. >> and, are there any other educational requirements?

>> there are no other educational requirements for even the up to an airline 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, correct vision to 20/20 endmost pilots twice a year have to meet those physical standards, once a year i believe if you are under 35-40. >> are there any prohibitions about alcohol use in advance of taking command or getting into the pilot's seat? >> yes sir, very strict rules, both time wise as well as blood alcohol content.

>> but, they don't give a blood sample every time they go on? >> no, but we are subject to random events and i will tell you that it is a ruled that pilots take very seriously. obviously, and some companies even have time limits that exceed the safety limits that the faa has established. >> because, with all of these things that do exist, and you get back to the, into the starting pay for the pilot or the co-pilot, when someone is in that seat, are they fully prepared in your view to take over command if necessary? >> that is one of the responsibilities of command in fact come is to assess your fellow crewmember, 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 am proud to say that we have very, very good success in recognizing those individuals that have a problem and we have very good success. >> the problem is, that doesn't suggest that is a long time thing. it could be a single episode, but, the point i get to hear is that the requirements, if even to the current standard, are pretty, pretty heavy duty things. but, still we have these outrageous examples of pilots not responding to a radio and cory, and should there be a list of infractions kept that says

that, if the pilot doesn't answer a radio call, in five minutes or three minutes or something like that, that that ought to be listed as an infraction and a record kept on that? >> sir, i think we would quickly determined that the aerospace and the flying airplane is very complicated and the fact is, there can be either mr. radio calls warmists communications but we are very successful in attracting those errors in using other airplanes whether it is monitoring the emergency frequency of-- we do catch those errors and in fact a ticket to the next level. when a professional makes an error on duty asap system you turn yourself in. you report yourself. to me that is the hide of professionalism because you want somebody else did not make that

same error and those are the systems we are trying to protect and they are working very well. >> when you hear a pilot say that we were distracted, that is not sufficient reason to fly for lots and lots of minutes, more than an hour, not quite, without responding to a tower or a station along the way. it is shocking, and there should be a rule that is consistent with rapid response and radio calls. it is, it is crowded out there and the equipment is moving more rapidly than it used to it, so i think there are rules that have to be established that demand of the pilot that certain behavioral things, so that the tower knows what is going on and can respond. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator lemeiux.

>> thank you mr. chairman. what we have heard today is pretty distressing about the lack of sleep by some of these folks for flying airplanes. when someone walks onto an aircraft you know that they are entrusting their life to you, and i think there is a larger issue here about fatigue that goes beyond pilots. there is the tiki in society, and you only have to go to the back of the plane to, once the plane takes off nearly everybody on a plane is asleep i think because we are all under increasing demands. we are on our blackberries all the time, we are staying up late with kids and doing all of the things we have to do in life that everyone is tired. not only do you have some-- dc-3 or the c8, whatever it is, florals you also live in a world where people are a lot more tired and sleep study showed that america is one of the worst nations in the breault for how much sleep the average american gets overnight. i encourage you are going to get

these rules then in hope you'll get them done and get them done this and as you possibly can so we have something scientifically based. want to bring up three things that occurred to me as a frequent traveler on airplanes and in florida i've done a lot of the short leg trips. on the continental planes which were very similar to i guess the crash that occurred in buffalo. there is a couple of things. one yes, i see the folks who are airline greece oftentimes now commute to their work. so, and the thing that's happened in buffalo where you had a tampa based pilot and it concerns me that 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 on the plane if that is the way the rule changes but to be well rested when the flight begins. how important is it that the crewmembers spend the night before they start on their leg, in their home, in their home

bed? it worries me that we are flying people from tampa to buffalo to go to work and that that is the first part of their segment and then they are actually going to start flying when they get to buffalo or get to a plan that. i experienced this all the time and in talking to crewmembers how many people don't live in atlanta for example. delton has cut their base there. there are a lot of crewmembers that fly to a plan to go to work. is this something that is going to be addressed about the initial getting to work, committing to their job which has to also increase the wear and tear on the crewmembers the would like to discuss that. the second thing i would like to hear some comment on is what pilot is in charge.ep rooms are

are there supervisors that are at the airports who are looking over these pilots before they get on the plane, maybe other senior pilots, and say captain prater is too tired. he just came in from hong kong. he thinks he can go on the sly. litem think he can go on this flight. i am going to tell captain prater that he needs to take some time off. is there a chain of command but somebody in charge at the airports to make these decisions? traveling to destinations, sleep rams in supervision and i will ask mcgilligan if she would like to start on that. >> thank you sir. on the issue of commuting the aviation rulemaking committee recommended that the pilot be required to report to work fit for duty. that is consistent with the regulation at this point.

they did not make a recommendation to change that. that is one of the areas we are looking at as we prepare our proposal to see if there is additional requirements that we want to include in that particular area, so that is something that will be addressed and we will certainly ask for comment in the proposal. on the issue of sleep rooms, two things. first, there are especially for the cargo carriers the number of the major carriers to actually provide rams, temperature controls, quiet rims for pilots to sleep and one of the recommendations from new york was to give consideration to that kind of rest to perhaps add additional time to the duty day and again we will look at proposals in that area and ask for comment on that as well. folk a-- for the altar long flights or the flights were we have what we call augmented crew there are sleeping facilities on board the aircraft and the arc recommended the higher and

facilities be given more credit than perhaps were an operator might expect parlett to sleep and a first-class seat for example, and so the proposal will look at those differences and ask for comment on whether credit ought to be given in those areas as well so again we are trying to address all of these various issues that are, not the main issue of brown fatigue but certainly that contribute to how we can help the pilots better manage that fatigue. >> what about supervision? >> i am sorry. on the last issue the regulations will likely propose that both the operator and the pilots will have responsibility, so the rule would say the operator may not allow and the pilot may not except. many of our rules are written in the way to have that shared responsibility so that as captain prater pointed out we can be sure we have the checks and balances that we need within the system.

>> captain prater can you talk to those three points? >> i would be glad to senator. first of all, i think we need to understand that commuting is a fact of life. whether i am driving from richmond tdc that might take me three hours or whether i'm flying from st. louis to dc which would take me an hour and 45 minutes, i am commuting to work. i am starting my day ahead. it comes down to the professional responsibility of what do i have ahead of me that day. if i'm just flying in easy trip, i am flying one like to florida yes i will come up that morning and i will be there for several hours and then i will go to work and i will feel fine. if i'm flying in all-nighter to sol palo i will come up the night before and get some rest during the day. those are just facts of as you say of the life we live in. now, you have to know your schedule. it is more difficult for reserve

pilots. must reserve pilots are within two to three hours of their duty station but even there, if you live on long island and you are trying to get to newark it can easily take three hours so you do have the plan far ahead. i do not see it as the problem. one of them that has been cited so many times is that the first officer commuted from seattle to new work to fly her trip. what should be said is or should be pointed out is she could have flown that trip as a pilot the night before and been legal to fly the trip to buffalo, so it is not just commuting, it is the overall issue of how are flight duty time rules work. who is in charge? well, i think it starts and ends with the captain but the carrier does have responsibility. the carrier has got a responsibility to accept my word and they are not going to fire me or discipline me if i say i'm too tired to go on. we still fight the problem. we khaled pilots pushing because

of the airplane doesn't go the revenues it's on the tarmac. they don't have enough pilots because they have cut back so much that trip is canceled. those economic pressures live every day. we have to fight them. the last one is the sleeper rooms, totally, wholly inadequate at most airlines. >> thank you very much. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much. i want to acknowledge some of the colgan families are out there from the crash. thank you again for being here and being a moral compass for us as we work on this important topic and tried to get these rules down and die appreciate saying that these will get done. i was shocked to learn at a hearing a few weeks ago that the de-icing rules are 12 years old, that they have an even gone in the recommendations and finally actually i talked to the

director of our ride of an secretary lahood and they are finally out for public comment after sitting there in some bureaucratic morass for 12 years so i want to thank you for pushing on these and encourage you to do these as quickly as possible. one of the things to follow up what senator lemeiux was talking about was this change in culture and i think these rules that we have come at the faa policy of pilot fatigue or something like half a century old and doesn't reflect new technologies, new ways of living, new information that we have about 50. one of the things that have been very focused on is looking at fatigue is what senator dorgan is saying, half the flights are regional and their passengers are regionally get the rules seem to be different with the regional and national flights and i guess my first question is i know that some of the large carriers reimburse pilots for hotel costs so that they can get some sleep between shifts.

the regional carriers to the same thing and would this be a solution to some of the problems? captain prater? >> i would say, most carriers do not provide for the reimbursement of the expenses for coming to work to be well rested, so they don't pay for hotel rooms where you start and end your trip. part of the problem senator, is that the system doesn't provide for a, a mechanism to provide the pilots with a decent salary, because we have a marketplace system that we have had over 160 failures of airlines. we keep saying and calling these airlines something other than they are. a regional carrier, what does that mean? >> fly from candidate to mexico.

these are airliners. we need to get away from trying to pigeonholed them because they are flying just 50 passengers. >> one of the things we have discussed is arguably the regional pilots, some of them are flying shorter flights, their flying time is more stressful because it involves more takeoffs and landings and they are actually doing more during that time and i wonder mr. voss should be taken into account as opposed to simply looking-- >> thank you senator. certainly should take that issue into account the frequency of the legs and the workload and so on vetted involve senate is interesting that the area has had probably the least amount of research but the lot of work has been done on alter long-haul and times on ships. more work is being done in that area and i think that is a critical area we need to take into account and as i understand the rules that were described by the art, it will take this up

and down factor into account. >> then, what do we do about learning from what other countries have done? i know some of the things that talked about is actually zero lowing 41 pilots to nath that the other one is awake and they have done things like that. is that in the works? does that control napping? does that make sense for longer flights? >> yes, absolutely. we are supporting that very much in the foundation. since 1994 i believe is when the first airline started doing this sort of controlled nothing and it was found to be a very effective countermeasure. when you try to do everything right batista loan up with the fatigued crew because whether or whatever happens this is a let's-- last-ditch effort into this prison to be a very safe procedure and has been adopted around many countries in the world. >> ms. gilligan, just to follow-up some of these questions with reimbursement, this idea of more stress on

pilots whether we call them regional or not but they have shorter flights and also this idea of should we look at this controlled napping? >> as mr. voss indicated the arc indicated that we consider both the time of day when the pilot begins their schedule as well as the number of operations are segments that they will fly as part of sort of a sliding scale of how many hours of duty time and flight time they should be permitted. the arc did not agree on exactly how many hours of flight time in duty time that ought to allow and that is what we are in the midst of now analyzing, but the framework that they presented and we will be putting forward will take into account the time of day so if you are flying at night, what they called the backside of the clock, that may reduce the number of hours you are available. if you have a high number of takeoffs and landings, that may reduce the number of hours so we will seek comment on all of that to understand better how to

accommodate those things that can contribute to fatigue. on the issue of control the rest, we have not issued standards for that. we have not proposed to permit that. and at this point i don't expect we will be proposing that. we to believe the crew needs to come to work prepared for the schedule as captain prater pointed out, prepared for the schedule that they are undertaking and we believe they can medicate their fatigued through the new regulation sufficiently that they should be alert drought that flight. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> senator snowe. >> ms. gilligan, obviously we hope the faa is going to move expeditiously on this proposed rulemaking. i think it is essential. it has languished for more than a half a century and then on the national safety board most wanted list since 1990 so clearly, this is an issue that

deserves immediate attention and i think you have given all the testimony that has been presented to this committee and the fact is fatigue. to follow-up on a question that senator lemieux made with respect to commutes, many of these regional airlines obviously have pilots that commute long distances. in fact one of the regional carriers that has a quarter of their crew that commute more than 1,000 miles. how are you factoring that into the rulemaking? is that going to be something that is part of the rulemaking process next year and contributes to fatigue? >> six use me maam. that is an issue that has i mentioned the aviation rulemaking committee did not recommend that we make changes. they recommended we continue to see that as a pilot responsibility as captain prater had indicated. we are considering whether there are additional elements that we can or should regulate and that may well be a part of our proposal. we have not yet completed that

part of our analysis but he the way we will be asking for comment on whether there is additional regulatory requirements that should be put in place as it might affect a meeting. >> captain prater, how do you see the faa addressing this question, if at all? do you see it is essential to a dressing on this commuter issue? >> if anything, i believe as i said before i do believe it is a personal responsibility for us to-- you could live in your base in the next day you are bases close then you are expected to fly out of new york instead of cincinnati. you have got three kids in school. you just can't do it overnight. most regional carriers don't pay for paid moves. i know pilots who have had five base changes in one year. you just can't move, so it is not a whole lot different than

many jobs in our society, except on the other end of it. we have to be in command of that cockpit, so it does start with personal responsibility. i think if anything, but no circumstances, the carrier must ensure that the pilot is able to get to work with the least amount of hassle at all. it is no different than flying from st. louis to the sea to begin your work day here. it is the same thing for us but it shouldn't take me eight or ten hours to fly from st. louis to d.c. to start that works of their things that could be done but i believe it will be done more unfortunately may be but in the collective bargaining a range where we come up with a solution with their employers versus the mandate by the faa. >> do you think it is workable and what ms. gilligan mentioned about the pilot and the operator making a decision in terms of whether not a pilot is to fatigued to make the trip?

the operator is most likely to resist the pressure from you know, that situation, because obviously they need the pilots so it seems to me they would be the most likely. >> it is-- >> to make the wrong decision in that situation where the parlett is fatigued. >> it comes down to our physical that we take every six months. we have to determine, are we fit to fly that they? it doesn't matter whether i have a cough or a cold or a didn't sleep last night because my baby cried all night. i have to make that decision. all we ask is the protection that the employer and their responsibility under the regulation should be you will accept when a pilot calls in and says your she is to fatigue to fly, you will accept that call. >> on another issue, i happen to run into an airline pilot last

week for a legacy carrier, and he was very much concerned about the lack of experience of the pilots and copilots on these regional aircraft with the requirement of 300 hours of flight time compared to what he had for example as a commercial pilot, 3,000 hours of flight time. in fact, he was asked for some tips by the captain of one of these regional carriers on one flight. he and the co-pilot were familiar with some of the issues they were discussing and he described as scary. so, i was wondering if i could have your views on that. if you combine the issue of fatigue, low salaries lack of experience and i know in the house of representatives is one piece of legislation being considered that 15 ours is the minimum requirement for flight time experience. can you address that? >> yes maam. we are fully supportive of h.r. 3371 and hope that the senate will pick that up in the

near future. it does raise the bar. it raises the bar for experienced before a pilot can become an airline transport pilot and service of carrying passengers. first of all, let me say i believe we are one of the most critical professions on ourselves. you never have enough experience. the fact is that the captain, the senior captain sharing in discussing issues with that crew is not a bad thing. two years ago our economy was going in such a way that pilots were being hired rideout a flight school with 2523 hendren 50 hours and it did show a crack. we can do better than that. it takes a lot more training at airline level but again the training is expensive. many airlines like to cut costs at every corner they can. that is one weekend and in fact we need to expand some of the

training requirements and much of that is covered in that house legislation. >> i appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you very much. ms. gilligan, let me barry and a little on this question of when, because the fact this this issue has been around. ntsb has had this on its most wanted list for many years. much more important is that u.n. the process and you and the process with the kind of recommendations that are science-based and can be implemented and that we don't have to have these hearings, so you indicated that the time is now sliding, not unusual with federal agencies but disappointing given the circumstances we now face and the urgency with which we have communicated to the faa that we want to move on this. give me your best judgment about when those of us who are waiting for these recommendations and the implementation of the new rules and regulations dealing

with fatigue, when we can expect team and given back for the team. >> no, i go back in. just like leaving them back in. what i think about them down here in miami is truly an epidemic when you think of the kids not graduating from high school. it's a serious problem. >> we begin this tuesday with a major development in the case of a deadly memorial day. double shooting. >> now, just into the newsroom, the arrest of the owner of the north miami beach dollar store. >> the shooting death of the burger king manager. >> three people, including a 5-year-old at a miami apartment complex. >> this is the 12th year. there is always something. now, when you started the foundation, did you ever envision that 12 years later, it would still be going? did you know, did you think you had this run?

>> i did not realize that we would have this impact initially. you know, but i know, i knew the overall cause of it. and in helping young people in the positive area. i see that there is a tremendous need for these kids. to get the deposit -- the positive influence for the kids and the well being. i was the child once. i realized the importance of someone contributing to my life in helping with my development as a person as well as a basketball player without those individuals. i wouldn't be the person that i am today. >> you better be there before you. >> and this is your first year joining with alonzo.

what prompted you to do this? >> i wanted to do something for miami. i wanted to get out into the community. how could i do that? and alonzo is the perfect example to become a part of something. >> i mean, he was really serious in wanting to make a difference, you know? he knows that he's going to be a part of this community for years to come. >> to have some and he turned me could be at first. yes, he'll need to build something here. and he wanted me to come in to jump on board. >> get ready for this sensation of the summer. a weekend of exciting events, featuring the flag himself. >> and it was something to watch. >> the summer views. >> what do you think? >> you now where he got that from? your daddy. and that whole demeanor of son, you know, you're not ready. >> in order for you to teach somebody, they have to be receptive to listening. i think you can motivate people. motivation is over worked. but the person has to have certain internal areas. >> i'm still looking at him as

a little kid. i look at him like a little brother to me. >> it is really interesting to watch those two, because you know, it is like a mentor, relationship. >> i understood the passion. it was very similar to mine to helping young people. and also, he told me, he said look, when you started your own area and we started your foundation, you were my age. that kind of hit home with me. >> you need someone to, you know, to really look at and to really follow, you know, to one day when i am his age, a long time from now. >> he's not that old. >> yes, 50 years from that. i'm going to tell them. >> passing the toys down to someone else. >> we have a bunch of things throughout the whole weekend where everybody in the family can enjoy. there is something for everyone,

the game. and for all of it, every event. you need to be there at every event. >> yeah, we're just trying to do it. ask talk about that action and taking it to court right here in the heart of the community. another huge effort to improve the lives of them true the annual. and the summer groups. >> we'll try to continue for them and to create a positive opportunity. and to come on out. and we're creating an awareness about that education that the young people are facing here in the community and raising funds towards them. but we encourage people to give. and i think that the partnership with them and myself, they bring out all the resources together.

and they will enable us to connect with more individuals in the community. >> to make sure to join us for the half hour special, that is tkpwraoáufpb with all of them posted by the latest for all the happenings for the big weekend event. >> what it means for these people to take time out of their lives and invest back in our crown people. and in ways that we cannot measure. >> they will join us for these great things. hopefully we'll be able to raise more money. so every child is served in the poáfrish areas. >> how difficult was it to try to pull that in? >> it is not difficult from the standpoint of getting people to come out there.

that's the biggest debate that they come out there. and that they knew they would give it to them to help the kids and with all of them and myself to come together and you know, utilize this -- in all of our resources, strapping the event even more to help us generate more funds towards the actual cause in helping to educate young people. >> coming up next. >> i think that it is a native on my end. and that in this situation, coming into their homes in

taking this man's life, but the impact of their lives of everybody and his family. i say to myself, okay, if they were in a program like i have here in overtime or the program out there at sci in portland oregon that there is no way that they would have made the decision to go in there and break into that man's house and take his life. so you know, we make the investment now because we know that it will have a direct affect on someone else down the road. >> what do you do from here? we'll go into that spot with that area. and that is in all of us that come together for times like these and that is what is the motivation is doing. but it really is reaching out to our kids. and this is what they will listen to, to allow the guys for them to do that. and to listen to us for that.

but the foundation as well. >> yeah, i have never been to one of these. i am so excited. >> watch out for that. watch it. >> good morning everybody. how important is it for them to see you as an athlete? >> it is very important. and it is contagious.

simply contagious, you know? when u yo give, you have an atect on someone else's life. and they feel good about you doing something for them. and that encourages them to want to do something else for them. and you know, it's like that, not about the material things. it's about giving your charm, your love, it's about giving home and encouragement. and you know, young people, they are showing them a positive way of life. that'll make all the influences in the same impact of the world. more than a dollar that you might give. >> what do you make of that? that is what it is. either you have opportunities for them to make it less, to go right, to go to the the super stars, whatever you want to see just like that and no one else. too many times we come together and say hey, dream big. just consume your passion and don't listen to anyone that tells you no. but now, that does not do anything for me when i'm stacking over there on the way to school. i need to have a plan on what

do i do so that i can take what is inside of me, that little positive area to grow that into whatever my dream may be. they need to see how they can create their lives. >> and that is for us, they were talking about what comes from all of it and i just want to say thank you. >> it's awesome for me to be able to talk to the young people and to give them knowledge to better their lives. there are some people out there that just don't know the pass. >> show you how to achieve your dream. that is step by step by step. >> i want you to go home. and i want you to take a piece of paper and to write it all big and big out there.

and now ask your parents to give them permission for that up over your bed. an opportunity that i'm starting to see that out there. all around the country. because we have got to be in business. this is all about the youngsters. how good does it make you feel? >> that's the best part. interacting with the kids. that's my favorite part of the weekend. like everyone, the youth summit. and that you are there with the kids, you're sharing. that's the best part. to see that it is just like a vail being lifted off of everyone's eyes. perblsly theres that they could do anything that they would want if the had world. they can see the world. and the kids, you know, they have this great world in front of them that far too often they are not encouraged to support. >> and i know that for a fact

that is something i want to try again. and without that help in my life, i wouldn't be sitting here today and that i hope everyone that is watching this particular piece that they go out and to get involved in the lives of the young people for them and that they will have a direct affect on your life somewhere down the road. coming up next. >> it scared the heck out of me. because it was not about basketball. that's someone i love. and that is someone i was

because then it wasn't about basketball, tp-fs about something i loved. so i try to say lord to me that there needs to be something good to just come out of this, you know? i'm going to put it in your hands. >> alonzo is amazing. he can put that out there and don't worry about it, and i remember the day, it was very emotional. and he tells me the story that i get emotional in the beginning of it when it all came out. and he said, jeff, let's get going. >> in 2003, to get that kidney transplant, you know, i got a second chance of life. that will be something to totally go out there to go

right. and you know a lot of it has to do with my face. able to concert and mourning is down in some pain. >> and he had a knee injury, you're fighting them, trying to get back. you're saying you want to come back. and what is your motivation? >> the last memory that i have of a basketball court is being first of all, they wanted to put me on the stretcher, all right? and then they just carried me off. that's my last memory. i don't want that to be my last memory. playing professional basketball. if i can help it and i can play, even if half the year, they needed to see that for half the season, i wanted to come back in 100%. i still feel like i have a lot to offer and i'm able to contribute to a young miami team, provide, you know, my overall talent. and al some very different

relationships. i'll be able to walk off the court and i'm able to retire. >> i thank god for this moment. just eight short years ago, i didn't envision this moment to happen out there. and that this is probably one of the greatest moments in my life and i'm honored to be here to see them. thank you. coming up next on my life 365. ♪[ music ]

give it up for arbs lon -- alonzo mourning. i want to give it up to them. and to realize about the fans. i want to give you each one to know about that. now, if you need to put your belt and whom you put it on. they have been talking to me for a couple of times. this year is just perfect. it's for a good reason, a good cause. they are always good brothers. it's an honor to be here to join them for the summer groove. and dwayne wade, he's involved now with his foundation. those are two good brothers doing two good things in miami and florida. and it's an honor for me to be a part of it.

that's for the associates. we cannot get it out there or something closer. and i want to try to do the same thing look out for the kids to do as much as they can. >> it's been a great weekend and it's been busy. no sleep. but it is all worth it and to be better and better. >> and how does alonzo want to be better? talking naturally as a father, as a person who started this greatly in the community. and how would you like to be remembered? >> i'm more than able to help others the way that they have helped me, creating a legacy for my kids. and you know, i know that i'm encouraging others to do the same for them. and that's how i want to be remembered. i would like to be remembered for a person that cared about the well being of others,

perblsly the young people if the had community provided opportunities for young people to succeed. and no one will ever forget that. >> to the success, it's very simple. to be able to get you out. there and you know, that starts as a long journey for them to step as a step after you get out of bed. he took care of that. >> mic kheb, one, two, one, two. >> and i'm terrible at doing this part. and please, did i sign the release for bloopers? >> i'll be going out there with the ball on my head. you know what i'm saying? and i didn't even have the ball in my hand but to have that going. >> can we do that? i'll do that every time. >> i'm here to support and just hope that we'll be of service in any way that i can. >> how are you just going to hand me the microphone like i work for his company? are you going to cut me a check? check? >> no, he just gave me the

oh! blue! time! time out. i touched it. i touched the ball before it went out, coach. come on, alex, the ref did not call that! you gotta be kidding me, alex! it's the championship game! talk to him, coach. i touched, it's their ball. don't foul them when they inbound. team on 'three.' one, two, three. nice going, alex. sorry coach. alex! good call.