the federal aviation administration, a piece of legislation that is moving rapidly in the senate as we all know as well. the critical task was in 2003 when the full committee chairman john mica was chairman of the subcommittee. since that time although the house has passed authorization bills in the previous two concourses, we have been unable to reach agreement with the senate to send a final bill to the white house and the extensions have been passed in order to keep the faa operating. confidence that we can enact a reauthorization bill that will enable the hard-working people at the faa to continue the important job of overseeing the efficient use of the nation's aerospace, improve our aviation infrastructure and before word to modernize the air traffic

control system. the reauthorization bill is a step forward in ensuring the the united states can have the most efficient aviation system and to ensure the competitiveness of the aviation industry to enhanc it.ag it goes witenhoutcy saying the aviation industry is contributing $1.2 trillion ton. the nation's economy and directly or indirectly annually to the nation's economy and directly or indirectly generating over 10 million jobs. it's important that this industry's stability and its growth continue. in addition, it's critical that we ensure that next gen is delivered on time and on budget, it's vital to the u.s. aviation's increasing efficiency

and lowering cost. pleased we have today with us the administrator of the federal aviation administration who i think has earned the respect of people in the industry as he's taken his position. thank you for joining us today to offer your insights on the faa re-authorization. also as part of this hearing would welcome your thoughts and suggestions on the legislation that's before us, and we would welcome the thoughts and suggestions of all the members of the subcommittee as well. we're looking forward to any ideas that would help us to improve the legislation as it moves forward. before i recognize ranking member costello, i'd like to say to administrator babbitt, that i look forward to working with you

over the coming months, confident we can work together to complete a re-authorization bill that cuts waste and streamlines and expedites next generation, creates jobs, keeps u.s. civil aviation competitive in the global marketplace. and with that, i would yield -- or i would recognize mr. costello, the senior democrat on this committee. my colleague, last session, when he was the senior -- chairman of the -- >> mr. chairman, i thank you and congratulate you on your selection as chairman of the subcommittee. i have been in this chair before and i have been in that chair, and i'd much rather be in your chair than my chair, but let me say that i look forward to working with you, and we've always had a very good relationship as chairman and when you were ranking member, and i expect that we'll continue to have that relationship. i also thank you for calling the hearing today on the federal aviation administration

re-authorization, the faa administrator, who is here with us, and we'll hear from him. mr. chairman in the 110th and 111th congress the aviation subcommittee held 52 hearings. we spearheaded 39 bills and resolutions through the house. 25 of which were enacted. this subcommittee made a valuable contribution to our nation's economic recovery with enactment in the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 which included $1.3 billion for aviation infrastructure. i commend administrator babbitt and his agency for getting the money out the door quickly, investing in valuable job-producing infrastructure projects. work has already been completed on 694 projects and is under way on 77 more, representing 100% of the total aviation recovery act funds. mr. chairman, in response to the february, 2009, colgan flight

crash, we worked together to enact sweeping reforms. the strongest piece of aviation safety legislation in decades. we have some members of the colgan families here today with us, and i want to thank them for their steadfast support in getting our new safety law enacted. last month i asked the department of transportation's inspector general's office to undertake a comprehensive review of the faa's progress, implementing the provisions of our new safety law, as well as the industry's responses to the faa's call to action on voluntary safety programs. this subcommittee must continue to provide vigorous oversight on safety issues. last year we also worked with the other body and got very close to delivering a strong, balanced, bipartisan faa re-authorization bill. based on the work we did last congress, i believe we can complete a bipartisan bill very quickly, and i intend to work with you to produce a bill as soon as possible.

however, we must ensure that the bill we produce continues moving the faa forward. the aviation community and the nation forward and does not set us back. commercial and general aviation together contribute more than $1.3 trillion in output to the nation's economy. historical historically members have fought to guarantee funding and the re-authorization bills. this subcommittee has rec nitezed that investing in our infrastructure will improve the economy, create jobs and provide for the safe and efficient flow of commerce. some have suggested that for fiscal reasons we should go backwards. downsize the faa and even authorize lower capital funding levels for the faa than what congress provided in the last faa re-authorization bill over seven years ago. i am convinced that doing so will present major concerns for aviation safety.

i agree that we need to reduce the federal spending, but we cannot jeopardize the safety of the flying public in the process. the faa indicates that if congress reduces the faa's funding level to 2008, key next gen programs will be delayed or canceled, that funding cuts will stall the agency's consolidation efforts, efforts that otherwise would save billions of dollars and reduce the deficit in the long term. funding cuts may also force the faa aviation safety office to furlough hundreds of safety personnel. with that, mr. chairman, i look forward to hearing the testimony of administrator babbitt and look forward to working with you. >> thank you, and i do as well. i'd ask unanimous consent that the record be kept open for two weeks for additional statements. without objection, so ordered. at this time recognize the

chairman. >> thank you, mr. petri and mr. costello. when you end up with responsibility over an important committee like ours, you try to set some priorities, and when asked what my top priority would be, there's no question that we have to do an faa re-authorization. it's -- not only is it important to ensure something we take for granted in this country, and that's safe flying and skies, the ability to get around like no one on the earth has ever known, we take some of that for granted, but it does require our work as trustees of that

responsibility to set the parameters and the policy. no question we've got to move forward, and i set this as the top priority. i can't tell you how pleased i am that senator reid and our colleagues in the senate have already begun their work. my goal is to not have an 18th extension and to have this bill on the president's desk before the current 17th extension expires. at a time when the country's hurting economically, i'm told and i've heard different accounts, that the aviation industry when we were hit at 9/11 accounts for somewhere between 9% and 11% of our entire

gdp, that's how big this industry is, and to not have in place the policy, the projects, the vision for the future that we craft in legislation and our, again, responsible, supposed to be responsible trustees for the people, that's not right. so, we need to correct that. we're going to get it done. we're going to work in rapid order. today we hear from the administration and welcome mr. babbitt and his recommendations, and until the ink is dry on this, everyone's suggestions and input is welcome. tomorrow we'll hear from some of the stakeholders, and i ask you this week to speak now or forever hold your piece. and i mean, we do want to hear from you, any ideas that you have. tomorrow when we finish hearing from the stakeholders, i've invited paul of the -- i guess

we call it the big four, whatever it is, guys and gals, and any other members that would like to participate, particularly the staffs on both sides of the aisle to sit down, and we'll go through the pending issues tomorrow afternoon, as we're going to move with lightning speed and try to bring forth as soon as possible a very effective, i hope, piece of legislation, one that will be lean. we are in some lean times, but ensure, as i said, the safety of the flying public. also want to welcome today and thank for their great work. we had problems wibeyond what anyone could imagine if you lost a loved one in an aviation tragedy, but the colgan families

have been just tremendous. we wouldn't have in place legislation to improve the commuter airlines' safety and effectiveness without your help. now we've got this important responsibility, and we'll want to get it done as soon as possible. with no further delay. let me just say a couple of things. i saw the senate's working on a two-year bill. i want a four-year bill. i had no idea my bill would turn into, what, seven- or eight-year bill, jerry? the one we crafted 2003. but we need it longer. not shorter. our challenge will be to do more with less. i want a robust -- and i'm still soliciting right up until we get the final ink dry on whatever we

do, next gen suggestions. next gen is our vision for the future. so, i invite and welcome anyone's recommendation, particularly want to hear from the administrator on that. so this, again, does set forth our policy, our projects, our funding and our safety program for one of the most important activities in our economy. again, be a full, open process, but it's also going to move forward with lightning speed. and with that, i thank you for yielding to me, and yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. and i would recognize at this time for an opening statement our colleague from texas, mrs. johnson. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and let me thank the two leaders on this committee for the kind of professional work that we've

done over the years together, notwithstanding what side is in the majority. and i want to especially point out that mr. costello made many efforts to move this bill, and i hope we don't have to go to the 18th extension. safety continues to be my number one concern, and i'm hoping that we will produce a bill that provides a meaningful bill in modernizing our air traffic control system, reducing congestion in our skies and providing a needed boost to our nation's airports. i look forward to working with my fellow committee members on both sides of the aisle and hope that we'll be moving as quickly as the full chairman wants us to move on this bill. thank you.

>> thank you. and at this time recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee, our colleague from the iron range, northern minnesota, representative? >> thank you, chairman and ranking member costello for holding this important hearing today. captain babbitt, welcome, sir. i look forward to hearing your testimony today and discussing ways to improve the faa and to further implement next gen. as you know the last faa re-authorization bill was in 2003, and i think everyone in the room is in agreement that we need to pass an faa re-authorization bill this year. however, i think there are several concerns that need be addressed before considering this legislation. namely, i think it is incumbent upon the faa that they can be trusted to properly administer

taxpayer dollars. i specifically raise the issue in the contracts awarded to raytheon and itt, i look forward to hearing what steps the faa is taking to improve the oversight and stewardship of the taxpayer dollars. specifically i'm concerned about the implementation of next gen. it appears there are a number of factors that are stalling the implementation of critical next gen programs. i hope you'll address your agency's detailed plan, the implementation of next gen, and i'm particularly interested to hear about the next gen implementation milestones that you intend to complete by the end of the year. thank you, administrator, babbitt, and i look forward to working with you this session. >> and recognized for an opening statement, representative carnahan. >> congratulations on your new role to the committee, to ranking member costello, i look forward to working with you in this new congress and on this re-authorization of the faa. passage of a multiyear

re-authorization of the faa is long, long overdue. so we can make critical job-creating, business-expanding, and safety-enhancing investments in our aviation system to ensure it can properly accommodate the anticipated growth of travelers in the coming years. during both the last two congresses, the 111th, the house has taken the lead to pass legislation to reauthorize the faa, that would have made the critical investments in our aviation system from airport infrastructure to making critical investments in furthering next gen. unfortunately, the final conference report was not agreed to. as we take up this debate anew, it's critical we recognize the level of investment needed to ensure that we can make critical investments in our aviation infrastructure. funding for the airport improvement program is not increased in five years.

the passenger facility charges have not increased in over ten years. during this time, construction costs have greatly increased, putting limitations on how aib grants and pfcs can go to help airports meet their needs. without greater investments, airports like lambert, st. louis international airport in my home state, cannot make the investments that are critical for their rebirth. the last extension congress passed made improvements to the safety of the u.s. airline operations that bring one level of safety to the traveling public on major and regional air carriers. critical to ensuring this one level of safety is sufficient funding to implement these safety measures. i want to thank the administrator babbitt for joining us here today. look forward to hearing your testimony. i also want to acknowledge and recognize the colgan families that are here today for your work on safety issues.

having lost a father and a brother in an aviation accident, it is very important that you are here and part of this debate, and we look forward to working with you. thank you. >> thank you. and now i'd recognize for an opening statement the gentleman from north carolina, howard vogel. >> senator, i appreciate you calling this hearing on a very important subject matter, but i have no formal opening statement. yield back. >> thank you. representative langford from oklahoma for an opening statement. >> thank you, honored to be here, and thank you so much for you coming and your availability as you made yourself available and your staff available for any questions we've had leading up to this conversation. i'm sure in days to come we'll have multiple more. i have a great interest in how we're handling next gen. that's a project, i'm 42 years old, and all my life as an adult has been what we're going with next gen and what will happen

with air traffic control. and looking forward to hearing about discretionary spending from faa and how the decisions are made on where we spend and then also how we handle the re-alignment of faa facilities. i'll have great interest on how we -- how faa is making the decision and the formula that you have in setting aside which area needs to be realigned and the timing of that re-alignment, so we look forward to those conversations and thank you, again, for coming to be here. >> thank you. are there any other members that wish to make an opening statement? representative schmidt from ohio? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to acknowledge all the families that are here in memory of their loved ones who have met tragedy in flight. you know, when continental flight 3407 met its tragedy in buffalo, new york, a few years ago, my small community of loveland, ohio, was touched twice, and i know the perry family is here, and i just want

to thank all of those involved for advocating safety first and making sure that all of us are on our toes. thank you very much for all that you do, and my prayers go out to you each and every day. thank you. >> thank you. and at this time representative hirona. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon, administrator babbitt. i, too, am looking forward to the discussions we'll have regarding the faa re-authorization. i think all of the provisions in that re-authorization really affect every single community, and i would like to bring up one issue that is important to many communities in remote areas. there is a community in my district, called calopapa which is where father damian administered to his patients. it's an area that is impacted by our eas process. it is basically the -- that

essential air service is basically the only way that the people there can get to medical resources as well as tourists who now are coming more frequently because of the connection of that area to st. damian. i know that you're probably in the process of reviewing eas procedures. there may be people here who would like to totally eliminate the eas because of the funding situation we find ourselves. but the real-life impact on remote areas and communities all across our country and certainly to this area would be very extreme if we do not continue to support eas and to make sure that that program works as it was intended, and that is to make sure that the people of our country are served regardless of where they live. so, i look forward to working with you, administrator babbitt,

to make sure that the eas process is fair, that it's working in the way that it's intended, and, again, i look forward to hearing from you, aloha. i yield back. >> thank you. representative holgan from illinois. >> thank you, administrator, for being here, and i want to thank the families, the colgan families, thank you for being here. thank you for your input and your involvement, and i want to join with you to make sure that air travel is safe and every day we are working to continue to increase the safety. i know that's the commitment of all of us here, along with the faa, so thank you for your input and thank you for turning this into something positive for future generations as well. also it's very important for me, my district is just outside of chicago. adjacent to o'hare, and have maybe the highest number of air traffic controllers that live in my district, so very interested in next gen and how that will

move forward. so, looking forward to this opportunity to work together for the good of all people here in america in making sure that air travel is as safe as it can possibly be. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> representative from texas? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. as someone who was touched personally with the death of my grandfather in an aviation accident, this is near and dear to my heart. i did want to say that i'm looking forward to working on this committee with safety being our number one concern, but also keeping important eye on the economic growth of the aviation industry and transportation in general provides to this country. i'll be particularly concerned with the faa and all government agencies stewardship of the taxpayers' money and remain concerned at the length of time implementing new technologies like next gen is taking and how expensive that really is in the long run to both the industry

and the -- everyone in the american public in general. that's all i've got right now. i yield back the remainder of my time, thank you. >> thank you. and now representative -- administrator babbitt, we thank you for the work that went into your prepared statement, and hopefully you'll summarize it within five minutes or so and answer questions. >> well, thank you very much, chairman, ranking member costello, members of the entire subcommittee, i really want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the need for comprehensive re-authorization legislation for the federal aviation administration's programs. and before i begin my statement, i'd like to acknowledge that i see a number of new faces on the subcommittee. i've been able to meet with some of you. i look forward to meeting with the balance of you over time, and since i'm a frequent guest of the committee, i'm sure that i'll get to know all of you over

time here as we get together and discuss important aviation issues. i think i heard you all summarize very well the fact that the faa's mission is, in fact, to provide the safest, most efficient airspace system in the world, and we do it well. there wasn't a single passenger fatality in the commercial aviation system last year in the united states. that record is hard fought, and we're very proud of it. but as we move forward to meet the demands ahead, i know that we cannot be complacent, and i also recognize keenly that this congress will be extremely disciplined about how it invests taxpayer dollars. i believe that every government agency should make the business case for each investment in any of its programs, and for our part, investment in aviation is critical to this country's economic prosperity and its ability to compete successfully

in the global marketplace. strategic investment in aviation reaps benefits, and we are concerned that a failure to invest may well result in negative consequences. first and foremost, as you've noted, is always safety, and i know that some of the family members who lost loved ones in the colgan accident two years ago are here today. i want to commend their continued vigilance to push congress and to push the faa to enact more stringent safety standards. the faa has been hard at work writing the regulations required by the legislation passed by this congress last year. and while aviation is clearly the safest mode of transportation, we will never stop striving to reach the next level of safety. i, again, want to thank the family members here for their continued attention and focus on safety. part of what will get us to the next level of safety is implementing, in fact, next gen.

next gen programs and technologies will help us to be more proactive in how we analyze risk and with advanced safety management techniques, we can then take the steps to prevent accidents. one such technology adsb is a satellite-based surveillance system, deploying it in the gulf of mexico opened up almost a quarter of a million miles of new, positively controlled airspace. airspace that previously had no radar coverage. next gen will also reduce the harmful effects aviation has on the environment, while enabling carriers to operate more efficiently. for example, performance-based navigation, a term you'll hear and we call it tbn, saves fuel and reduces emission. it literally pays for itself while it helps the environment. today, we've issued more than 900 of these highly efficient

arrival and departure routes using the new technology, and we're working on a plan to further improve and streamline the approval process. more precise arrival and departure routes are a sound investment, continuing to develop and deploy next gen is central to our ability to meet the demands of the future. as we continue to focus on maintaining and enhancing aviation safety, we strive to do so in ways that facilitate u.s. business interests. businesses rely on the faa to certify their projects, and these projects range from the largest aircraft being built today to the smallest avionics box that goes in that airplane. every improvement in aviation requires certification in order to ensure safety. and failure to invest in our ability to expedite certification could result in important safety initiatives taking longer to obtain certification, and therefore taking longer for products to get to market.

the faa must be able to support the demands of the industry when they develop that next good idea. these ideas translate into jobs, so investment in these areas is extremely important. now, the faa will never permit the safety of the existing system to ever be compromised, but if that priority consumes all of the agency's resources, then our ability to support industry innovation becomes affected. and, finally, it's critical that we invest in the airports to meet what i see as an anticipated and increasing aviation demand. the airport improvement program, aip, has been disrupted somewhat as a result of these short-term extensions that we've experienced over the past few years, administrative and project costs, therefore, get increased due to the need to have multiple grants to be issued over and over again for a single project. all of the investment that we

make in routes, procedures, and certification will never eliminate the need for a place to land the airplane. we work very hard to expand capacity at our nation's airports over the past several years, and it's vital to our continued success that our investment dollars are optimized, and that can only happen through a long-term extension of the aip program. we've worked for several years to get comprehensive legislation in place. our 17th extension will expire at the end of march, and the need for stability and certainty has never been more important. i think we all understand that the challenges of implementing next gen, improving the safety and safety and efficiency of aviation come unfortunately at a time when tough investment choices have to be made. i continue to make the case that investment in aviation is important, not only to airlines and passengers and pilots and all the other airline employees and people that serve in this industry, but to the strength of

the overall economy and the businesses around the country. this committee in particular demands a lot of the faa, and rightfully so. but meeting these demands will require an investment, and i think our case is compelling, and the return on our investment is one that we -- that no one can or should ignore. that concludes my opening statement and remarks, and i'd be happy to answer your questions, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i think i would just explore two areas briefly and leave plenty of time for all the members to ask questions. and i think i would be remiss if i didn't begin by asking a question about safety, because that is the number one priority, and you are -- and your agency is to be commended for the remarkable record of the past year with no fatalities and there have been, though, as you

know, a spike up in reports of near misses and a growing concern about that. and we don't want to play got a gotcha. we do want, though, to have people know that we're concerned and we're watching, and i wonder if you could discuss that whole subject and place it in context so we understand what we're talking about. is it an improvement in reporting, so it's apparent, you know, or just what's going on with the near-miss situation? >> sure. that's a fair question. we certainly have made some very serious changes. one of the things that we have been very open about in our approach to aviation safety is asking every person, every party involved, to be very open about what happens and we have a number of reporting programs so that we can gather more information, and we have done just that. we have invited people to be open and confess the fact that they've seen an error so that we

understand what went wrong and can therefore implement a change in the system, implement a change in the training, implement a change in procedures, but we have to know what happened first. so, by implementing these programs, and some of them include abilities today to electronically track some of these operational incursions into what we would like to call, you know, safety zones or protected areas. we fully expected that we would get more reports. that was anticipated, and that's the good news. what's even more important, though, is what we have done with that information. three years ago we had no loopback mechanism, so when we found out a safety incident had happened, a near miss had happened, we acknowledged it, and at best we might go to the facility and speak about a particular procedure. today we take all of those instances, and when we see a pattern, we change the training. that's something we weren't doing years ago. so, while these -- this rise was certainly expected because we

had better and more ways and more avenues of reporting what we have taken from that is putting that information to good use with the goal being to make the system overall more safe. >> we want to be kept in the loop, too, and fully informed because we know that there's a lot of interest in this, and it is vital for everyone, both employees and the traveling public. >> right. >> and we may want to have further hearings to help explain different situations as they arise and what steps are being taken to hopefully minimize the opportunities for them to happen, again, and the like. >> i would be remiss also if i didn't acknowledge the great partnership that we're enjoying today with the members of p.a.s.s. which is one of our professional unions, as well as

nafga. both unions have joined in voluntary programs with us. it was a huge step up in safety for all of us. >> i thought i would spend a minute or two, our chairman mentioned, and it's my sense, i don't know if it's yours, but over the last year or two, there has been a growing sense of momentum toward the movement toward deploying next gen. more companies in the industry are beginning to voluntarily step forward and equip themselves. i understand the industry is equipping a lot of the new planes being made with devices or building them in such a way that they can easily be installed to minimize the cost of deploying the system, and you mentioned it in your opening testimony. we're looking forward to doing what we can in the re-authorization to focus greater -- give greater focus to

the responsibility for deploying next gen in our government and in the faa and also setting reasonable benchmarks for -- for implementing it. and we will be hopefully having a series of hearings and roundtable discussions to make it clear that what's happening and also anything that we can do to help next gen. and it's my understanding that this is not just some sort of a -- it's a technical thing, but it's also moving the industry to a whole new level. just as we saw with high-definition tv and all of the cellular and so on and so forth, this is moving from analog radar to digital satellite transponder, expanding the capacity and safety of the system, and it certainly will help the environment, and it may mean we won't have to spend as

much in physical expansion of the air because what we already have will operate more efficiently. but i wonder if you could expand on your remarks in this regard. and i understand southwest is already using it and thinks it will pay itself back within a year or so for the investment they're making in equipment. u.p.s. and fedex, a number of other airlines are using it, to the extent it is available, the new equipment that's being deployed. and the savings for our country and for the environment are enormous, and i just wonder if you could spend a bit more of talking about next gen. >> yes, sir, mr. chairman. just listening to you, you should be sitting down there. you've made my case, thank you. you've absolutely summed it up very well. we are making a great deal of positive and forward motion here, and the momentum is clearly there, and i think we need to appreciate where that

momentum comes from. that momentum comes from reaching critical mass in a number of areas, using your analogy of high-definition television, if we were to broadcast high-definition of television all over the country but nobody had a television set that would receive it, we wouldn't really have achieved much. conversely, if everyone had a television set that two receive it but we didn't broadcast it, that's the balance we're seeking as we deploy more and more stations on the ground and equip more and more airports and airport areas with the technology that it can be used in and have operators that can utilize those new procedures, that's where we see the gains. that's where we see the efficiency. and you were perfectly on track when you talked about the efficiency. the fact that we can more accurately see where aircraft are with the next gen technology and them using next gen procedures, we can use more efficient use of the airspace. you mentioned southwest, and that is a wonderful partner that

we have. and we have several that we're doing different things. we made partnerships with a variety of carriers so that they can utilize the equipment under a supervised basis. we get the information. they get the benefit of the improved efficiencies. southwest by their own accord, i'll let them announce the numbers they spent, but when fully deployed, they expect to enjoy a gain of about $60 million a year, which means they will recapture their entire investment in a period of about three years. that's a remarkable investment. if you were a small business, you would ink up for something like that. we see that same situation. we have partnerships with alaska airlines and the green skies initiative up in seattle. we have adsb fully active in several airports around the country, philadelphia and louisville, kentucky. i mentioned the gulf of mexico. people, you know, they say, well, that's the gulf of mexico. i wasn't aware until we deployed

it out there that on a daily basis, every day, we transport 10,000 people on and off oil ripping rigs every day. we did it until 1950s navigation until we deployed next gen, today they fly direct routes they are in positive airspace, they see each other and we see them. that's enormous savings in progress and safety as well. >> thank you very much. now recognize mr. costello. >> mr. chairman, thank you. administrator babbitt, i read your testimony. we have, as you know, this subcommittee has been pressing the faa and the industry to implement next gen and to move forward. we've made great progress, and i have commended you publicly for the progress that we have made. you detailed progress that we've made with the industry. i know that as you just spoke about southwest airlines, jetblue, others are coming on board and moving forward.

however, we also know that as we are meeting here today in this hearing, that the senate is debating an faa re-authorization bill that would roll back funding levels to the 2008 level. i think that members of the subcommittee and the public need to understand what the consequences of rolling back to the 2008 funding level would be on next gen, on the number of safety inspectors that, in fact, inspect repair stations today and other issues that you'll have to deal with rolling back to the 2008 levels. so, let me begin by asking you, what specifically as far as next gen is concerned, what would be delayed and what would be canceled if, in fact, you end up with a budget at the 2008 level? >> well, let me sort of take a top-down approach to that, if i could. obviously, we would protect the

safety of the current system, and we would have to this, then, prioritize and take a hard look at what moneys were left, the gap between what we have requested and the president's budget will come out next week and 2008, that gap would have to be realized somewhere. so, as i said in my opening statement, you know, we certainly are going to protect the safety of the system. but i think i could give you in general terms a few areas. one of great concern to me, we have a number of people involved in the certification of new projects and new facilities. we're seeing a new facility, for example, boeing wants to build a new plant, i believe, in south carolina. we have honda looking to build honda jets in the central part of florida. these all require certified inspectors, and if that staff was reduced, those types of projects could simply be approved more slowly. we would want them done, we would want them done right. in terms of safety oversight. we have a number of pieces of

regulations that we have either been inspired to bring forward either from our own research, direction from the ntsb or direction from this congress, and we're diligently doing those, but we want those regulations written properly. we want them to do what they were asked to do, and it's a very time-consuming process. we simply would not have the staff to do it at the pace that do today. i know what we can do today. i don't know what time in concrete terms that we could put. next gen would be in the third area. we know, and i'm pleased to say, that we are on a pretty progressive schedule today, and i'm happy to say we're meeting the benchmarks that we re-established. we did have some setbacks, but i'm very proud of how we have project oversight changes today. i'm proud of the changes we've made to adopt acquisition strategies more in line with good business practices. but given less money, then we certainly would have to, again, take a look at the priorities,

work with you and decide what is it that we can do with less of. and it certainly would slow down the deployment of next gen. the concern that i have in all of these is that it has a very direct and correlating impact on the economy. if we slow down next gen, we are projected right now, if we deploy next gen on the schedule that we have in the year 2018 we propose and we suggest that -- and people like jetblue and southwest airlines and alaska airlines are proving our case. i have a sheet here what southwest expected in the first month of operation was a 70% usage of next gen, they actually realized 91%. it's better than they even hoped. but with those time of projections and what we would save en route, we would have 1.5 billions of gallons of kerosene in the year 2018 and ongoing savings every year after of a billion of gallons of kerosene. that's a lot of emissions and

that's a lot of money, on average if kerosene is $4 a barrel, we can all do the math. it's $4 billion a year. the system we're proposing to build, you'd recapture that investment in two years. so, i don't think we should think about being penny wise and pound foolish. yes, we can save the penny, but in the end it will cost a lot of money overtime to delay a lot of what we're proposing. >> before my time is up, i have information here concerning one of the priorities of this subcommittee, the agency, and in a bipartisan way we have been pushing the agency to move forward with consolidation. because not only is it more efficient, but it will save a lot of money over time. tell me what would happen to the consolidation program at the faa with 2008 funding levels. >> well, 2008 funding levels over what we've proposed would certainly slow that down. again, you know, we would have to look at the moneys and decide what would be what would be

prioritized and work with this committee and others to make those determinations. but our consolidation adds to a great deal of efficiencies and, you know, i would note for the record, this is an agency that has sought efficiencies. i wasn't here for all of it, but i can tell you in the last five years, the federal aviation administration has saved $560 million in efficiencies we've found. we're projecting more going forward. i can talk about with more time some of the studies we're looking at but we wouldn't be able to enjoy some of those consolidations where you could bring -- >> i'm told the consolidation program would be delayed until 2014, and that there would be no construction or implementation. is that correct? >> well, if you looked at '08 versus what we had proposed, i would have to have it in front of me but that sounds reasonable. >> thank you m chairman. >> thank you. mr. graves.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i have more of a statement i guess rather than a question. i appreciate administrator babbitt we've had numerous conversations about the faa and i would just suggest and i know we've put a lot of concentration today on the airlines and next gen which is obviously affects -- all of aviation, but let's not forget, too, about the flip side to this coin and that's general aviation and the thousands upon thousands of ga pilots out there and aircraft out there that are also flying. when you talk about going to that next plateau and always achieving the next plateau in safety, i think that's a good thing, but let's also remember that there is a point also where it becomes just far too restrictive to even some cases do, you know, what people love to do in the case of flying and opening their aircraft. you can do the same thing, say the same thing about driving

vehicles around or maritime but i would like to use common sense. we've talked about that and i'm not going to get into the specifics of it here today, but over the years faa has become very much a regulatory agency and advocacy from aviation has been dropped from your mission statement but i hope regardless if it's in your mission statement or not and i know you care deeply about it, but i hope we remember that and continue to talk about the greatness of aviation and why -- how it is so safe or why it is so safe and just how important it is to this economy. that's really all i have to say. just a suggestion. i appreciate the community. >> thank you. representative johnson from texas. >> thank you very much. and thank you for appearing before us today. let me first complement you on the efficiencies of which you've shown and one of my questions

has just been answered by mr. costelo on the cutbacks. the other one is the expansion of projects involving aviation as we craft this bill. do you have any suggestions >> specific suggestions on -- >> the animotal process involving much more connectivity between the areas of transportation? >> intermodal side. i think, you know, one of the key ingredients, while we focus primarily on the airports themselves and, of course, the safety when you leave the airport, i think more and more the country in general is looking at the connectivity so we can be efficient. one of the things i think we can learn from some of our european counterparts is the way they have connected a rail system so that people can go from the city to the airport efficiently, maximize air travel when

possible and have the alternative modes. we certainly have had discussions within the department of transportation, the secretary has an intermodal council where we discuss these things whether it's light rail, whether it's transit systems, whether it's, you know, even port, adoptability for cargo, all of those get discussed, you know, at the d.o.t. level. we're certainly aware of it and we'd be willing to work with you and this committee for specifics. >> thank you very much. and let me say that the people present who have lost loved ones, this won't make their pain any lighter but there were no deaths lost in aviation last year and i'm very proud of that. so thank you. >> thank you. >> representative schmidt. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. babbitt for coming. i understand that the faa has

some discretion to amend the atp license requirements on training hours and that this is currently under review. sir, do you believe that classroom hours should count toward the 1500 hour requirement, and does the faa have a position on how much time pilots should have in the cockpit of an aircraft? if you don't believe 1500 hours of cockpit time is required, do you believe that there is a minimum number of hours that should be required? >> well, let me tell you that we are, you know, based on some direction from the last congress and this subcommittee, we are in the process in executive review right now of proposed new rule and that proposed new rule was based upon the formation of aviation rule making committee which was included a variety of sources and inputs. they have put together several of the points that they wanted

to see and thought were appropriate. we have that along and being consistent with the direction and legislation that was here have put what we gathered and created as a proposed regulation. that will be put out as a knew proposed rule making shortly. people will be available shortly to comment. i think it does incorporate. i saw the drafts. it incorporates all those levels that you talked about and it's consistent with the legislation direction that you should provide some acknowledgement for two things. number one, 1500 hours, i think was the direction of this committee. it also said you should acknowledge that classroom time is deemed to be replacement on an equal basis, people will be able to comment. additionally, military service should play a role in that. the people out defending us in combat zones come back and have a thousand hours of combat time shouldn't have to get another -- they've been defending the country, carrying our troops and doing those things, that time should be acknowledged and that

level of schokill. those will be contained within the notice of proposed rule making. >> thank you so much. the concerns that have been brought to my attention, especially continental flight 3407, really exemplify the fact that there is no substitute for training, that is so paramount with safety and i appreciate your input. thank you. >> you may recall that we put forward an advanced notice of proposed rule making before this became an issue. we sought to raise the minimum number of hours. >> representative karnhan. >> thank you m chairman. thank you again, administrator babbitt for being here. i wanted to ask about the safety management systems, proposed rule making for part 139 airport areas, and while it's critical, i agree, to have these industry wide safety standardles, have specific concerns that the

proposed rule does not propose to protect safety data that is gathered, this seems to stand in conflict to data protections that are in place for air traffic and airline safety. what steps is the faa taking to ensure this data is protected so we get to that goal of a strong industry wide safety standard? >> that's an excellent question and we've had issues with that in the past as i think you're aware. one of the areas and specifically talking to this often times we put out a regulation for comment, a proposed notice of rule making and i would acknowledge sometimes we're not perfect and sometimes we'll get feedback, very positively constructed feedback, that says i think you overlooked something. we take those into very serious consideration when we write the final rule. and while this is in that process and i'm not really at

liberty to talk too much about it, one of the things we do is go back and see how we could mitigate that issue. now as you're aware when data comes to the faa, then it's subject to discovery. and so sometimes we would -- we would approach you with finding ways to help us protect that data and do so with legislation which you have done in the past. if that's the case, there's two ways to solve that problem. one is don't let us be the holder of the data which is what most of our programs do at the carriers. so when a mechanic turns over something, he turns it over to the carrier, it's not in our hands. a safety committee looks at it, decides what's appropriate action, what's the safety improvement, that's one solution. we could possibly rewrite the guidance to say that look, it's okay that you have the data, we don't need it because it would be discoverable and, therefore, not protected. the other alternative, we would come to you and say, you know,

if we need this data, you need to make certain that the people that turn it over, have immunity in their reporting because these voluntary reporting programs are wonderful sources of data. the reason that i think we have achieved the safety record we have achieved is programs like this spanning all of aviation for mechanics, dispatchers, pilots, aircraft controllers, everyone can put their hand up when they see something wrong and report these things so we can then take corrective action. it's really important that these people be immune. otherwise they'll go back to the way things were in the '50s and hide them and won't tell us and we'll never know. >> it's critical that we have a free, nonpunitive sharing of this safety data and i think we look forward to really creating a mechanism that works, but also to be sure that as in my prior comments, that airports are not being left out of that process as well.

>> yes, sir. >> thank you. i yield back. >> representative reed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. babbitt, i have a question concerning safety and i come from a rural direct in western new york, adjacent to the district which the tragedy happened over a year ago. can you tell me exactly what the faa is doing to achieve a one-level safety standard for regional airline safety, especially in the area of pilot experience and qualifications >> as you're aware, you know, the standards of part 12 1 are equal for all carriers and the standard itself is uniform. what we found, the accident in buffalo, was that we had people performing and performing better than and so then the question became why doesn't everyone perform to that? we had a series of safety stand

downs around the nation, the secretary and i went around to ten different cities, interviewed literally thousands of pilots and aircraft operators, people from air carriers including regional and major airlines. we requested that major airlines take every one of their cochair partners and have meetings and safety share programs. we had wonderful compliance and i'm happy to sit here and tell you today that as a result of those meetings, that every carrier, every code sharing partner today, has a program which is a flight operations quality asharns which means they stream data from their airplanes so it can be read so we can see the overall performance of that. we had less than 70% compliance prior to these meetings. the aviation safety reporting programs, the asaps, again, every code sharing regional carrier today has or is in the process of being approved one of those programs which went from

about 50% to where it is today. these are dramatic improvements. the carriers themselves, the major carriers, again to their credit have stepped up and taken a very active role in making certain that they export as mentors of the larger carriers their good safety programs and we ask them to demand the same safety standards at the regional carrier they demand of themselves and the compliance has been excellent. you know, one of the things that we say from time to time, .. safety record we've achieved was not accidental. i hear people refer to all the time the miracle on the hudson. it wasn't a miracle. the airplane that landed in the hudson landed in the hudson safely because it had a superbly trained crew until cabin and cockpit, first class air traffic control, everybody was in coordination, they were flying an airplane well made and built to certain standards. obviously not enough to ingest,

you know, half a flock of canadian geese, but nonetheless that airplane landed safely because we have a system that over the years built eve >> excellent. so the regional airlines, carriers, they are bringing their standards up in your opinion? >> yes, sir. everything that we have seen we have done in addition to what i mentioned to you. we sent every -- every team had white glove or equivalent, spot checks on the training program. today every carrier, to my knowledge, every carrier requests all of the pilot training data. you may recall or may not. one the areas that we have had to work around was when you ask for a pilot's training records from the faa, in other words, their history of taking flight checks, when you turn that information over, it's yours. for someone else to request it, they have to get your approval. we suggested to the carriers, if you have an applicant who won't

replease their training records to you, that in itself ought to tell you something. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. ms. rona. >> thank you. i was interested in the competition programs. aviation is in an environment, all of the countries in places like singapore, china, where all of the wonderful, you know, state-of-the-art airports being built. we come to our international. honolulu airport makes a lot of other airports where we are falling behind in the aip program. you cite the real impact of the extension process that we've been using for reauthorization, and i would hope that with this

congress that we'll be able to come up with a reasonable, fair, and forward looking faa reauthorization. however, short of that, is there something we can do to save money in this program? because you have shown us that we are losing money. we're not being very smart about how we are proceeding with our aip program and this environment of wanting to make sure that we get the best bang for the buck. i want to ask you, short of a reauthorization, what can we do to address the aip issue that you have flagged out for us? >> well, i think one the important points that i made in the testimony to answer the question was the fact that 17 consecutive extensions and continuing resolutions have led to a lot of stopping and starting. when environment has to come to the haul, it's expensive to bring it back. people will give you a much better bid if i know i get the entire project. the runway extension costs $100

million to build you 1,000 feet of runway, it's going to cost more to build it 100 feet at a time, ten times. that's what we are returning into the constant short extensions. >> you made that case. author of long-term reauthorization, i'm hoping we will be able to get to that. is there something we can do to address the concern that you raise, which i share, by the way. >> authority of reauthorization, i'm afraid that we have to live with the fact that we can't authorize people to do things with money we don't have access to. therein lies the problem. we certainly have tried and under the stimulus act, we did, i think, a wonderful job. we had close to -- slightly over $1 billion. and we got our money out the door. the advantage that we had, we had projects in the cue. they had been environmentally approved, and we were able to go right to the bidders and got a

lot more lever only out of that. it was a tough time in the economy. and people were very aggressive with their bidding. which actually let us let more contracts. and i think we were very prudent with that money. any scrutiny that you'd like to put us under says these were handled efficiency and the taxpayers got a lot of benefit. the airports were better served and under budget. i think we do a pretty good job. just the choke on us is the short term process. >> so we know that we are a trillion, at least a trillion dollars behind in infrastructure all across the country. harbors, highways, airports. if we were to hone in on the aviation part, would you support another infrastructure stimulus kind of a bill? >> could i give you an answer that if secretary lahood if

he were sitting here would give you. i would say yes, i'd support it, but then they'd fire me. the administration has a budget that they are going to put forward. i think you'll see if the budget comes forward, there are a variety of infrastructure improvements. i think certainly share this administration's view that infrastructure is one of the areas that we absolutely have to put resources into. and nothing highlights it more in my opinion than aviation. we can do all of the improvements that we can land them, closer spacing, we can do everything in the world. at the end of the day, at laguardia airport when it's a one runway operation, you can still only land them once every 54 seconds. >> i think i'm on a same page with you. thank you. yield back. >> mr. holdren. >> thank you administrative and

chairman. i want to thank the pilot and crew that helps all of us get here safely. i was thankful on the windy day for a well trained pilot at reagan airport, hard to land in. glad to be here. thankful for the hard work that you are doing. i do recognize, as others, this coming saturday is the two year anniversary of the crash of flight 3407. instead of having passed safety legislation, do you personally feel that it's safer today to get on a regional airline than it would have been two years ago when the crash 3407 crashed? >> well, we certainly have implemented and gotten a lot of response. we have put out safety changes, advisories, and gotten a lot of compliance. those were areas that i think needed addressing. i'm appreciative of the compliance that we got from those. if those safety programs, of -- you know, themselves brought us

to a higher level, then the answer is yes. we certainly have a lot of people. we have raised the awareness. we have got self reporting which helps us to understand where the short comings are happening. even in the best of intentions, you know, procedures move and technology changes. you have to find out where things are not working well and get people to report it so you can change it. with those changes that we have in the system today, not only in the regional, but elsewhere. air traffic, a lot of procedures have changed and a constant strive to be ever safer. >> thank you. one the quick question here. there are people here who family members were victims of the crash obviously are passionate about continuing that safety and making sure we can do all we as a subcommittee and congress along with the faa to make air traffic as safe as possible. what do you see or suggest to them ways they could be helpful

to the faa? how could they provide input and come alongside and shown the commitment by being here today. what would you suggest to them to help us in the process to make sure we continue to have at least another two years or many, many more years beyond that without a fatality? >> sure. i have aprouded them publicly and privately. you can confirm this with them have had the opportunity to meet with them a number of times. and what i'm extremely appreciative of is the very positive attitude. they suffered a horrible tragedy. i lost crew members. people i worked with and learned to fly with. i've lost them. i understand. never will i understand the loss of a family member. i have to say the positive attitude they have carried, that they want to do something -- we'll never do anything to bring their loved ones back. but what they will enjoy is the legacy of saying the

contribution that we made, the positive positions that we took, the positive steps and the focus that they kept on all of us have been and will bring changes to the aviation system of improvement and safety that will be felt forever. so i applaud them for that. i think they have made an enormous impact. and they've done so in a positive, constructive fashion. >> thank you. and we all thank you as well for the work that you've done and ask for your continued input. one last thing. then i'll be done. i mentioned my district is just adjacent to o'hare. very busy airport. how quickly, shifting years to nextgen and have it with the busiest, say 35 busiest airports, how important its to see the impact.

>> sure i'd love to have a meeting with the staff members to lay out clearly. we have an expansive plan to talks about that. let me use o'hare as specific. we are already seeing some benefits there. you have two airports that we consider metroplex. midway and o'hare, midway was landing 25, but o'hare was saturated, o'hare suffered. the airspace is interlinked. today we can navigate into midway and never touch o'hare's airspace. we make them independent. think of a lot of areas. new york metropolitan. we have to sometimes, unfortunately g.a. suffers. we have to literally close teterboro, so that newark,

laguardia, and jfk, we is delink so it doesn't matter going to teterboro what's going on at new york. we are doing that today. we are seeing that type of delinkage in a number of airports around the country. and, you know, that's just one example. some of the optimized profile decents that we are using, dramatic savings in fuel. alaska airlines sites 60 gallons per approach. 60 times every time they land. they literally glide all the way in. that's -- there's a tremendous savings. ins savings in fuel, emissions, noise, the noise footprint of people doing optimized profile dissents, we can show you what goes on in louisville, kentucky. it's dramatic. as we roll these out people just -- it's not just a schematic. these are real live operations

and we deploy them as people get equipped and the procedures and training. as someone mentioned, the momentum and pace is there. it'll continue to accelerate. >> thank you. i do long forward to having the time to talk more directly. i want to thank the chairman and yield back. >> mr.ing capuano. >> thank you. i want to talk about what you can do. correct me if i'm wrong, if you roll back to 2008 levels from today's operating, it's over $1 billion with the cuts. that the figure that sounds like? >> yes, sir. >> so with $1 billion, you will not be able to do less -- what you are doing this minute? >> yes, sir. >> have you made the decisions as to what specific programs would be cut out if you lose $1 billion. >> no, sir. we certainly would want to step

back and reprioritize. we would have to, you know, protect the safety of the system as we know it today. so then we would look at -- well, now what's left? we'd have to move some of the assets over to protect the safety and integrity of our system today. then we would look back and then prioritize and certainly work with constituents to say, well, we are going to have to slow this down. >> that's why i appreciate. your priority is 100% correct. we agree after the safety is taken care of, you would still have some discretionary funds within which you'd have to make tough decisions. i would strongly suggest, mr. administrator, you are the first one i've talked to sense the new congress, i would love to hear the cuts now. i represent logan. i fly into d. c. all the time, if one the airports are being cut, i think it's fair my constituents or the constituents that fly into those airports know what is not going to be

done. if it's o'hare, somebody else? they should know what this means. as opposed to billion dollar cut which is nice round, i can't count that high. i'm not sure how many zeros there are. if you tell me the tax at logan is not being done, i have a better idea. it means something specific to me and my constituents. i would strongly suggest that you and actually the entire administration go through it. it's not a new number. the 2008 magic candle has been talked about now for months. it's coming. you know it's coming. i think it's fair to be putting faces and names and specific projects to thoughtful, not political, but thought much decisions as to what would be done with $1 billion less. so that when you go to the will and defend the faa and other agencies, that i know specifically what i'm talking about. otherwise, it's just a number. plus i think it's important for the people that want to advocate the cuts to look for the

constituents and say my constituents have to take a cut. whatever it might be. we are not going to be getting next gen quite as quickly or whatever it might be. i would strongly suggest to put real names, real items on this list thoughtfully, independently, as you would do if these cuts come through so that we in congress and so that our constituents will now what we're talking about. and i would finally just to say as you do, some of that money is discretionary. things like which noise abatement plans get done next. i would strongly suggest that you remember who was with you when the time comes to make that discretionary commentary. it has always bothered me, you said the faa got close to $2 billion in the stimulus funds. of that $2 billion, i'm willing to bet to -- bet it went to people who voted against it. i do not respect the

administration for not noticing that. the same thing here. safety, safety, off of the table. when it comes to nondiscretionary items like noise abasement, they all have to be done. which ones go first. cut out the ones of the people that aren't willing to pay for it. be honest. i'm not trying to play games. be honest and open. there's a cost to an effective faa. for thoughs that don't want to pay for it, i respect that. but it can't go both ways. i hope that you don't have to go through the cuts. i think that what you are doing is critically important. if you do, i hope you help us make the case to the american people of what they are actually suffering through these cuts. thank you very much. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. cravaack.

>> thank you. i have to say as a pilot, we lost the navigation along the pond. look at 10:00, do you see contrails? yes. follow him. that was our navigation. your safety record is to be applauded. as you know, the reauthorization bill would authorize the spending of billions of dollars to operate the faa and related programs. after reviewing several inspector general reports, i'm troubled by the repeated failure to provide oversight in management. today i'd like to focus on the 2008 contract. the faa awarded for air traffic controller and the 2007 contract awarded to itt to deploy the adsb infrastructure system. in other words to the contract.

in the first year it exceeded baseline cosby -- cost by 35%. or $38 million. and second year 18%. $28 million. they billed the faa for $35 million. but they did not have the controls from the metrics that the government received the services it was being billed. they allowed them to determine the performance in how the contractor can earn award. they said the proper award fee and incentive could have prevented the misuse of $26.6 million taxpayer dollars. inspector general lou dixon on october 12, 2010, i understand the contract was not on your watch. the report was. the report of the contract with itt and inspector general dixon

stated the faa did not conduct a comprehensive analysis before deciding the service based contract would have saved more than owning and operating the system. the faa data showed if the agency had owned the system through the first phase, the government could have saved over $600 million in the contracts initial phase alone. that's $600 million. i realize this contract, again, was not awarded under your tenure as the faa administrator. the faa employees failed to conduct proper oversight, and perform due diligence to fit into an established pattern of responsibility in administering federal contracts. i ask that you provide my staff with the names of the presently employed faa personnel that were charged with this management of the oversight and the 2007itt contract in the 2008 contract. was inspector general dixon

wrong in the assessment that the government could have saved $600 million by not entering in the service-based contract in the initial phase of the infrastructure? >> you've touched a number of things there. first, i appreciate and should acknowledge it's super to have somebody like your background on the committee. i know as a professional airline pilot and military pilot as well, you have a lot of understanding. i appreciate, and the focus that you have. one the thingss things -- let mo the answer through a couple of steps. often times the ig based on the report will go out and make a series of statements in a report which we are then allowed to respond to. and i find i have sat here in the very seat and testified to things that have been repaired or we objected to, but it doesn't change what the initial report said. we have said to them, by the way, you didn't realize they did this. oh, golly, you are right.

we didn't. that's the second half of the page. so there's a number of things that you sighted in the initial reports that we simply did not concur with and have supporting evidence of why we didn't. you know, that's the other side of the story. so, you know, i want to have the opportunity to share with you some of those instances. we did have certainly an increase in the training cost. but at that same period of time, that wasn't a static time in the environment. the controller work force had an enormous spike of like four times what was predicted in normal retirements spiked. and we had to under take one the most massive trainings in that period of time. and, yes, it did, in fact, lead to -- these were the people in charge of training. so they had to respond with additional and were authorized to. you make a good point on some of our oversight capability. i'd welcome the opportunity to spend a the bit more time and show you what we are doing to sort of upgrade ourselves to

what corporate america would expect of a well run company in terms of project oversight, acquisitions from the beginning, there were acquisitions that i have now on my watch that were made that i would never enter under the same rules and circumstances. we know better today. and we would manage the acquisition itself better today. with regard to the itt, that's a subject that we're under discussion. one the things i think people should appreciate the difference between, and this would be a corporate decision. if you and i were sitting on the board of, you know, an airline, and someone said should we lease the airplane or should we buy it? lease it for $300,000, or buy it if we have the $50 million it would take. we don't have the $50 million. there therein lies the contract. it would be less expensive. what wasn't noticed was how many

billions it would have cost to acquire the equipment to avoid that. in a company, you would make that decision. do you want to go out and borrow the money, put it in place, and save the operational cost or lease. it's the classic argument, buy versus lease. we have to make those. we are having an ongoing discussion. >> have you done the cost analysis with the traditional method with the fee per service. have you completed it? >> no, we have it in the sense that we don't get to depreciate equipment. there's no allowance and no recapture for us. we certainly try in our acquisition and certainly going forward will do a better job of laying out the differences. >> i yield back, thank you. >> thank you, mr. long. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you administrator babbitt from being here today. there's been a lot of talk about

next gen and the future. i'm concerned and today's gen. i want to go back to the chairman's original question to you about the dramatic rise in near midair collisions and controllers and operational errors up both nationally and here in the washington, d.c. area. and i believe if i understand your answer, it was because of this enough voluntary reporting system. however, in the "washington post" this was an article on december 31, about five years ago. the faa and the controller union has admitted that the self-reported errors from the new nonpunitive error reported system are not included in the official count. therefore, i don't see how that could be the reason for the rise in the official published errors. is that a correct statement? >> it's correct in the sense, remember, we're changing the overall environment. we are also asking people in the partnership for safety to admit

things that might not be an infraction. they don't need immunity. we have a much more open criminalture than five or four or two years ago. we don't necessarily use asap. they are free to report anything. they will if they think voluntary reporting might indicate their exposure and they are looking with you know, to have some not immunity but certainly coverage of disclosing this publicly, then they will file it under the asap program. we are getting a lot more reports from all corners, simply gauze we have a partnership for safety that we've engaged in. we also have a better electric observations and at places where we deploy adsb. it reports all the time, full time. not 30 seconds on a sweep. we can track operational. >> you think it's due to the increased reporting, whenever it

comes from, than actual issues that we're having. >> it's or brief -- we expected as each of these comes online, each of these enhanced capabilities, we actually expect to get more reports. maybe not a good analogy, but the one i use often is the difference between we have an intersection and, you know, for years we've been writing one or two red light tickets a week. we put a traffic camera, we got 40 people. 40 people run the light? no, we just caught all of the ones that did. remember that we have operational errors do not necessarily mean we had a dangerous lapse in safety. what it means is we have an established safety margin that we want to see respected. and an airplane in the terminal area, we like to keep them three miles a part. the airplane in front slows down. the following aircraft moves into 2.9 miles. that's an operational error.

all of the sudden the controller realizes he has a 2.9 instead of three. because somebody slowed down and didn't tell him. that's an operation nap nap -- operational error. slow down or something. that's operational. how to train so they don't happen again. >> okay. one other question about -- just curious what your action is today about the unprofessional behavior in new york their traffic controllers there. do you plan disciplinary action? >> first we are going to get the facts. people like allegations from time to time. just like everybody, we want to look into this and get the actual facts of what's going on up there. that's a very complex series of airspace. we move more traffic through it in a day than some countries move. it's an intense traffic area. i've read some of the allegations. we have team and controllers

have been open. they will work with us as well. we will get to the bottom of this. if, in fact, some of those allegations are correct, we will take disciplinary action. >> okay. again, i thank you for being here. i got routed through dallas after the super bowl. normally i think on monday they had 1900, yesterday they had 50,000, and it moved fluidly. thank you for your work. i yield back. >> thank you, representative meehan. >> thank you mr. chairman and babbitt. i'm glad you opened the issue to new york being intense. just below that representing a district that included the philadelphia airport. my county, and, you may be familiar with some of the issues with regard to that. but one the -- i just finished a goa study that looked at congested areas. their conclusion was that

regional airport planning could help address congestion if the plans were integrated with faa and airport decision making. realizing not just a class b like philadelphia, but there are other leehigh valley and atlantic city, other airports that maybe able to handle overflow from the main hub. what's your opinion with respect to the importance of the essential nature of regional planning as we deal with the issue of congestion? >> well, i think there are certainly a place for regional planning, especially in the metropolitan areas. one the things that we certainly take into consideration reliever airports that are near major airports. if they can help unburden some of the traffic that's going into a metropolitan airport. that's a good thing. the other side of that coin, of course, is the commercial reality of the carriers operating in the big airports and the connectivity of that are

traffic. someone that wants to go through, for example, newark, isn't going to be well served by going to atlantic city or airport not too close by. the connectivity plays into that. to the extent, these airports add to the overall improvement of the national airspace system. we certainly consider that. and it's not unique that you have regional planning authorities that do take into consideration and we certainly consider them -- when we talk about adding airport improvement funds. >> well, i was -- in reviewing this study, i was concerned about some of the language. if i can -- it was that the airport officials in philadelphia international stated that the airport does it's own planning without input from regional planners. this is the language of the goa study and another one airport officials in philadelphia stated that regional airport planning has little influence on the decisions made by the city of philadelphia or philadelphia international airport. and then i see a concluding

paragraph, a major hindrance is the majoring difference of airports in the region. their language. airport officials in philadelphia told us they do not want to support federal efforts, including regional airport plans that would because the city of philadelphia which owns philadelphia international does not want to lose revenue. generated at its airports to other airports. is it revenue, or efficiency question? >> well, those -- the decision that's made by the federal government whether or not to support a request by an airport authority, an airport sponsor, and remember that most of the airports in the country are owned by the cities, the counties, and in some cases the state, and they have -- they make their own independent decisions. they would then request improvements. they would use forecast and of course we do the same thing. if those forecasts indicate to us that we would improve the

overall transportation flow. we grant those requests. they are on a solid foundation of very thoughtful overall contribution to the national airspace system. but what an individual airport does, whether it wants to build a hanger on the airport or south side. those are airport local decisions and not subject to our approval. >> i thank you with the idea of airport local decisions. i'm concerned about one issue that respects the philadelphia situation. because they do have great autonomy and they have proposed expanding the airstrip to accommodation congestion. >> yes, sir. >> are you aware in the context that 78 homes are going to be taken by reported eminent domain? >> i am aware of that, yes, sir. >> sir, the power does not come from them locally. it's your power of the domain they are stepping into. they are making their own independent decisions, not using

regional association because they choose not to, but they words, not ours, because of revenue stream. your power of eminent domain is what they are using to take these homes. is that fair to the homeowners they are not looking at what the goa suggests may well be an alternative to dealing with congestion? >> well, i think that the gap in what you and i are discussing is captured in our ability to force them to join in any type of regional planning authority. we simply don't have that authority or compel them or restrict them from that. we went through a record of decision process, they made their plan, which did, in fact, include capturing some land and in the interest of expanding the overall flow and contribution to the system, it's a reasonable plan. it met all of our criteria, federally established criteria, and the decision was based on that. >> but it only looked at two things.

it only looked at two separate entrances on the status quo. it did not consider the layoff flights into, including it's own northeast in the city, less than 10 miles away from philadelphia international. >> again, the amount of one of the things you would look at in the case if you were philadelphia, how much originating and departing is your as opposed to connecting. if the airport has a high volume of connecting traffic, this is a commercial discussion outside of the authority of the faa, but having -- >> but mr. babbitt, they are using your authority to take the property. may i just ask one quick question of the chair. one last issue is in addition to this, there has been noise abasement that's been used for some of the properties. i'm sure you are aware. 78 properties potentially affected. at the same time, the airport and the faa have done noise

abasement on some 27 of those properties which are slated to be taken at a cost, i understand, it's close to $1.2. who's making that decision? >> that would be part of the record of decision as i understand the process. that the overall airport plan goes through a very, you know, high intensity, robust review which includes environmental protection, certainly the noise levels, forecast, all of those come into play. and in some cases, you can mitigate the noise levels when traffic picks up. we have some criteria. the epa has a baseline criteria. when that succeeded we have an obligation and do often go out and provide mitigation by soundproofing homes, giving them money to, you know, because the situation has changed. but in this case, the record of decision obviously was a little

stronger than that and said if you are going to make this extension, we need this land and, you know, therefore, you take this next step. >> but they are mitigating homes they are going to take. may i just ask if your staff can answer these questions? >> i'm afraid you could ask someone to yield time and be recognized. >> mr. chairman, i'll submit a question to mr. babbitt and ask. >> congressman, we would be more than happy to come over with a team and meet with you and more staff to discuss that at length. >> thank you. >> mr. langley. >> thank you. >> yes, mr. lankford. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for coming over. let me run through a couple of quick questions. there are a ballpark figure what is it cost to date to implement and what you anticipate it will cost to complete the process? i know there are multiple elements. next gen is a broad term.

what it will cost to date and cost to complete? >> well, there's a number. that's a difficult question to answer. i would probably give you a more accurate and better answer, you know, by pulling all of these figures together. it's in the multiple billions. >> right, it's a figure that i've been looking for and have not been able to find it. if there's a way to pull the figures together to give us a number to say here's what it cost to date, here's what it will cost to complete. that will be helpful. the numbers seem to be all over the board. >> too what complicated, congressman lankford, is the fact that some of these components are next gen itself. in other words, if we define next gen as the ability to communicate with the airport, november gait the airport, surveil the aircraft, and the technology that surrounds that, does it also include training for the, for example, the controllers. how about the digital communication, how about the facilities that we may have to

built, en route? all of these things support next gen. we can break that down, this is direct next gen, this is supportive, this is desirable to accelerate. >> great. tell me about the interaction between us and europe. we have the frequently two most used airspaces. how is the communication going relating to their process which is different than our process? >> right. they are looking to have their own next gen system which is the single european skies initiative. they are far more in the drawing board stables. we actually use it today. they don't. it's simply a discussion item with them. but we are in very close communication with them. for that matter, we are working with all of our international partners. it would be foolish for us to have a system that was not interoperable. we have an airplane to go from anywhere, owned by anyone in the

world, to go. >> it is going to be interoperable with europe and the relationship is there. >> yes. >> what i don't want is our commercial aircraft to have two different systems to be able to cross. >> nor do they. we've had good dialogue with them. i would say we are very, very far ahead of them. i mean we actually have, as i've noted, a number of cities, areas, the whole -- the area on the east coast of florida and the melvern area. they used next gen today. it's a wonderful system. >> relationship again, not to get off of the european conversation. i'm hearing lots of conversation about the taxation, a cap and trade type complementation happening on the commercial airline and the increased tax coming to fly into european space. are you aware of that? can you bring me up to speed?

>> yes, sir. we'd like to address those as a country. we have used ikao to address these. we don't think it's appropriate for any individual country to say we have our standards. anyone coming in here would have to live by our standards. so we have very much been active participates in ikao, we are supportive, certainly as the faa, this administration, and this country in coming up with a uniform worldwide trade or, i'm sorry, system that would acknowledge what we want to do for the environment and work on something that if you comply you'll be invited to participate, fly into any airspace, anywhere in the world. we think that's the way to go. >> terrific. couple more quick questions on it. one is dealing with the alternative fuels. there are -- again a lot of chatter about moving towards alternative fuels. research projects that have been in put into previous versions

that did not pass through. what are alternative fuels to look at and say in the authorization i'd like to see this. or are there any? >> you should be aware of a couple of initiatives. we have a clean program which is continue low energy emissions and noise. we have a great partnership with the people in the community, air phrase manufacturers working with other parts of the industry that burn less fuel. we are ahead of goal that reducing 2% annually thanks to the partnership that we have. alternative fuels fall into the same area. we have a couple of kinds of considerations. one is the quest for renewable fuels. so, you know, biofuels, areas like that. we also have the problem of existing fuels that are going to be phased out. the epa wants to eliminate led from all fuels, we have 100 low led octane that we we burn in a

number of our general aviation aircraft. i just signed the committee to put an arc together to find a suitable drop in, replacement fuel as quickly as possible so that we can move to this fuel. the issue is that we don't want to have led additives outlawed before we have the alternative fuel. i'm comfortable that working with the industry and our constituents that we will find it. we have a number of fuels today, one the problems without getting too technical, led in and of itself is a lubricant. you can replace it with nickel, the trouble is the engine life is cut in half. nobody wants that. we need the fuels to be drop in. same tank, same hose, same cash nay tours, and not have unexposure. >> traffic. if i could get a formula how

they make decisions? if that's in print to review the mitt -- metric this is how we decide. this is our plan on how we make that strategy. >> yes, sir. we have -- we have a pretty thoughtful analysis that we use and look in the geography. if we find an area that it seems -- think about it in simple terms. if we had within a 200 mile range, four or five, each one of those have backup facilities, backup generators, backup it, could we con sal -- consolidate that into one areas. ones things we've been able to do, get with our colleagues. rook, this is the business case. i'm pleased to say we have enjoyed success. we have consolidated eight facilities and did it with an agreement. so it's working.

>> thank you. my time as expired. thank you. >> mr. babbitt, thank you for coming today. i was here, my plane came in late. >> hope it wasn't our fault. >> no, everything was on time. i couldn't get one out of panama city earlier. i wanted to -- i was reading through your comments that you had shared earlier. and some very impressive numbers. and i want to commend you, you talked about approximately 750 million people through the system on an annual basis. and 50,000 flights are operated on any given day. that's an enormous success. i commend you and your staff for working to create that record. i want to ask -- i was born and raised in a home where mom always taught us an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

i want to ask questions recording your controllers and really in light of what i've seen and just the general public. so the questions that i ask are questions just my own curiosity. >> sure. >> i do not come from an aviation background. i want to ask some questions. how many -- and how many air traffic controllers does the faa employ throughout your entire system? >> right now we em employer in round numbers about 15,5500 controllers. >> so obviously in order to do the numbers that you stated in your comments, i'm sure the majority of them are blowing and going a doing a great job. in light of what we saw in the papers, again, you made reference to sending a team up to new york. i commend you. you are going to do to due diligence and gather all of the facts as any one in your position would do. i'm just wondering under what kind of scenario as far as the

disciplinary action, findings if we read about is true. people are aware, and they had responsibilities. one person was carrying on the workload of three. what are you -- i mean under what consider is there a zero tolerance? i mean we got to be ahead of the curve to make sure that wonderful success ratio continues going forward. i mean when -- is there a zero tolerance because their position is so critical to the safety record? >> yes, sir. we have taken some pretty severe actions in cases where the people have not performed to what they should have been doing. and the relationship we enjoy today with nafta, more than that not, they agree. there are no more tolerant of unprofessional behavior than we are. they have their own professional standards. that's an improving area.

aplow -- applaud them for it. professional pilots have that. just like mechanics. we can't watch everything. they can. >> everyone seems to be talking about the need to get a dollar out of a dime. i mean obviously the fiscal mess that we are in as a country, it's going to take everyone rowing and doing their part. as far as going forward, our are air traffic controllers, are they subject to the president's pay freeze that in place? >> they are subject in the sense that if we had an open agreement, yes. what the controllers have in place was a contract. it was negotiated several years ago. and, you know, by obligation by both contract law and statutory requirement, we are obliged to live up in the agreement. >> are there any other employees that are under current labor

contracts with the pay freeze stated by the president would not apply to? >> well, we entered a new agreement with another section, the noncontroller section of nafta. but because the pay freeze was in affect, we limited them to no more than anybody under the pay freeze would get. they have agreed to that. that's the difference. this was negotiated in the earlier time prior to. and, therefore, it is, you know, immune from. interestingly, the actual, without getting into details what was proposed for them in terms of a series of step raises was someone in the ballpark of what government employees would be getting anywhere. it wasn't like it was a dramatically different than what a standard person under the gs scale would have gotten. >> no, and again, i know it's going to take everyone to row to get us out of this mess we're in. because we are in a mess. and financially so.

i guess my question is not to pick on them or -- i'm just saying, you know, going forward, i would say that someone in your position you want to make sure it's fair andic -- and equitable that everyone is doing their part. >> sure. i appreciate that. we have billions of dollars of contracts with contractors. i'd love to go back and say have you heard about the president's pay freeze. i don't think they'd be any more receptive, you know, than the rest of the world. >> mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time. thank you, sir. >> thank you. thank you all. it's been a good hearing. we appreciate the decisions of all of the members of the subcommittee. just one quick questions, i'd be remised if i didn't ask if you could comment briefly on any of the opportunities and generals already general aviation committee of the next gen deployment? >> sure. i think that's one the areas

that i think we have to do a better job of explaining the advantages. one the things that we really look forward to is the opportunity for people in general aviation to absorb information on board the aircraft that would otherwise never be able to them. we broadcast weather that would give them a depiction of whether it's better than you'd get with airborne weather that they simply could not achieve. but the most important we have tens of -- well, not tens of -- but thousands of airports around the country where general aviation operations go in and out every day. those airports don't have a volume of traffic that could justify putting in an instrument landing system. we'd have to maintain the ground equipment to do it. with next gen all we need to do is design the approach once. there's nothing to maintain. we can give literally thousands of airports guidance, vertical

and horizontal guidance for a very, very min mull cost. we are talking about the smallest airports. airports that are just below the size that could command that, someone with a business jet who won't keep their airplane, or might have to go there to deliver parts or something now has an approach. they can provide services to the town that they otherwise couldn't and they'll get that with next gen. the ability of the helicopter. they can fly and see the other helicopters out over the gulf. they had no ability to do that before. they can sequence themselves visually with digit tat help. all of these things are great aids for general aviation. good example is what goes on down at every riddle. all of those aircraft safety training areas are very complicated for us in general aviation. where you have students literally sometimes 30 and 40

aircraft into a training area. and their are maintaining separation visually. and they are doing maneuvers. that's very complicated. with next gen, kill is see the other airplanes. tremendous improvement in safety for them. that's just a tip of the iceberg. there's a lot of safety enhancements that come from general aviation. i think as time goes on, they are seeing more and more of the benefits. our obligation is to explain it to them better. i think once they appreciate all of the benefits, they are going to appreciate the acceleration a lot more. >> hello again. thank you very much. i will be holding another hearing tomorrow. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, sir. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the house energy committee is drafting legislation that would take away authority from the epa to regulate greenhouse gas --

>> now speeches by german chancellor angela merkle and david cameron last weekend. prime minister cameron criticize ed british, saying it weakened the national identity and encouraged muslims to live separate lives. >> you have the floor. [applause] >> translator: well, ladies and gentlemen, david cameron, among all of the guests, i'd like to single out the host of yesterday's dinner, actually it was a legion, and it it -- luncn and it lasted for six hours. we did get some success in the end. i'm pleased to begin attending

the munich security conference at a time, which i think we would all agree, is a very thrilling one. the last decade of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century i believe one can safely say have in many ways completely changed the face of the world as we know it and the postwar period. at beginning -- and we're getting more and more aware of this. at the beginning of the '80s, and '90s, and we really like to remember that freedom finally found it's way and broke ground. the end of the soviet union, the end of the cold war, the end of the bipolar world. all of this happened in a sort period of time and left stratus still visible today and symbolism, the fall of the

berlin wall that's widely perceived as the end and also the opening of the -- and reagan would have celebrated his 100 anniversary. i would like to remind all of you that he was one the few to say this openly when i met -- heard him and i would like to remind you on the other side of the iron curtain, i thought, well, i mean many people have said many things. but the fact that this then turned into reality so quickly was not something that a lot of people had predicted at that point in time. now nato has now a more important role, the blocks that used to divide this world into are no longer in existence. the world in my ways have become a more complex place to be and one where it is harder to make any phase predictions. and then freedom actually was able to win the day. and was unstoppable. then the first decade of the

21st century we saw a number of environments happening that actually made us land back on the hard floor of reality. there was books were written by the end of the 21st century about the end of history as we knew it at the very latest with a balkan wall, it would be clear it would not be quite this way. then we have the 11th of september 2001, 9/11 as it is commonly known, we'll look back on this as a big economic crisis. one that we hadn't seen for decades. which actually laid open accesses of the market of the free forces. and we also saw a third phenomenon. i do think this did play a role at the end of the '80s already when these changes were in europe.

the breakthrough of a new technology. of information technology, because at the beginning of the '80s, and the end of -- at the and of the '80s and beginning of the '90s, information was more widely accessible than in the past. and this is going to change the world as we know it. and maybe it's very difficult to actually predict this twitter, facebook, the social networks, no one on this planet can actually hide what he's doing. no person can be hidden and everything is actually out in the open. and these days, in particular, this is something that could not be foreseen, the new plan. again we see images on television screens that remind us in many ways what we see. people who dare go out and people who dare to get rid of their fears and to say what they feel is an injustice and to say this openly and who would we be

if we were not siding with these people who are saying openly what is the distressing them? this is why we are saying it so clearly. it is absolutely indispensable that those freedoms that we hold to be universal, freedom of press, freedom of opinion, freedom of journalism be upheld not in the europe, in the united states, all over the world, those in responsibility in egypt are also called upon to ensure that these rights are respected.

and then we reunite how much of the work there was still to do we were actually quite happy there were a number of people who had prepared the ground carefully so shape and -- change needs to be shaved carefully and we said so yesterday in the european union we wish to forging a partnership to help them shaping this change. we are the neighboring region to the post. we have the foundation is there, we have of contact with what civil society and i also address this issue with hillary clinton and the united states and europe to work together on this closely and we want to do this and i see this as our obligation. now we've also made a different

experience the last decade of the 21st century we should always remind us looking in tunisia and other places what we have seen and was the consequence of 9/11, the conflict in iraq, the conflict in afghanistan we have seen that the democracy and say this knowing full well the prime minister is with me that supporting this on a one-on-one basis were not all over the place, so we are -- it is incumbent upon us to help and we also have to say what actually can we expect to happen in other places and what can be transferred to the other countries culture and civilization and we cannot tamper with it. and there is one red lion we shouldn't close the convention

of human life of the united nations. all of the member countries of the international community have subscribed to this, so respecting the dignity of the individual, there should be no compromise whatsoever. [applause] now what does this mean? what this means for most everything we do that we need to ask ourselves have we always come this sufficiently? everything we do, we need to uphold the principles, the human rights wherever we go and whatever we do by way of cooperation with others. it also means, let me say this quite clearly, that we cannot simply change the world or shape the world to be completely in line with human life. tomorrow, so this is where the

foreign and security policy is facing great challenges. let me say quite clearly, we are on the one hand duty bound to pursue a policy that is based on values and on the other hand to see to it that this is a stable and on secure environment and there are sometimes contradictions what they should not accept compromises that leave respect for human rights out. all of the negotiations in which i ever participated, the mediterranean policies on the neighborhood, the policy of the european union, we have always upheld our principles and stood by those principles and they said yesterday in the e.u. we are going to abide by these even more so whenever we give financial support. now let me come back to the past two decades of the transatlantic

relationship. as i said, freedom has now been victorious and we share values on both sides of the atlantic but still we underwent certain difficult for a seat on the war of iraqi coup were certain misunderstandings and we also had success is that i would like to mention. when i as chancellor attended the conference for the first time i talked about the wish that nato should yet again be a place for political discussions, not only military discussions and we've been able to do that, it will to carry that one. we have a new security concept which is a clear-cut one, the concept that covers military issues and also political ones. we together went to afghanistan and we agreed on the concept of

as we called it network security or innovative approach and we said clearly that we will stand together in fighting international terrorism that has been our greatest challenge ever since 9/11, and we stood together and never trans-atlantic relationship. but there's something else that we realized, namely that is the international conflict between the united states and europe can be solved. we have in afghanistan many allies that stand shoulder to shoulder on the cooperation issues. we have the talks and the six-party talks on north korea in the middle east. we set up a corridor where the united nations and russia play an important role. with russia we have the partnership of completely

different quality that is now actually planning the end of the cold war into the tangible reality that although we still had to discuss the issues related to human rights, and we also have learned that international terrorism on is something we cannot fight without cooperation with the states like saudi arabia, yemen and also eject the past to mention a few. this is why i also tell you for we have the responsibility on on the one hand within nato we continue this pillar of alliance and to see to it that it's capable of meeting the challenges of the day because the challenges of this tension were not here 20 years ago. we did not have these questions

related to the international terrorism at this tension at the time. but we know the transatlantic alliance although nato alone will not be able to solve the big conflict in the world today. we need partners all over the world, and we need to take care to draw those partners because this is a multipolar world because new forces have to take over and new responsibilities, so now let me come to the global economic crisis, the global financial crisis and these new forces in the world. i've always said there's a new deck of cards on the table and it's a new ball game as it were, and that's exactly what happened. if you look at economic cloak, the so-called emerging countries are far stronger these days than they used to be and they are

going to gain importance, and this means that exactly those in emerging countries that have such a growing economic importance also have to be found to the compound into more responsibility, security policy responsibility and i am firmly convinced of this and this is why it was important to have china and russia supporting us on the distinctions. this is why it is important that for the six-party talks china has played such an important role and then it may be difficult and arduous that we in the transatlantic process ought to say time and again the responsibility has to be taken over more and more and have more of an economic importance. ladies and gentlemen, i and firmly convinced, let me not beat around the bush, there are certain challenges to which we have no convincing response. nato, the concept that the new strategic concept is quite rightly laid out in this concept that cyber defense and

cyberattack loom very large on the agenda. we have to learn how to respond to this challenge. it's not a sort of classical military threat as we have known it. i mean, terrorism is difficult because people are ready and willing to sacrifice their own life. with cyberattack we have the situation where the military and technical, military and technical interplay if you like in a completely new shape and form, so we will need international agreement that allowed us to meet this challenge of a cyberattack. if we then come to agreements the spring to be an escalation and the spiral, people will try to mount high your defenses we will raise money on this without

seeing nomani on the ground and we will not be able to solve our problems so we need to reflect how to come to international agreements as well. now has the concept of the network security or integrated approach to security is something that needs to be built on because we have learned over the past it is also that military solutions alone will not pacify this situation for the duration during the cold war with the military action as such did not happen to that extent, but the present situation tells me that there has to be some concept of integrated security of network security. and we also have to deal with the challenges that of information technology is offering. i mean, i don't want to comment on the -- [inaudible]

the discrepancies there were in the united states and the european. their too we have to find ways how the individual's right to information and determination as we call it in german and the necessary defense against terrorist attacks for the veto are balanced in such a way. the transatlantic pooler will not allow us to solve each conflict in the world. that is another acknowledgement we have to make. i am convinced we need to contribute to a situation where others will also be in a situation that will enable them to solve their own problems. for a symbol in the african union we can share with them our experience but there is no way that we can help them from the ivory coast and the other transatlantic alliance is and help them with not too little

reaction in most cases though this will not possible also peace missions were not always welcome. but trying to render them capable of creating peace and maintaining peace, that is something that we ought to be able to do. the past two days we have been trying to reflect on what we have done wrong regarding the system now seems to be fragile and even collapsing but maybe we need to reflect on what we have been able to also bring into this world, the technical advances that change your life. they come from the internet, the computer, they all come from the liberal societies come from three creativity of the intellect, from those societies where you're allowed to have optimistic that this respect the dignity of each individual that allows each individual to unfold

his or her capacity to begin to spurring those abilities to their is still the best possible system that will allow us to fight against terrorism and against attacks and those liberties, so even when we take time and reflect what have we done wrong we can also say we have been able to allow a number of things to can and given in the world today. the internet is getting more difficult to block the freedom of information and also is something we have brought to this world and if we remind ourselves of the transatlantic pillar can do a lot to move the world to the better although we still have a lot to do. thank you very much. [applause]

[applause] >> translator: thank you very much, madam chancellor. i would now like to give the floor to the prime minister to read just one reminder, those who would like to ask questions or comment, you have two possibilities. first you can raise your hand and wave your hand so i can see you and there's a much more subtle way on the question cards that you have found in your folder that will automatically be on the speakers' list. you will have time to discuss later. now i ask you, prime minister,

to take the floor. [applause] >> thank you very much. it is a great honor to speak. this is my first unit security conference, and to speak at a conference that is older than i am so it is a great honor to be here. [laughter] it is a particular honor to be here with my friends, the german chancellor. she has told you about the day yesterday in the european council. my wife calls me in about 8:00 last night and says darling, where have you been all day? i said i have been having a six hour lunch with my friend from germany, angela. i said don't worry, there was also a man from belgium as well. [laughter] now today i want to focus my remarks on terrorism. first let me address one point. some would suggest that by

holding a strategic defense and security review, britain is somehow retreating from an it is the opposite of the truth. yes, we are dealing with our budget deficit. we are also making sure. britain will continue to meet the nato to% target. we will still have the fourth largest military defense budget. and at the same time, we are putting that money to further use focusing on conflict prevention and building a much more flexible army. that is not retreat. every decision we take has three aims in mind: first, to continue to support the nato mission in afghanistan, second, to reinforce our actual military capability, and chancellor merkel's government is showing

in germany. what matters is bureaucracy which europe needs a lot less of, but the political will to build military capability is as nations and allies that we can deliver in the field. third, we want to make sure that britain is protected from the new and serious threats to read that is why we are investing in a national cybersecurity program that i know that william talked about yesterday, and we are sharpening to act on the proliferation. the biggest threat that we face comes from the terrorist attacks, some of which are sadly carried out by our own citizens. it is important to stress that terrorism is not linked exclusively to any one religion or ethnic group. the united kingdom still faces threats from the republicans in northern ireland and the have occurred recently in greece and italy and of course in germany

from the red army faction. we should acknowledge that this threat comes in europe overwhelmingly from young man who follow a completely approvers war of islam and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens. last week's examples, i rang the alarm bell for the urgent europe to recover its economic dynamism, and today the subject is complex my message on security is stark. we will not defeat terrorism simply by the actions we take. europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own country strengthening has said the security aspects are the response basing plots on stopping them come on the counter surveillance and intelligence gathering. now this is just a part of the

answer. we've got to get to the root of the problem and we need to be absolutely clear on what the origin of the terrorist attacks are coming and that is the existence of an ideology is extremism. and we should give you to detail debate -- give great detail what we mean. islam is a religion observed devoutly why over a billion people. extremism is a political ideology by minority. those who backed terrorism to promote the ultimate goal and infer islamist realm governed by the interpretation move along the spectrum and you find people who may reject various parts of the extremist world view including a real hostility towards the western democracy and the values.

it is vital that we make the distinction that religion on the one hand and ideology on the other time and again people equate the two and they think whether someone is in extremis dependent on how much they observe their religion. they talk about moderate muslims as if all devout muslims must be extremist. someone can be a devout muslim and not be an extremist. we need to be clear, islamist extremism and islam are not the same thing. i think this is a significant problem when discussing the terrorist threat we face. so much modeled thinking about this whole issue. on the one hand, those on the hard right to ignore the distinction between islam and islamist extremism to say that islam and the west are irreconcilable, that is a crash

of the civilizations. so what follows we should cut ourselves off from this religion whether that is through the false repatriation by some fascists or the banning of the new mosques as it is in some parts of europe. these people call with xenophobia, and i completely reject the argument. if there was western islam can be an tire entirely compatible the should look at the past few weeks on the streets. hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right of free elections and democracy. the ideology of extremism is the problem. islam is not. picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to help us confront the former. on the other hand, those are on the soft left who ignored this distinction and won all muslims together compiling a list of

grievances and argue that if only the government address the grievances, the terrorism would stop. so they point to poverty that so many muslims live in and say get rid of this injustice and the terrorism will end. but this is not the fact that many of those found guilty of terrorist offenses in the u.k. and elsewhere have been graduates of the middle class. they find grievances about the western foreign policy and say stop writing over the muslim countries and the terrorism will end. and there are many people, muslim and non-muslims alike who are angry about the foreign policy that don't result acts of terrorism. they also point to the unelected leaders across the middle east but say stop troubling these people and stop creating the conditions for extremism to flourish. but this raises the question is did the lack of democracy that is the problem?

why are there so many extremists in free and open societies? i'm not saying that these issues of poverty and grievance about foreign policy are not important. yes, of course, we must tackle them. we must tackle policy. yes, we must resolve the sources of tension not least of palestine. yes, we should be on the side of openness and political reform in the middle east. of the opposition should be clear. we want to see the transition to a more broadly based settlement with the proper building blocks of a free and space society. i simply don't accept they have a dead-end choice between the security state on the one hand and is long on another. but let asa los not fool ourselves, these are contributing factors. even if we sort it out, all of the problems i mentioned, they would still be just terrorism. and i believe the route lies in

the existence of the extremist ideology. and i would argue an important reason so many young muslims are drawn to it, some of them question identity. what i'm about to say is draw from the british experience that i believe there are general lessons for us all. in the u.k., some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional islam practiced at home by their parents whose customs seem transplanted to the modern western countries. but these young men also find it hard to identify with britain, too, because we learned the weakening of our collective identity. under the doctrine of the state multiculturalism, which is encouraged different cultures to live separate lives apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. we feel to provide a vision of society which they feel they want to be long. we have even tolerated the segregated communities became in

ways that runs completely counter to our values. when a white person holds objectionable racist views for instance we condemn them but will likely unacceptable views or practices we have been too cautious frankly even fearful to stand up to them. the failure for instance of the forced marriage the fact is some young girls or bullied and someone who they really don't want to is the case in point. the trends of tolerance have only served to reinforce and not enough is shared. and this leaves some beyond muslims feeling ruthless in the sense for something to belong to and believe in to the extreme study of what she. sure, they don't turn in to terrorists overnight but what we see in many european countries

is the process of radicalization meeting places where attitudes are shared and preachers of hate share the information about the plight of muslims elsewhere and groups and organizations led by young dynamic leaders encourage muslims to define themselves in terms of their religion. these interactions can engender the sense of community of what the white society has failed to supply. you might say as long as they are not hurting anyone what is the problem with all this? i will tell you why. as evidence emerges about the background of those coveted of terrorist activities it is clear that many of them were initiated by what some have called

non-violent extremism. they then took those radical beliefs to the next level by raising violence and i see that this is our approach to these abusing the path and if we are to defeat this threat it is time to turn the page on the policies for the past. so first, instead of ignoring this extremist the a witchy, we as government and society has got to confront eight and second, instead of encouraging people to live apart we need a sense of national identity open to everyone. first, confronting an undermining of the scientology, whether they are violent in their means or not, it must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed and to do this we must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries.

we must also prescribe organizations that insight terrorism against people at home and abroad. governments must be shrewd in dealing with those where we are non-violent or some cases the problem. we need to think harder about who is in the public interest to work with. some seek to present themselves as a gateway to the muslim community despite doing little to combat extremism. as others have observed this is turning to the sort of more right wing fascists violent white supremacist movement we should judge these organizations. do they believe in universal human rights and people of other faiths? do they believe in equality of all and democracy and people to elect their own government and encourage subornation? these are the sort of questions

we need to asked and the presumption should be not to engage with these organizations. mo sharing at home. the same time we must stop them from reaching people in the publicly funded institutions like universities or even in the british case. some say this isn't concurrent with free speech and intellectual increase. take the same view if these were right wing extremists would you advocate the action who believe that muslims are the enemy or leading groups in prison and to those who save them on violent extremists are helping to keep him on the vulnerable men violent i say nonsense. would you allow the far right group to share public funds you were young white men.

at root challenging this ideology means exposing its ideas for what they are and it is completely unjustifiable. we need georgia terrorism is wrong. we need to argue they are made more religion against the rest of the world are nonsense. the extremism we face is a distortion to these arguments must be made by those within islam. the fast unheard of this by the extremists and the world view. the group's share the aspiration societies and identities at home. we need less of the recent years

and more effective. the society says to its citizens as long as you obey the law it stand neutral between the different and a genuinely liberal country does not fall it believes in certain values free of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, resources schiraldi. it says to the citizens this is what defines us as a society. for each of us in our own countries believe must be an ambiguous and hard-nosed about the liberties. there are practical things we can do as well. the language about the new home. we are introducing.

the two month program from different backgrounds to live and work together. we should encourage meaningful participation by shifting about power away from the state that we the common purpose can be formed as people come together in the neighborhood and build stronger pride and identity so people feel free to say yes on muslim, hindu, the christian, too. it's that identity, the feeling of belonging in the countries is the key to achieving. what me and with this. the terrorism has been thrust upon us. it cannot be ignored or contained. we have to confront it with confidence. come from the ideology that

drives the ideas that walks in the minds of the root and confront the issues of identity standing for broad generous issues in the country's. none of this will be easy. we will need stamina and it won't happen at all if we act alone. this ideology crosses all continents and we are all in this together not just on her lives, it is our way of life. that is why this is a challenge we cannot avoid. it is one we must rise to it and overcome. [applause]

>> thank you very much, prime minister. we have 15 minutes or so media few more for our discussion and one would like to propose to the two speakers that we take maybe two or three

have been recalled since reports of unintended exultation were surfaced.

transportation secretary ray lahood talks about the results of the ten month study looking into the problem. this briefing is about 45 minutes. >> why good afternoon. welcome and thank you for coming. at the department transportation our fundamental mission to help americans moved safely from one place to another. although accidents or crashes can and will happen, our obligation, the responsibility with which the american people have entrusted us is to helpaccs prevent accidents. our chargeable all this to save lives. as long as president obama and i are on the job, we will neverl takenevest lightly. for their safety for granted. and i said over and over when it comes to safety we will not take

a back seat to anyone. in service of this commitment and that congress' request, we launched to unprecedented studies into unintended acceleration in toyota automobiles, and in america's fleet of cars over all. we asked a straightforward question, can automotive electronic systems possibly cause unintended acceleration. one study, the national academy of sciences exploration of unintended acceleration across america's fleet continues. the other study, our partnership with masses, engineering and safety center has now come to a close. today, we can say clearly and affirmatively that nhtsa,

america's traffic safety organization, was right all along. as we stated last year, there are only two real world causes of high-speed unintended acceleration in toyota's. first, some toyota formats and trap drivers gas pedal while their vehicles were in motion. second, so-called sticky petals made some toyota acceleration too slow to release. as a consequence, toyota has issued recalls and paid for repairs on nearly 8 million cars or trucks. and nhtsa has leveled record wrecking civil penalties on the company because it failed to respond to these critical safety concerns in a sufficient,

sufficiently timely manner. our conclusion that toyotas problems were mechanical, our conclusion is this. toyotas problems were mechanic mechanical, not electrical. and it comes after one of the most exhaustive, thorough, and intensive research efforts ever taken. nhtsa's best and brightest engineers, our nation's leading electronic specialists, men and women who work with the space program rigorously examined nine vehicles in which consumers reported unintended acceleration. they pored over more than 280,000 lines of software code looking for potential flaws that could initiate an unintended acceleration incident. they bombarded vehicles with

electromagnetic radiation to see whether it could make electronic systems cause the cars they control to gain speed. and they, along with nhtsa, worked meticulously day and night to get to the bottom of unintended acceleration. when we talk about nhtsa's safety first focus, this is what we mean. it's why we saw more voluntary automotive recalls during 2010 than in any previous year, a total of 20.3 million vehicles. it's why we received an all time high number of consumer complaints, closely reviewing each and every one and it's why we have worked the clock to keep american drivers and passengers safe. so let's be clear. the jury is back.

the verdict is in. there is no electronic-based cause for unintended high-speed acceleration in toyota's, period. and this morning -- excuse me, this afternoon with safety experts from nasa and nets are on hand to review the salient and supporting details with you. to address nasa's findings we have mike kirsch, principal engineer at nasa's engine and safety center who led this first of its kind study, to address the thousands of complaints that nhtsa received and the methodology with which nhtsa carried out the research we have ronald medford, the agency's deputy administrator. to explain nhtsa and the departments next step we have david strickland, nhtsa's administrator. and, finally, we will be happy

to take questions after their presentations. let me close by saying this. i am deeply, personally grateful to the dedicated safety professionals at nasa and nhtsa who conducted the study with extraordinary rigor, immense skill, and unwavering attention, and absolute integrity. it was an enormous task, but they have set the standard for thoroughness, and we are appreciative. so with that, mike, please present nasa's information. >> thank you, mr. secretary, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work is such a broad audience today. as the secretary said i'm a principal engineer in the nasa engineering and safety center. i work out of langley research center in hampton, virginia, about four hours southeast of

here. principle and jeers are multidisciplined engineers and provide project management for multidisciplined tasks in our organizations. it like to start the presentation with a summary of our outcome. the bottom line is that nasa analysis and testing did not find evidence that malfunctioned in the electronic throttle control costs large unintended acceleration's by described by consumer reports. and now i'd like to discuss how we arrived at our conclusions. deception i will provide a backup on a messaging and safety center. background and goals of the study. the approach of the study, our technical evaluation strategy. i'll give you a subset of finding and observations from our final report, and then wrap it up with an executive summary. the nasa enduring and safety center was established in 2003

in response to the space shuttle columbia accident. the goal was to enable complex problem solving using experts anywhere in the world. this approach allows the best engineers and their respective disciplines to apply their expertise in tough technical problems. dna -- independent assessment since its inception. nasa begin discussions with nhtsa in march of 2010. the scope will determine if there were designed vulnerabilities in the toyota electronic throttle control that could possibly cause unintended acceleration that can be realistically expected to occur in consumers use of these vehicles. two critical components of that scope, vulnerabilities that lead to unintended acceleration and our realistically expected to occur in the consumers use. nasa formed a team with indian experts and systems, avionics,

software, electromagnetic interference and human factors. some of the best engineers in their respective disciplines from across the country, experts from nine of 10 nasa centers where participating. we worked directly with nhtsa's automotive experts and this made for a very powerful team. we have some guiding questions during our study. what specific conditions, both internal and external are necessary for the failure conditions to occur. are those conditions evident in reported cases. what physical or electronic evidence did the failure produce. what are the expected ranges in severity. and could defend have any effect on any other interfaces such as the braking system. the nasa team received and evaluated threesome outside nhtsa and outside nasa. the nasa team evaluate consumer

reports and warnke returned data while studying how the electronic throttle control works. we studied over 900 vehicle and questionnaires in detail and read many more. we were looking for clues that would help characterize the failure affects. the model year 2005 toyota camry was identified as a vehicle to study in depth. can have the highest production volume and high number of consumer reports in the malia 2005 was selected because it contained impose both from the earlier design and the later electronic throttle control system. from the nhtsa consumer reported a majority majority of the consumers described large throttle openings with degraded braking and did not leave a trace or a diagnostic trouble code. therefore, the nasa study focused on identifying failure modes that could result in large throttle openings may not generate diagnostic trouble code or leave a physical trace. the technical strategy was analyzed with the system to

understand how it is supposed to work and then export how it might fail. we were given unrestricted access to all toyota proprietary design details, including engineering schematics, circuit board layouts and software for source code. we had ready access to toyota engineers both in the u.s. and in japan any time we had questions. the nasa team assembled and tested critical electronic throttle control components in the system include the accelerator pedal, the throttle body and electronic control module to understand how that system might fail. disallow the team to develop an empirical understanding of the system in the lab which coupled with design information enabled a detailed understanding of the entire system. the nasa software team modeled the code, ran the code on simulators and subjected the code to automate code checkers. the nasa team that access to vehicles purchased by nhtsa from consumers with a sentence of

unintended acceleration, and these vehicles were examined for signs of failure and were also used to validate our understanding of the system and to characterize the effect of these failures that were induced in the system. the nasa team also perform electromagnetic interference testing on these same vehicles obtained from consumers that have filed consumer reports with nhtsa. i will roll into the findings now. our first finding, there are safety features designed into the system to guard against large unintended acceleration from failures. multiple independent safety features include detecting failures and initiating safe modes such as home mode and to cut strategies. there were no electrical failures in the electronic throttle control that impacted the braking system era however pumping the brakes at full throttle will cause loss of vacuum assist. this effect would be seen if you had entrapped pedal.

this mode is not unique to toyota vehicles. there were no failures found in the software that would unilaterally cause unintended acceleration. there were no credible vulnerabilities identified from electromagnetic interference testing that would cause unintended acceleration. to create large unintended acceleration, two independent panel signals need to falsely indicate that the panel has been pressed. this requires two independent failures that the failure detection system would not detect. these days must be in precise ranges in the correct circuit in the correct time sequence. if you fail to meet any of these restrictive conditions, the vehicle will generate a diagnostic trouble code. we would expect to see signs of this failure in warranty claims if this type of failure were occurring. our review of warranty data did

not indicate an elevated occurrence of this diagnostic trouble code relative to the number of reports of unintended accelerations. the nasa team did perform destructive analysis from a failed pedal to the consumer vehicle. they had a vehicle that had the check engine light come on and we found an electrical short between the two pedal signals. this failure mode combined with driver input could cause the throttle to jump slightly your however in all cases releasing the accelerator pedal stop the effect and vehicle braking was not affected. and although the vehicle would operate, it was not considered drivable. for cases of this failure mode were found in the review of the vehicle under questionnaires and warnke returned data, and in all cases the check engine light came on and the consumer had the vehicle prepared -- repair. more recent pedal design from 2000 later were found to guard against this type of failure.

i'm going to shift to observations. observations are conclusions that are sort outside the scope of the study or are unsubstantiated by evidence. my first observation it was absurd that failures of safety critical systems and electronic throttle control do not provide the same driver information as failures in safety critical braking system. this is also not unique to toyota vehicles. for example, failures in the brake system get a unique red warning light while a generic check engine light occurs for failed in the electronic control system. the same check engine light illuminates for a loose gas cap. diagnostic trouble codes were intended for a mission control and are not mandated for safety critical failures. it was also absurd to vehicles that are offered with the failure of susceptible to the effects of the second failure. no evidence was found that the failures occurred in vehicles with reported unintended acceleration. to summarize, nasa detailed

analysis and testing did not find evidence that malfunctions in electronic throttle controls caused large unintended accelerations as described i some consumer reports. nasa found a way that electronic throttle could fit with combined driver input can cause the throttle to jump but the failure rate is very low and it leaves evidence to reoccurrence. we also felt ways that electronic throttle control can fail in very small throttle openings up to five degrees. our detailed study can't say it's impossible, but they so the testing and analysis performed we find that malfunctions in electronics are an unlikely cause of large unintended acceleration. now i'd like to turn over to ron baker, deputy administrator for the national highway traffic safety administration. >> thanks, my. good afternoon, everyone. first let me thank mike and the team at nasa for all the hard work that they have done for us here at nhtsa on the issue of

toyota electronic throttle control system for vulnerabilities. our focus at the national highway traffic safety administration have worked very closely with them over the last several months, and i have to say that we could not have had a more intelligent, dedicated or capable group of people working on this issue. and i think nasa's conclusion bears repeating. there is no electronic-based calls for unintended high-speed acceleration in toyota's. before we enlisted nasa's help, last year we already had to evaluate potential causes of reported unintended acceleration for several years. details are at work include the research and potential causes of unintended acceleration are in the report we are releasing today. we identified to vehicle-based mechanical causes of unintended

acceleration in toyota vehicles. the first one, pedal entrapment, occurs when the accelerator pedal becomes trapped in a depressed position by an all weather format. the second, sticky accelerator pedal, can hold accelerated in a depressed position or caused to return slowly after the driver takes their foot off the pedal. at our urging toyota recalls nearly 8 million vehicles that could potentially have been affected by these failures. to make sure the scope of the pedal entrapment, sticky pedal recalls was broad enough to address all the vehicle-based causes of unintended acceleration known to toyota, we analyze tens of thousands of toyota documents. we did not find any previously unknown potential causes of unintended acceleration in any of the data. we turn to her own databases and

scrutinize consumer complaints and toyota warranty data in great detail. not surprisingly, we found that publicity surrounding our investigations, the recalls and congressional hearings on the subject played a major role in the volume of complaints received. you can see on the chart in back of me that our toyota complaint volume spike in march 2004 when we first opened a widely publicized investigation for the electronic throttle control. complaints ramped up again in september 2009 through the end of march 2010. that time period witnessed the fatal crash near san diego in late august 2009. at florette entrapment recall in early october 2009, an expansion of the recall as well as the

sticky pedal recall in january of last year. and, finally, the congressional hearings shortly thereafter. we receive the majority of the complaints after the recall and almost half of those came in favor and march of 2010. i want to draw your attention to some important numbers in our vehicle complaint database. of the 9698 unintended acceleration complaints, 1998-2010 model year vehicles, only 3054 were unintended acceleration complaints about toyota vehicles. in other words, about two-thirds of the unintended acceleration complaints to nhtsa spanned the entire automotive fleet. unintended acceleration is not exclusive to toyotas. the vast majority of the unintended acceleration complaints of toyota vehicles involved incidents with the

vehicle was stationary for traveling at very low speeds, and the driver claimed that the vehicles suddenly accelerated and the brakes didn't work. we found when the complaint alleged that the brakes didn't work, or that the incident began when the driver stepped on the break, what most likely happened was pedal misapplication. the driver stepped on the gas rather than the break or in addition to the break. field inspections of vehicles involved in unintended acceleration incidents during 2010 supports this analysis. we inspected 58 vehicles. 18 were excluded for various reasons, including the lack of event data recorders. but in the remaining 40? is no vehicle-based defect could be identified as the cause of those crashes from 39 of them. and for one crash the result occurred because of pedal

entrapment. does vehicle inspections which included objective evidence from event data recorders indicated drivers were applying the accelerator and not applying the brake, are not applying it until the last second or so before the crash. above and beyond field inspections we obtained 20 toyota vehicles for extensive testing and examination of factors that can contribute to unintended acceleration. we chose 11 vehicles that had not been involved in unintended acceleration incidents, and nine complaint vehicles that had been involved in recorded unintended acceleration incidents. we could not find any previously unknown defects in these 20 vehicles and we determined the braking system for capable of overcoming all levels of acceleration, including wide open for model. with this report we have a tremendous body of work analyzed and verified and compiled all