we are living up to a moment that the man's leadership by standing side by side with the people of haiti. [applause] if you look at a tally, the things we said we would do, even in the midst of this extraordinarily challenging economy, we have kept our promise. we have kept our commitment. we have moved forward on behalf of a more prosperous and more secure future for the american people. for all our efforts, we have to with knowledge, change cannot come fast enough for many americans. the reason we visited allentown, pennsylvania, ohio, florida, asheville, new hampshire, talking to workers in factories and diners, they want

to know how they will find a job when they only have had one trade in their life. how will they send kids to college? how will they pay medical bills? how can they retire with their with their 401k's so banged up? i understand your frustrations. you understand it as well. michelle is always a good barometer. i was talking to her the other day. the front page was, oh, what is obama going to do to get his poll numbers up? are the democrats in a tizzy? she said, listen. if you are the average family, if i am a mother out there, i am working, my husband is working, we are worried about losing our jobs, hours have been

cut back, the cost of our premiums just went up 30%, the credit card company jacked up our interest rate, our home value has gone down by $100,000, suddenly someone calls up and says, so, how do you think president obama is doing right now -- [laughter] what are they going to say? what are they going to say? of course people are frustrated. they have every right to be. .

i know that during the course of this gathering, some of the press have been running around, what do you think we should be doing? this and that and the other, what is the strategy? look. when unemployment is 9.7%, when we are still digging ourselves out of an extraordinary recession, people are going to be frustrated. they are going to be looking to the party in power. when you have another party that says, we don't want to do anything about it, of course people are going to be frustrated. folks are out there working hard every day, trying to meet their responsibilities. all around them during this last decade, what they have seen as a wave of irresponsibility from wall street to washington. they see a capital city where every day is treated like election day. every act, every gesture passing through a political filter. they have seen the outside influence on lobbyists and special-interest, who hijacked the agenda by leveraging campaign money and connections. of course they wonder if their leaders can muster the will to

overcome all of that and confront the real problems that touch their lives. here is what everybody here has to remember. that is why i ran for president. that is why you worked so hard to elect a democratic congress. we knew this stuff was tough. we stepped up because we decided we would take the responsibility of changing it. it may not be easy, but change is tough. [applause] i believe so strongly, if we're going to deal with the great challenges of our time, if we're to secure a better future just as past generations did for us, we will have to change the prevailing politics in this

town. it will not be easy. we have to care less about scoring. some more about solving problems that are holding us back. at this defining moment, that has never been more important. we can continue to be consumed by the politics of energy, but we know that the nation that leads the clean energy revolution will lead the 21st century global economy. we know that a failure to act will put our planet in deeper peril. we know china is not waiting in india is not waiting in germany is not waiting to see is that future and america cannot afford to wait, either. [applause] i don't intend to spend all my time taking calls to figure out whether we will see that future or not. we can continue to spend our wheels with the old education

debate, but bidding teachers' unions against reformers, and our kids keep trailing their counterparts from south korea to singapore. we know the education -- we know the countries that out- educate us today will out compete as tomorrow. those children will be condemned to a lifetime of lower wages and unfulfilled dreams. america cannot afford to wait. i will not take a poll to figure out whether or not we will tackle education. we can continue to allow the same special interests who stacked the deck in favor of financial speculator is in the last decade to block reform again in this decade. if we have learned anything from the devastating recession, it is that we know that wise regulation actually can enhance the market and make it more

stable, make the economy work better. we cannot return to the dereliction of duty that helped deliver this recession. we know that to do so would be to put at risk our jobs, families, businesses, and our future. america cannot afford to wait. we cannot look back. yes, we could continue to ignore the growing burden of runaway costs of health care. the easiest thing to do right now would be to just say, this is too hard. you know? let's just regroup and lick our wounds, try to hang on. we have got a long and difficult debate on health care. there are some, maybe the

majority, who say, perhaps it is time to walk away. here's the thing, democrats. if we walk away, we know what will happen. premiums will skyrocket this decade and a decade after that and a decade after that just as they did in the past decade. more small businesses will be priced out of coverage. more big businesses will not be able to compete internationally. more workers will take home less pay and your races. millions more americans will lose coverage. we know our deficit will inexorably continue to grow because health care costs are the single biggest rival. so just in case there is any confusion, let me be clear. i am not going to walk away from health insurance reform. i am not going to walk away from the american people. i am not going to walk away on this challenge. i am not going to walk away on any challenge. we are moving forward. [cheers and applause]

we are moving forward. sometimes, we might be moving forward against the prevailing winds. sometimes, it might be against a blizzard. we are going to live up to our responsibility to lead. i am confident that if we stay steady, if we stay focused on all the people that we meet each and every day who are out there struggling, if we have got them in mind, we are working to deliver on their behalf. in the end, that will be good

politics. it will be good for america, not just good for democrats. but in order to get any of these battles done, we will have to change the way that washington works. now, we may not get a lot of attention for it, but we have already begun to do that. we rain in the power of the special interests with the top this transparent rules of any administration in the modern era. we're the first white house ever to post our business online. we have excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs, federal boards, and commissions. i called on congress to make all earmarks' public. i want a central website. you will know how the money is spent. we're going to have to confront the gaping loopholes that was recently reopened in the campaign finance laws allowing special interest to spend without limit.

[applause] we also said that as we work to change the ways of washington, we would change the way we do things. this committee is the first to ban contributions from political action committees and lobbyists. i am pleased to see the recommendation cemented aimed at improving our nomination process. i believe the more americans that get involved in this party, the strong the -- strong for the party will be. yes, we need to change the way we work with the other party as well. now, i am proud to be a democrat. i am proud to be a leader of this great party. i also know that we cannot solve all of our problems alone. we need to extend our hands to the other side. we have been working on it. if we are going to change the

ways of washington, we have to change this. as a step in that direction, i visited with the house republican caucus last friday. [applause] we had a good discussion about the challenges facing the american people and our ideas to solve them. it was good for the country. it was a robust debate. i had fun. we have to a knowledge there'll be some issues that democrats and republicans do not see eye to eye on. that is how it should be. that is how democracy works. there has to be some issues on which we can find some common ground. it is one thing to disagree out of principle. it is another to simply stand in the way because of politics. now is not the time for sitting on the sidelines or blocking progress or pointing fingers or assigning blame. now is not the time to do what is right for your party or poll numbers. now is the time to do what is

right for the country. now is the time to do what is necessary to see us through these difficult times. now's the time to do everything in our car to keep the american dream alive for the next generation. that is our mission, democrats. i know we have gone through a tough year. we have gone through tougher years. we're the party of thomas jefferson, who declared that all men are created equal. we had to work long and hard to ensure that those words meant something. we're the party of franklin roosevelt, who in the midst of depression, said all we had to fear was fear itself. we saved freedom and democracy from being extinguished on earth. that was hard because the impulse was to fear. we as a party helped to lead the country out of that fear.

we're the party of john f. kennedy, who summoned up to serve and called us to pay any price, bear any burden. we're the party of edward m. kennedy, whose cause and doors, who said that here in the united states, the promise of health care should not be privilege but a fundamental right. that is who we are, a democrat. that is who we have got to be today, for all the stories we have heard, after all the campaigns, after all the promises we made, this is our best chance to deliver change that the american people need. if we do that, if we speak to the hopes of the american people instead of their fears, if we inspire them instead of divide them, if we respond to their challenges with the same sense of urgency they feel in their hearts, we will not just when elections, elections will take care of themselves. we will once again be the party that turns around the economy and moves this country forward and secures the american dream for another generation. thanks very much, everybody.

god bless. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ ["stars and stripes" playing]

♪ ♪ ["stars and stripes" continues]

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> coming up next, former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor and others on women and the courts. after that, a house hearing on airline safety and pilot training. and in president obama's remarks at the bank to meeting.

-- at the winter meeting. >> on news makers, david axelrod discusses the obama administration's priority. that is sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this is c-span's "america and the court's." next, and discussion on women lawyers in the supreme court.

the former justice supreme court sandra day o'connor talk about the challenges women face in the legal profession. the supreme court fellows program alumni association and the first amendment center posted this discussion recently in washington d.c.. [applause] >> this is a great program. it is a topic that i have spent time thinking about over the years, needless to say. my chambers window looks out on the house that look -- used to be the home of alice paul. i am reminded when i looked out my window at the efforts women have made just to get the right to vote. t to get the right to vote. much less practice law. most of the real pioneers faced a profession in a society that espoused what we call "the cult

of domesticity." women were different from men, they said. there were compassionate, selfless, a gentle, and pure. their minds were attuned to art and religion, not logic. men were fitted by nature for competition and intellectual discovery in the world. they were battle hardened, authoritative, and tough-minded. women are thought to be ill- qualified for litigation because it required sharp logic and a shrewd and negotiation. -- and shrewd negotiation. the supreme court to the levinia she could not be admitted to the state bar, the practice of law was unfit for a female character.

to expose women to the brutal repulses and obscene events of court room life would shock womanhood and relax a public sense of decency. they were refused admission. the illinois supreme court said that as a married woman, her contracts were not binding. and contracts were the essence of the attorney-client relationship. the supreme court of the united states agreed with the illinois court. justice bradley, in a concurring opinion for the supreme court cited the natural differences -- they could not be admitted. even clarence darrow, one of the most famous champions of

unpopular causes amassed a group of women lawyers and said, you cannot be shining lights of tomorrow because you are too kind. you can never be corporation lawyers because you're not warm -- cold-blooded. i doubt you could even make a living. for that reason, -- a woman could not keep a secret, and no one will ever consult a woman lawyer. luckily, for us women lawyers today, our female predecessors have far more spunk, spirit, and wit than they were given credit for. the first woman lawyer in california and the first woman deputy district attorney in america displayed the characteristic medal of those early women lawyers. an attorney once suggested in

the open court that clara had better be at home raising children, and they reported, a woman had better be in almost any business. [laughter] a new york woman lawyer pioneer was, in 1879, the first woman admitted to practice before the supreme court of the united states. to receive that honor, she had to try three times to get a special bill passed in the u.s. senate changing the admission requirements. she rode a three wheeler all over washington, d.c. lobbying the senators saying that she was going to get a fight of the line. she even ran for president in 18 -- 1884. there is nothing to stop them for running for office. even without women voters, she

got 4000 votes in that election. we sought an historic first a few years ago with the confirmation of the first woman attorney general, najet reon -- janet reno. the justice department and had a woman assistant attorney general during warren harding's administration in 1920. her name was mabel walker willibrand of los angeles. she was given the job that no one wanted, the job of chief prosecutor of the prohibition laws. she became known as prohibition portia. and after nine punishing years, she went back to los angeles to practice law. there were three women that served as fbi agents in the early 1920's.

every one of them subsequently resigned when it j. edgar hoover became the director. during that early era, susan -- was the associate of -- she argued a case involving veterans benefits. like many skilled attorneys that are before the court, she did not win. her father, supportive as you was, was reduced. in the mid twentieth century, we got more women before the court , and they have distinguished themselves in many ways. we're going to get some of these women to talk to us. i am going to go back to my seat, and we will engage in conversation from there. are we all turned on?

we're going to start with wendy over here and ask what you would like to add. >> i argued once before the supreme court of the united states. i was terrified. i had gotten so excited about the whole project. it was great. i lost the case, of course. three very fine defenders in that case, that is what people remember, really. anyway, i had the privilege after my terrible experience of setting the stage for a the two

most distinguished women, i think, that now argue before the united states supreme court. you have gotten a little bit of this already from justice o'connor, wonderful anecdotes. i will try and add some of those to get a good feel. the shoulders on which these two advocates stand. so, here is a lightning quick sketch of the history of women lawyers and the supreme court bar. an extraordinary journey that began in earnest on may 3, 1879 when, as justice o'connor said, she was admitted to the bar of the united states supreme court. she was just one of 20 women that actually joined the supreme court bar between 1879 and 1900.

how did she and these other teams get their, and what happened next? how many of you were actually lawyers like that? the first thing you have to do is get a legal education, right? most lawyers that practice in that time about their legal training in an office. it was the more common method. they were beginning to take hold. a lot more men were heading off to law school to become lawyers. this group of 20 women, a hundred percent of them -- more attended law school and apprenticeships. the only apprenticeships women could get were basically with

their father if he was willing. a few others considered bringing and a lawyer -- a woman as a fellow lawyer for training. the other problem -- and there were other barriers gang and the law school. a couple of examples from the first 20 members of the supreme court bar one was allowed to attend class is in washington, d.c.. they refused to give her a diploma because they didn't give women diplomas. >> she dealt with it in a characteristically feisty way by writing a letter to the president of the united states asking them to do something about it. it apparently worked. the other example i have has

also been mentioned. also been mentioned. she was -- she was the no. 5 woman to serve on the bar. the california supreme court ordered hastings to admit her. the rest is history. she went on to invent the concept and her biography will come out in the next few months. look for it. here is another one. she was no. 4 to be admitted to the supreme court. she hung out 14 years to try to get in. she had had a lot better luck with medical school before she tried law school and she was actually an m.d. when she applied to go to penn.

>> we are going to run out of time, before you know it. tell me about the situation for women today. are they still getting the opportunities they should? and the gang opportunities of as long -- as law clerks? there were only 11 this year out of 38. >> the first woman clerk was in 1944. that was during the war. [laughter] law schools didn't have names to give them. they said, but don't you have any women? they said, here are some names, and they hired one. >> the card and got to the supreme court during that period. >> he hired another woman in

1991. >> it was 20 years before another woman never got there at all. we are doing better, but it is a rocky road. >> how many women have the court? >> not very many. maybe 67. that would have been 1979. >> it is such a stepping stone to legal employment. there are more legal opportunities for law clerk positions. you know what the statistics are in the lower federal courts? >> is much better than it used to be. >> my unexperienced was being turned down because he didn't hire women. he later went to law school. did he change his mind? i think some of you have heard about ruth ginsberg and's

experience. she could not get one. they twisted the arm of the judge and persuaded him that he had to take care. they got a young man working at a law firm to sign enough that he would take over for her. >> i have gotten pregnant is something like that, right? >> in 1979, we had the tradition of going out to lunch sometimes with other justices. they would very graciously take clerks out to lunch. they shall remain nameless. there were known for not -- i just asked them, is there a reason they don't hire women clerks? >> i am not very comfortable with women in my office. he was very genuine about how he felt the collegial environment

was more comfortable for him. i did not criticize. >> we still have some of that. the most women who argue cases at the supreme court today, the most of them work for public employers? that was my experience when i came to the court. you might see some women, that they were working from different public offices, state or federal. is that still the case? >> there are a number of women that have basic supreme court practices. i see people in the office, now lisa blatt has gone and the private work. >> in terms of numbers, maybe not as many. it is it still have the in the public sector? >> i can speak to the supreme

court bar is still more dominated by men. in a large part, is a factor associated with the general's office more than anything. women have been underrepresented for some many years, it is the major stepping stone. >> what are we doing about it? [laughter] [laughter] >> i know you're going to hold me to accounts now. >> one observation i had about this business of coming in through government is that the first great lawyers, the middle 20th-century work, i fink, almost all government lawyers. and they were very rare. today, the opportunity is bigger.

women are still not represented in private firms. >> where should people concentrate their efforts today in terms of helping women? >> they would not have had to go to the california legislature and persuade it to allow women into the bar. it will be looked at in two ways. one is to sort of let nature take its course. there is a majority of people in law school that are women. by definition, that has an impact. >> there aren't very many

practicing, not compared to men. but there are a lot in law school, so i will ask all of you? >> i will take a swing at it. it is very hard to know. i practice in the corporate segment of the practice. it might be somewhat skewed. i honestly think that one of the big reasons is something that i would call the breadwinner mentality. men are likely to come out of law school that have done well with this idea that it is their role in life to go out and be professionally successful because they are going to bring the realm for their family. women are much more likely to think, wait a minute, i like practicing law and i am interested in professional success, but one of my key jobs

and life is to nurture my children. it is a goal that i think you should hold high if you are a mother. there is a big gap and the ambition, at least after five or six years. >> i think so, too. as modern technology alleviated that? you can work from home better. >> that helps, but at the most competitive levels, there is a drive that is required. an enormous amount of time. and business development time. it doesn't mean that women can't do it, but many of them choose not to. >> that is right into the second point i was going to make. if there is an action item, and i think there is, we still have some more to do on structuring workplace features so that there

isn't a penalty for having a family life. we have been talking about that for ever. -- forever. we're beginning to come up with some concrete suggestions to help with that. your suggestion is pretty impossible given the structure of illegal -- >> the best thing that could happen is that men could continue to develop their nurturing instinct so that you eliminate the gap that exists and actually is happening. paternity leave 10 years ago was virtually unheard of, because no man would be caught dead taking it. it is becoming commonplace at major law firms, including mine. men are starting to feel like it is really important, something i have to give greater priority. when that starts to happen, women will not be at a competitive disadvantage.

you see lots of young women in and out. >> more women have feelings that they want to combine work life with family life, even now. it is not just family issues. intellectual interests, professional interests, so they will move around to different areas of law or jobs that aren't quite related. it's not needing to take this step until i get to the head of the institution. women construct much more interesting and very professional lives for themselves -- varied professional lives for themselves until they get to the pinnacle of wherever they are. >> and the fact that there are fewer women partners, you would think that there would be at

this time. it is because of the choices women make as they go along -- >> it is a significant factor. >> are all three of you agree on that? >> at least in part, not to say that law firms cannot be during a better job in order to accommodate women posing many needs -- women's many needs. >> could then make workplace changes and conditions that would help? >> there is nothing that i think my law firm should be that is not doing. -- that it is not doing. they offer a variety of different ways to practice law. at the end of the day, if you want to be a supreme court advocate in this highly competitive market, you're not going to be able to do it if you

opt for one of those alternative tracks were you're not going to spend a lot of time practicing law. >> you have children, do you not? >> i do. >> you have a pretty red hot supreme court practice. how have you done that? >> i limit my life to my family and my profession, period. >> no friends. [laughter] that was true for me. i it would advance in my profession and did not have any spare time. can't get a manicure, can't go shopping. i like ebay. [unintelligible] >> we are supposed to allow a little time for questions from the audience. if you don't have any good

questions, i am going to start asking. anybody that wants to ask better get up here. >> with your approval, justice o'connor, we have a noted supreme court advocate, a person that patricia -- perhaps she would like to make a comment. >> come on up and ask a question or engage. come on. at least come to the microphone. [inaudible] >> turnaround so they can see you. >> since she has invited you, you can come up here. what ever you are most comfortable with. >> the panel does not need any additions, but think for the fantastic panel. the first one is a common reaction to what you're talking about. how hard it was for women to get where they have gotten. now we are here, what do we do?

do we turn into men, or do we tried to change the world? i agree that we are trying to find a new path so that people don't have to choose. like men did, choosing the profession over nurturing. we should all keep putting our heads together to find ways to do that. my question is, with a lot of the over barriers gone, how we combat the more subtle barriers? i am thinking that you can't get a law license, but we had some hearings where there was a some hearings where there was a blip in time -- people were asking about her qualifications early on. that is insane to read -- that

is insane. how do we start combating those more subtle issues? >> let's have each of you try to answer. >> those are the hardest. >> sure, what should we do? >> i think that women always have to been aware of the stains in a way that men do not. i wish it were different. but to be aware of the way people are perceiving in -- perceiving yoon, whether it is an advocate or a political figure -- perceiving you, whether it is an advocate or a political figure. >> and being aware of it. how did you deal with that?

-- how do you deal with it? >> in the end, you have to be yourself. you have to have people accept your on your own terms. there are those issues that she is talking about. . maureen. -- >> maureen? >> show up prepared and wow them with your talents. it may take awhile, but that is what we have to do. >> if i may say so, she has done a good job of doing that. you won most of those cases. [laughter] darn good. wendy, what's your answer? >> i am impressed with how

much hasn't changed about wh ether they should wear their hats to oral argument. that issuei s the most hard to attack. i go on with elena kagan. be true to yourself. i would hate to see what we see today, the maureen nahoney's of the world doing six times as much as the guys have to do. she spent three years on the court delay -- that was her approach. being better than everybody else. and sunday, they will accept me as a full member of the club. she brought us a long way with that approach. >> been go. >> de you have an answer to the

question, justice o'connor? do you think women are treated differently in the supreme court? >> i think some members of the court probably have not asked as many questions of women or handle them quite the same way, quite as inclined to be out and out me as they might with some male advocate. i think there could be subtle things. clothing and attire is still a question for women that come to the court and argue. they are not quite sure what to do. they are not going to wear a morning coat. >> some do.

somewhere variations on the morning coat? -- some wear variations on the morning code. -- coat. >> that is pretty formal. most of us have never even seen one. what do the women advocates do? >> most of the women wear variations. i wear a black suit. that's what i do. >> in the solicitor general's office, i clerked for him. we were at lunch, and he asked me why i wasn't wearing a morning coat for arguments. i said, it is a little like if you think of the female equivalent of a morning coat is really a wedding dress.

with a big hat. and he said, i see. [laughter] >> you did all right. >> when i got to the solicitor general's office, i said, it doesn't matter what i wear? they said, absolutely not. or what you're comfortable with. [laughter] [unintelligible] >> next. >> i am a trial lawyer in atlanta. for the last 30 years, have been practicing in georgia. what i have found is that we have, still, and litigation, a vast majority are men. a small percentage of women, perhaps 20%. why is it women fear litigation

and the trial practice, from your point of view. >> i don't know if it is here. is litigation hardest to make these kind of work-family accommodations? >> a trial practice is a nightmare for somebody in school having to be there. your schedule is the court schedule. don't you agree? >> early in my career, we liked the trial work. >> of the cases are here, and she lives here. it used to be one to three.

she had it made. it was simple. exactly right. >> i hope that is all it is. >> i hope it is really a work balance issue and not a question of women presenting themselves in a traditionally male role. as litigators, we represent the profession most publicly, and to think there is a reticence on the part of someone where they are a real advocate. >> i think so, too. but for some good reasons. do we have another audience question? >> feel free to exercise your free speech rights.

>> speak up and turn the microphone on. >> what about those of us with physical disabilities? >> let's have some answers to the physical disability question. >> i have not had much experience with it. i honestly don't know. there are very few lawyers that have had that issue. >> there is said respected trial lawyer that died a couple of years ago that was wheelchair- bound. even before -- he found ways of

coping with that. his personality and his confidence, he made his way up to the top tiers of the legal profession. but he was very exceptional in that regard. i have had experience with having a judge on the d.c. circuit's that can't see. he is another one of these brilliant capable people that has somehow it worked around the problem that he can't himself read. justice o'connor, you had a law clerk -- >> i had a law clerk last year that was totally blind, and he was amazing. he did not need to do anything for him. he was incredible. it was incredible. i guess there are ways to cope.

>> there is a feeling on the part of people and you know it better than i do that people with a physical limitation of some kind are somehow not going to be up to the job. you have a double burden of proof. when men have always had a tremendous burden of proof. if you are a woman and disabled, it was very near impossible. on both counts, i think they're getting better. >> do you think that the law profession is keeping up with other professions, other areas of business? both private law firms and government in changing the business model so it is more amenable to family life. a quick comment is, i think because we work on precedent, we are slow to ideas. i guess i am wondering, you

think we're keeping up with other businesses? >> anybody want to tackle that one? >> if you compare law school the business school, there are more than business schools. it is actually larger in the legal profession and the business world. i am not sure you'll find all that many differences there. maybe even if your women that are in the legal world now. >> not so much in school but working from home programs or telecommuting programs, flexible schedule programs. you pretty much can't take those of the tracks. >> that is not an alternate

track. i was actually referring to somebody who wants to be it full-time equity partner. >> we can take the high and accounting firms -- we are probably doing as well as facebook. >> we encourage all of you to exercise your free speech rights. if i could encourage -- act as moderator and ask a question. we are particularly pleased by the fact that the first woman to argue a free-speech case in 1929, it took almost four decades before another one would argue a free-speech case.

against that backdrop, i have a question. what is your sense as to what areas of law that women are most likely? i am just curious. >> will already said that more women lawyers are representing public law offices and private practices. that doesn't answer specifically what topics they are addressing. >> one of the great things about being an appellate advocate, the people that argue before the supreme court may argue a criminal case this week and first amendment case next week, and securities case the week after that. i don't think there are all that many folks -- it is one of the

interesting things. >> the categories that i would point to, from my own experience, the public interest groups that litigate before the supreme court. and the women's rights community in general -- there are made by women and men in public interest firms doing that kind of thing. as across the spectrum, for example, on the right. it might send more women lawyers to the supreme court. i don't know one way or the other.

-- we have lawyers and judges and other professionals in our audience. we have this incredible panel. let's avail ourselves the opportunity. what did him a microphone. -- give him a microphone. >> you have addressed the issue of whether women's attorneys -- when the attorneys are treated differently by the court. i wonder if women judges are perceived as it her judgment during the same weight when the cases are being discussed or if you would argue the case differently.

>> i am going to get into this. [applause] >> an appellate court panel has only so many members on the court. you're going to take every vote where you can get it. every vote counts. often, the court splits often the court split 5-4.- you're going to get it decided maybe by a margin of one. you just want an argument that might persuade. i don't see any difference. once you're there as a judge on an appellate court panel, i think there is no real difference there in the treatment by attorneys making the argument or among the judges

themselves. >> i never had the privilege of arguing in front of justice o'connor. the women on the bench now are extremely active questioners. >> anybody else in the audience? all right. >> my name is sarah wilson. i am currently a civil litigator. i worked in the mid-90s. it was an oral history of the first generation of women judges. this gentleman has sort of asked part of my question, that is whether you think the culture for women litigators in particular has changed as a result of the critical mass of women in judicial positions. i think it has made a huge difference.

>> because there are more women judges in the culture for the advocates -- >> culture is a very powerful force. we have sort of broken through the boundaries, and exceptional is and has had this strategy of minority groups. it is kind of a very much unspoken thing in the courtroom. it makes a huge difference to have two or three women on an appellate panel. in terms of the way your client perceives you and the way in opposing household receives you, it sort of changes the nature of the game where you no longer feel like the exception, but rather the rule. >> that could be. what do you think? let's let her go first.

>> you probably get to a tipping point where you have all kinds of roles in the court room where people stop and it is unusual or noteworthy. >> i have a question if you will indulge me. >> we will get to another one. >> i almost had one a year ago that was kind of exciting. i have had arguments were the only advocate for women. i do see a shift. i think is very helpful for the reasons you're describing where women are not an oddity. and clients don't feel like they're going out on 11. >> id you agree? >> absolutely. the jokes they used to be told about women by male judges --

won't you just settle for having susan b. anthony on the dollar? that kind of thing is happening less. that was mild compared to some of the other things that happened. i think we gain legitimacy by having women as advocates. they are not derided or demeaned. >> i am not at the court of law, i go up whenever anybody in my office -- i see a lot of arguments. there are a number of women arguing before the supreme court, and women that are chief counsel bench. there wasn't a woman in sight. it was very noteworthy. there were 12 men in a row. the national football league

case. [laughter] >> there is a second part to the question. make it brief. >> this will sound familiar to you, but the first woman -- when she was a women's rights lawyer because she could not get a job they where else, she made a comment to a group of young women interested in the professions of 1920. she says neither forget all remember that you are a woman. femininity part of public life. i want to know what that meant to you. as to the panel, do you have any further thoughts? >> what did i say? [laughter] >> i believe the transcript as public.

i think he said, i am not really sure what it means exactly, but it sounds right to me. >> i would probably say the same thing today, thank you. we are at 5 minutes until 4:00, quitting time. >> with all due respect, we had agreed on a little bit more than that. of course, i will defer to your judgment. we have water to women here. we have a woman over here. josh -- >> i just got a reprieve here. >> we will come to the ladies over here. >> could you all speak about the role of mentor ship, and how you are mentoring women, a lot --

young lawyers, how do you turn around and change the role of women in the profession? >> when you do you want to start -- wendy, do you want to start? >> i was mentored by a faculty member at berkeley when i was at law school there a hundred years ago. when i became a young lawyer by a groove the ginsburg -- ruth later ginsburg -- bader ginsburg said, get tenure before yous tart -- you start talking about women's rights. at that moment in history, that was no longer true. it was true for them, but not for me. their mentor ship was a little

old-fashioned, but usually supportive. i spent a lot of time trying to support young women. as a teacher, young men as well. i have a special feeling for the young women. back in the day, i spent a lot of time on that. >> did you have any? >> i had a couple of mentors, one of them was justice rehnquist. he played a major role in my career. one thing i always tell women, don't forget that the men still have most of the influence. most of the power. he wanted them to be your mentors, too. don't just look for women mentors. i certainly tried to mentor women. i recently recommended somebody

to the solicitor general's office that was a young woman. it is important to pay attention to that. there are a lot of men that are willing to mentor women. a lot of them are more interested in your talent that your gender. >> that is good advice. >> that is my advice to women all the time. i was mentored mostly by men because that was who the professors and judges were at that time. i tell when that law students, take your mentors where you find them. women are great, but men are great, too. maureen did just give us this wonderful woman for our office. we're pretty happy. >> we have another question here, ma'am. >> i was interviewing the former inspector general of the army,

asking about some of the things that he told commanders. he said, you're going to have a group of people that are absolutely equal and ready for promotion. you need to ask yourself every time whether your choosing the white male or a minority, or one then. you may select simply by virtue with whom you feel most comfortable and have the most uncommon. -- in common. and women choosing family and having to do with their promotion, because the statistics bear out that in virtually every industry, they don't make a dollar for dollar with their male counterpart, do you think that women are actually up selected? i have a lot of friends that chose careers over family. among litigators, do they actually have equal opportunities to move ahead?

>> [unintelligible] >> equal opportunity in all law firms and across the country, probably not. at least in a lot of the firms and the situations i have seen, yeah, i do. certainly in my firm, women who are talented do just as well as teh men. -- as the men. we don't get the same numbers because of choices people are making. there is another major factor that could have an impact, an adverse impact on women. it is still the case that a lot of the general counsel's that they hire our mail. i don't think they're consciously discriminating with some rare exceptions, that they are more likely to know men because men and women still tend to choose women or men

because of similar interests. there is some disadvantage for women not associated with discrimination, but rather who even know. it is already being diminished, but it will diminish as more and more women become general counsels. i have seen it all the time. they might even lean a little more towards hiring women. >> we have another question -- yes, ma'am. >> i want to talk about the campaign finance reversal by the supreme court last week. i know it was one of the first cases that you argued. as the first female solicitor general, i wanted your thoughts on the decision last week and if you think their opinion puts the issue of foreign contributions in u.s. elections as final?

>> that is kind of outside the scope. >> de cared ask anything germane to our topic? >> it is more fun to win than to lose. [laughter] >> when i was in graduate school, there is a book written by -- it was called "a different voice." somehow, women were being socialized differently than the way men were being socialized. i have raised two daughters, one of them an investment banker and the other academic researcher. is there any situation or anecdote you wanted to share with the audience about why being a woman affected under -- and how you understood jurisprudence, a case, or have your approach to the litigation

strategy? >> who wants to tackle that first? >> i have only been litigating for four months. [laughter] the answer is, i have not had that experience yet. oh, boy. oh, boy. @@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

you have got to be a presence in the room. for some reason, women are a little less likely to do that. i don't know why. >> i would say that, to the extent that women have led divergent actual experience than men. there will be areas where women have a better understanding -- at least something to add to the understanding of it. it might be family law or -- i could name a whole list of things, i suppose. one of the things that has happened is that we are converging. perhaps we are more alike than different. . .

>> good afternoon, i have been practicing with the army for six years, now. obviously, we have a lot of men in the army, a lot more men than women. i find it quite comfortable going to both my male and female superiors for advice on legal matters. i know that somebody asked about mentor ship.

-- mentorship. are they coming to you equally? is it still more even or is it still women going to senior leaders? >> does anybody want to tackle that? >> i have a little trouble with mentor. i did not have one, that i know what. i did not even know what the word meant until i was practicing law. it seems to be a modern day. we talk about mentors and mentorship. i am not a good contributor on this because i do not know what it means and i do not -- i did not have any. maybe it is just everybody you learn from. is every teacher a mentor? i don't know.

>> it is people who go out of their way to help you get the next chance and helps to open doors. that is at least what i think. >the help to prepare you and help to open doors for you. >> well, we have all had some of those in a lifetime. my companions were a bunch of cowboys. they were opening the doors. -- they bore not open any doors [laughter] -- they were not open any doors. [laughter] >> start by getting a good babysitter.

and it has been that understands. that is a good start. try to get a job that will enable you to do the job that also allowed to to be at home. you have to explore carefully what the job requirements are. don't you think that you need to explore? it is hard to find the perfect set up, but a good babysitter helps. >> i cannot understate this. looking back, the women who have been really successful had guys that did not stand in their way and some of them had partners that were extraordinarily helpful to them and supportive of them. the history that i have studied shows that the early women that

had a supportive spouse did better than anybody else. i would put reason ginsberg in that category, perhaps justice o'connor as well. >> not perhaps. >> [laughter] >> i think that ruth ginsburg and i had a husband that but it was wonderful. my husband knew it before we married that i planned to work. i think it can be more difficult if you do not talk about your career plans before you get married. did you? >> then you -- yes. >> then you are ok. >> w3i was a fellow at the court in 1994 and 1995 and i had the privilege last year of attending the arizona strip search case involving the 13-year-old girl

and it seemed to me that justice ginsburg was perhaps the only person on the bench that day that understood what was going on in that case. i had the privilege of asking her if she had opportunity to change some minds and she just smiled and said that she thought it was born in the other way, too. i wonder if this might be a part of the answer to an earlier question. i wondered what you thought about that case. >> i think that any member of the supreme court bench can, at the end of the day, have influence on the others by making good arguments. that is what we all try to do. i feel sure that she probably

did that. >> [laughter] >> i think she agreed with you. >> yes, judge? >> i would like to go back to the question that was asked that raised the issue of the wise latina comment. i was surprised that nobody mentioned the importance of public education in addressing those issues. i am proud to say that i was the first female supreme court fellow. i had been a judge on a los angeles superior court and i know that in my experience, when

i was first on the court, the male jurors would say to me that it is terrific to see a woman judge. the that declined sharply. the thing that i associate with the decline is not the increase in the number of women judges, but the fact that l.a. law was a wonderful telephone program, but almost all of the judges were women or minorities. it became much less of a surprise to people to walk into a courtroom and see a woman judge. the public discussion about it, and the fact that people -- the problem i saw with it is that nobody ever commented that white males seem to be neutral in our society and if you are female or

a person of color, that was all outside of the norm. i wonder if your views on the issue of how important public education is to do with the kind of problems that we were talking about. >> i take that education is the most important issue in the country on a whole range of things. >> that sounds right to me. justice o'connor gets the last word. >> are there any other ready questions? >> we have two hands up. should we take one question or a t a boat -- two. i>'i÷mn and the gentleman in the front,n please be prompt. >> how would you recommend that

women deal with the old boy's club? it was mentioned by ms. mahoney. i think that young women know what i am talking about. how do you deal with that in the government and in the private practice and in the academia. >> i will take a stab at that and say that you do the best you can do to get out there and put on a good show. it will help. çvóño.'çóeveryd work when they see it. there may be some initial believed that she is a woman and will not do a good job. i do not know what else to say. >> they are always creating girls clubs, too. as more and more general counsels become women, it makes a difference for women lawyers.

that is right. >> this gentleman will get the last question. >> others talk about the great strides that women have made over the last 100 years. do you see some time in our history -- what scares me are the strides that the african americans have made. some time in our history, there will be in a cycle backwards? >> absolutely not. i do not think we will go backwards on any of these things. there are too many of us. over half the people are women, do you think we will let it slide back? no way. [laughter] [applause] >> justice o'connor, whenever you want to exercise your first amendment rights, our doors are always open to you. [applause]

>> wednesday webster williams, marine hoenig, and a course sandra day o'connor, thank you very much for joining us. [applause] >> and thank you. >> let's go back to our little rooms for a picture. can we do that? >> you can watch this program again or other recent america and the courts programs at c- span.org. just click on "america and the courts." join us next week department.

jerry costello of illinois chairs the subcommittee on aviation. this is almost two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. the chair will ask all members to turn electronic devices off or on vibrate. subcommittee's meeting today to receive an update on the federal aviation administrations call to action on airline safety and pilot training. i will try and give a brief statement and then we will call on the ranking member for his

statement or any remarks he may have and then we can go to our witnesses. let me say that we expect to be called to the floor of the house for a vote in about 15 or 20 minutes so i will try and be brief. the important things that we hear from the administrator and general scovell. i welcome everyone to the aviation subcommittee hearing today for an update on the faa call to action on airline safety and pilot training. of like to especially thank and we'll come family members of flight 3407, some of them are with us here today. two days ago the and tsdb determine the probable cause of the crash of regional airliner in buffalo new york occurring almost a year ago, the crash is considered one the most significant accidents in recent years because it revealed a gap in the level of safety between major airlines and regional carriers. i want to commend the board for doing annette standing job. i am hopeful that the safety

recommendations to the faa many of which are included in our bipartisan legislation, h.r. h.r. 3371 airline sabian pollitt training improvement act of 2009, approved overwhelmingly by the house last october will encourage the faa and airline industry to act quickly to improve pilot training standards, address pilot professionalism, fatigue, remedial training, pilot records in training. after the subcommittee held a hearing on regional air carriers and pilot workforce issues on june 11, 2009, department of transportation secretary ray lahood and f.a. s administrator babbitt initiated in airline safety and pollitt training call to action to gather the information from the airlines and labor organizations to ascertain industry best practices and seek voluntary compliance with the number of safety programs. plaats september this subcommittee held a hearing on the call to action.

i praised the faa's click reaction to the colgan tragedy and the lapses in regional carrier safety that revealed. at bfa on notice then and i would hold a follow-up hearing to call the final report in today's hearing will be an opportunity ford administrative babbitt to provide the subcommittee with an update and to hear from the department transportation inspector general on his assessment of the faa's progress. administrator babbitt in the call to action final report acknowledged and i quote, this is a snapshot of our work which is by no means finished. we will continue to aggressively push forward with these initiatives that we believe will raise the safety bar even higher in that quote. we want to work with hewitt administrative babbitt to achieve these goals set forth and i believe the real major of the agency's success will be whether it can successfully tried it safety initiatives to a timely conclusion. i respect and appreciate the

faa's determination since our last hearing in september to set deadlines to develop key safety initiatives. my concern is not simply that the faa is a few months behind on any one rule. i am concerned these delays them from historic patterns of industry opposition to any form of regulation and that key safety reforms have not been implemented nearly a year after 50 people died on flight 3407. despite promises of swift action from the faa. as i have said before i believe unless this subcommittee and congress pursues an aggressive oversight our legislative mandates are in place the kind it takes for the faa to address the most critical safety issues raised by the accident, it is far too long. that is why we introduced h.r. 3371 to address many of the issues raised in the call to action. i want to discuss the status of

several key initiatives discussed in the call to action on a report. first, in 1995 the faa proposed a fatigue world based on the recommendations of an aviation rulemaking committee. we avoided 15 years and we are still waiting for a final rule. last year the faa with true that 1995 proposal and form another arc and plan to publish another 50 proposal by the end of 2009. yet we are now being told the faa is to publish a rule that has slipped to the spring of 2010. the second of january of 2009 the faa published a proposal to overhaul crew training regulations that included increased use of flight simulators and stronger uptick recovery training requirements. something that the ntsb has recommended and that we have mandated nhr 3371. administrator babb a.u. testified before the subcommittee that the faa's

proposal was quote the most comprehensive bakhri to update training requirements in 20 years end of quote. rapter extending the comment period bfa a receipt 3,000 pages of comments and now plans to revise and publishes proposal in the spring. finally@a&@ áoa'@ @ @ @ @ @ @

developments resulting from the faa's call to action that we should not ignore. for example more airlines appear to be willing to adopt voluntary safety best practices like establishing flight operations quality assurance programs. however the faa and the subcommittee from the to follow up in the coming months to see if carriers actually followed through on their commitments that they have made. the faa published in advance notice of proposed rulemaking yes sir the to strengthen the training requirements and flight hours necessary to be in airline first officer. i will continue to keep my commitment to exercise aggressive oversight to strength in airline safety and pilot training qualification standards. i assure the families of flight 3407, those who are with us today and those who could not be here today and the american people that we will continue to push for the provisions of h.r. 3371.

that requires the first officer to hold and air transport pilot certificate in addition to receiving training to function effectively in the air carrier operational environment and know how to fly in adverse weather conditions including icing. before i recognize mr.-- for his opening remarks i ask unanimous consent to allow two weeks for members to revise remarks and permit additional statements in materials. without objection so ordered. the chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee for his opening statement or comments, mr. petri. >> thank you mr. chairman and i would like to thank you for scheduling this important follow-up hearing to a 2009 hearing on air carrier safety and the faa call to action issue following the tragical vinn 3407 accident almost one year ago. statistically, the u.s. commercial aviation system is very safe. there is obviously always room for improvement.

with today's hearing we continue our focus on the common goal of improving our safety record. as the families of the victims of colgan flight 3407 remind us we can and must do everything in our power to ensure that what happened on the day they lost their loved ones never happens again. i believe we are all committed to that shared goal. in the aftermath of the colgan accident this subcommittee explored many issues in the safety of the airline system with emphasis on regional air carriers. in addition mr. costello, mr. mica, mr. oberstar and i introduced a bipartisan h.r. 3371 airline sabian pilot training improvement act of 2009 to address the critical safety issues considered at our hearings. h.r. 3371 was approved by the house of representatives on october 14th last year and similar provisions have been included in the senate commerce

committee's f.a. a preauthorization package. roughly the same time the faa launched a call to action on air carrier safety. i thank the administrators for joining us this morning and look forward to this update on the progress of the wide-ranging initiatives included in his plan. at tuesday's transportation safety board hearing on the colgan accident, the board approved recommendations for the faa regarding many initiatives explored during our hearings including strategies to prevent flight crew monitoring failures, of fatigue, remedial training, access to pilot records, stultz reigning and airs bill procedures. in addition the ntsb's probable cause determination for the colgan accident approved by the board on tuesday include among the contributing factors to the accident the flight crew's

failure to live here too sterile cockpit procedures. in fact pilot performance and nonprofessional behavior have been listed as contributory factors. i applaud administrator babbitt for demanding a higher level of professionalism from all those involved in aviation including airline pilots. as the safety regulator for the industry and a former airline pilot himself, administrator babette understands not only the trust pilots hands but also the responsibility of pilots must be ever mindful of to go on to the. we look forward to hearing from the administrator with specific actions to airlines and the pilot are taking to improve peer auditing and professional conduct. in addition i'm interested in update's from the faa about the ongoing regulatory efforts of the faa to address pilot training.

finally i am interested in what improvements can be put in place to improve air carrier hiring practices and training oversight. says the faa's call to action began last summer the office of inspector general has been reviewing the agency's effort and i look forward to inspector general scovell's assessments in the efforts thus far on the part of the faa airlines and unions as well as continuing oversight of long-term commitments made during the call to action process. lastly i would like to note the dedicated efforts of the families of continental flight 3407. families efforts have helped this committee to address key safety issues and i urge her senate colleagues to pass the faa preauthorization bill so we can finalize these improvements and send a final bill to the president. i thank the witnesses for their participation and yield back what time i might have. >> i yield to mr. graves and

yield to mr. graves. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate this hearing quite a little bit and i want to thank at fates administrative babbitt for being here and the inspector general too. but in october of last year we did pass h.r. 3371 widget the airline improvements act and fall of recognizes legislation moves in the direction of improving pilot training standards i couldn't support it at the time. specifically my concerns lie with the 1500 hours minimum flight requirement for 3371 that establishes or establishes the issuance of an airline pilot transport certificate for all crewmembers. currently only the captain is required to hold that atp sir and not the pilot. i know all too well pilot training is a complex process focusing on the quality of pilot education and training as opposed to the overall flight hours and i believe it is a more

reasonable approach. with that said i'm not opposed to increasing the minimum number of flight hours but i think we have serious concerns with the 1500 hours. i think it is simply too much and look folks, just so you understand where i'm coming from and i'm not trying to diminish you in any way the losses we have had out here, but myself by may 2000 our commercial pilot and i have fun with all classes of pilots out there in high-performance aircraft and i know military pilots who have 500 hours that i want to put my kids and the plane with an eye no commercial pilots that i trust my kids with. ..

in a perfect example of exactly what is wrong with the process, it's again quality of hours and it's the person in the cockpit is do we need to be looking now. not the number of hours. that is the broad approach. i want to make sure that the aircraft and our lands in our skies and on the ground is just as safe as we can possibly get it. the reason we need to change this focus just a little bit. mr. chairman, i appreciate the opportunity. thank you for having this hearing and i think it's a very important hearing to the overall safety of the public out there

and they appreciate you letting me make some comments. >> the chair thanks the gentleman from missouri. ministate for the record and we will get into these issues in a little bit. i just want to be clear that h.r. 3371 does not deal with the number of hours in order to be entered in the first officer. it does far more than that and we will get into that later. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. boswell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would prefer to wait for a q&a, but the way the schedule is today and may not be able to be here for that. but i want to make a couple of comments and first, thank you for doing this and i think mr. graves makes some good points that i agree with. i think you said don't knee-jerk and i don't think you're going to. we discussed briefly together and talked and so on and i think

your on the right track. i think we've got to leave flexeril. i want to want to be as, for example, general aviation back because that's going too far too fast. we've got to walk through the spirit and i think that's what you intend to do. and depending how they accumulate the experience, we all know it makes a lot of difference. you know, the 250 hour commercial pilots if they have a right through the program and did everything one after the other, they're pretty proficient, versus a person that maybe took them two or three years and there's a difference. i used to be an ip and i'm sure you do too. it makes a difference. and so as we think about how he buddleia up to get these folks say for a more proficient and so on, somehow if you cannot some flexibility in their.

mr. chairman, indicate anger to 50 hours for some situations or maybe more. in other situations of this is tailored for they can be intensified and follow-through day after day. and then go right out into the field and start executing and using -- it makes a big difference. so i would hope that somehow you can keep that flexibility in there and i think you can. i think it can be done. so, we are headed the right way. i read some of your statements there and i think you're on the right track. and this is good. the public wants. i want it. we all wanted. so thank you very much. >> the chair thanks the gentleman from iowa. let me in for members and eyewitnesses said we have been called were both. we have 13 minutes is left in the vote. but i intend to do is recognize to notice mr. titus and

mr. defazio for pre-pre-statement and that will break and go to the foreign votes in combat and go right where witnesses. i would ask members other than ms. titus and mr. defazio to enter into the record. the chair now recognizes ms. titus. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i just like to begin by saying how pleased i am to be able to join this important subcommittee appeared to resume critical part of southern nevada's economy and sharing safe and efficient travel at mccarron airport around the is important to our economy and that's why it's important for me to serve on this committee. i look forward to working with our members to ensure that civil av solution is safe and aviation in las vegas has the resources it needs to shuttle tourism,

tourists and visitors. we like them coming to las vegas back and forth. today's hearing is critical as we work to reassure these travels the federal government is doing everything possible to enhance aviation safety. the colgan air accident last year brought to light some of the flaws that existed in aviation safety and i appreciate that the faa has detailed these flaws and of call to action plan on airline safety and pilot training. so i'm looking forward to hearing from the witnesses as we address issues of pilot flight time and fatigue, pilot training, professionalism and safety so that we can do all we can to protect the public and assure them that that is indeed the case. so i would think her witnesses for being here today and i look forward to coming back and hearing what you have to say the faa is doing along these lines. i thank you, mr. chaiman for

this opportunity. >> i think the generally front about it and i recognized the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. >> thank you on mr. chairman played please do have administration and an essay that is that dean in the spirit of the law was amended after the tragic crash in florida a number of years ago during the clinton administration tiered pricing that i've been arguing for more than a decade that the faa could not both regulate in the public interest and assure his safety and promote the industry. unfortunately, even though after that horrible accident i got the law changed finally. you know, there are some within the agency was still think it's their duty and there's some in congress who think it her duty to promote the industry. no, you know, we are here for a staff to assure safety. and then secondly, we want to have a healthy industry that is safe. and just hearing the earlier comments regarding quality versus number of hours here i have been raising the concern

since, you know, the early 1990's that i don't believe that you can provide him a no matter how high the quality is inadequate amount of training for a commercial pilot and difficult conditions with the minimums we have today. and our hack a lot of carriers to believe that, too. because they won't hire someone with a number of hours. but there are the low-budget drive the industry down to the lowest common denominator operators who will. and there are those who will defend that practice. it's got to end. i still don't believe as i said that to be a manicurist in oregon requires twice as many hours of training as the current minimum. so i don't want to hear people say we'd just can't mandate higher minimum hours. we just want to look at quality. no, it's our thing quality and quality will come with more hours than comprehensive, you know, well-thought-out training. so i'm fully in support of what

the chairman has proposed, where it seems the administrators had it, but we're going to continue to push to make sure we get there because we know there's tremendous pushback from the industry. even though will only hire pilots with a number of hours have a little farm team out there, which is the low-budget carriers and in some of the big carriers like the budget carriers because they drive against their competition people who are trained to provide higher quality regional air service that we should never have another tragic event like we had. i mean, you know, that crash of colgan air, i mean, what kind of training could have pilots have with a stall warning to pull a nose up like you know, that is beyond belief. we've got to fix these problems and it's going to take both more hours and better quality and i support any efforts that would get us there. and they're going to cost

something, but you know what bioassay of never met someone at 40,000 features thrilled that they saved a dollar in their ticket because they're pilot of font is just learning how to fly. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i think the gentleman and his point is well taken and the point that i've made which are bill h.r. 3371 ima just does not deal with increased number of hours. it deals with a comprehensive preemployment screening and a lot of other things. so i appreciate the gentleman comments. i would ask her witnesses, we have five votes on the floor right now. so i would ask her witnesses and everyone else that wants to come back to return to be in the room by 11:10, ten after 11 if you want to give a cup of coffee or something and we will resume the hearing at that point and go directly to the testimony as administrator babbitt and general scovell.

[inaudible conversations] >> at the subcommittee would come to order on the chair again welcomes administrator babbitt and also general scovell to the subcommittee hearing today. administrator babbitt, let me say that i am frustrated and it are family members and others with the time that it is taking to move forward with some of the provisions and are bill on h.r. 3371 in the time it is taken the faa to work through the process. now having said that, but they say that i have worked with a number of administrators of the past 21 years. and i said, i spoke to an organization this morning that said i believe that we have an

administrator now that is trying to leave the agency forward and to do the right ring. i hope that in your testimony and i've had a chance to review it thatno carrier ringconnect 1200

on what should be done to improve safety and professionalism and asked the industry in all the professionals to work together to get it done as soon as possible. and i explained at that time the requesting voluntary action was in my opinion the fastest way to move forward and i wanted the most immediate result that i could get.

i also told the committee i thought the best approach for receiving faster results was to achieve consensus and move forward on those wherever possible. and i sense some skepticism at that time and i continued to get complaints although we feel to live up to our initial goals. but again i am concerned that no one is taking account benefits detailed that we have actually achieved the progress we have made. chairman oberstar charged mindy is my bully pulpit, if you would, to influence the industry and that's exactly what i tried to do. in the aftermath of the call to action the faa initiated a two part focuses action of aircrew training qualification and management practices. faa inspectors observe 2419 training and check events are the evaluation. at the side of the evaluation, 76 carriers had systems that replied with remedial training

requirements. fifteen carriers had some component of remedial training and eight carriers didn't have any remedial training provisions whatsoever. they lacked any remedial training and therefore were identified by s. of having greater risk and therefore wanted additional scrutiny. today seven months after the call to action all characters evaluated today have some component of remedial training, with respect to you now have seven months after the call to action we now have 11 new carriers that have adopted focal program since july 2009. and one application is currently pending. similarly, all three of the carriers that did not have any asap reporting programs, all three now have an ace up her one employee group in space and for their carriers have established additional asap programs for additional pilot groups. we also ask your carriers to meet with their smaller partner airline to exchange safety

practices and encourage the adoption of best practices. faa is encouraging the carriers that are doing it and were encouraging them to continue to be part of the airlines periodically and to ensure a continuous exchange of information. and as they say here today, i am pleased to tell you this is currently happening now at all scheduled airline carriers that have regional partners. in addition the council is now included the safety directors from the national air carriers association as well as the regional airline association in their quarterly meetings. many other examples of recent accomplishments that i have to mention during the course of this hearing, but i would like to announce the agencies advance notice that the rulemaking on requirements, which was posted today on the federal register's website this morning. i look forward to hearing from the industry and the public on the range of issues that we need to consider as we move forward. as i stated repeatedly, there's a difference difference in my

mind between knowing that i pilot has been exposed to all critical situations during targeted training versus assuming that simply flying more hours a automatically will provide that exposure. unlike some things in life, safety is not again. it doesn't have a goal line. we reach one goal only to set up for a new one. safety professionals do not cross the goal line and claim victory. we're forever searching ways, new ways to advance a future technical and procedural improvements as well three continued up the sense of professionalism. and just because the final report on the call to action is issued doesn't mean that our efforts will stop. no one should assume that. they shouldn't even assume they'll slow down. i've been very gratified with the response i received them suffer. i think the collective efforts of the faa, the airlines, the labor unions evolved and of course our friend here in congress will continue to work together and i'm certain it will

result in implementing advanced best practices, transfer and have experience in achieving an overall improvement in airline and safety. mr. chairman, this concludes my remarks and i'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have for the committee. >> thank you, administrator babbitt. the china recognizes the inspector general for the department of transportation, general scovell. >> mr. chairman, ranking member petri, thank you for inviting here today to discuss the status of the phase of verse to improve air carrier safety. after last year's colgan accident the faa took swift action by creating a call to action plan. faa has made progress and implement in the planned ten initiatives including levinsky deforms across the country. however, progress has been slow and implementing initiatives of the greatest potential to improve safety. specifically those related to pilot fatigue, training and professionalism and efforts to strengthen their carriers, voluntary safety programs.

my testimony today focuses on concerns related to these initiatives. to address concerns about pilot fatigue, as they establish a special rulemaking committee to propose new crew rest requirements. the committee met at september 2009 deadline, however faa missed its milestone to issue an npr and a december 2009 and now plans to issue this spring. however, the past is prologue the new book of years in the making. numerous attempts to update these requirements, which were last modified in the 1880's have failed due to disagreements among faa airlines and pilots. faa is facing similar challenges with revising crew training requirements. faa issued an npr and on the new requirements over a year ago and received over three dozen comments. faa now plans to offer supplemental notice in the very near future. at the same time, faa's reviews let crew training and qualification programs like the

rigor needed to assess effectiveness. we question the thoroughness of these reviews in part because faa did not provide specific review criteria to inspectors. many of whom had never assess remedial training programs for pilots. faa surveillance questions also raised concerns as the number were not relevant to many air carrier operations to moreover, some questions were not comprehensive enough to detect flaws in training programs here for example, while inspectors observe more than 2400 pilot evaluation training event, there were no questions on whether pilots completed the evaluation successfully. a key measure of a training program's effectiveness. faa has also been slow to address concerns regarding a lack of pilot professionalism, and issue raised by ntsb and for the last six they'll accident involving regional airlines. to better ensure pilots adhere to professional standards and plate discipline, faa plans to implement a mentoring program.

however, faa has not specified how or when it will accomplish this. while professionalism cannot be mandated, faa can take action such as expediting training and rulemaking and streamlining communication between carriers that would directly impact pilot y did not

implement asap while cost equipment availability and fleet size presented significant obstacles for smaller regional air carriers to implement voluntary safety programs. faa has not presented any plans to have carriers establish these important safety programs. further, faa failed to follow up with carriers to ensure their planned actions will effectively be safety goals or the carriers will make completion requirements. faa also do not follow up with those carriers that submitted fake responses or no response at all. get faa concluded this initiative achieved its intended outcome. before closing, i'd like to note other critical safety concerns highlighted during the hearing after the colgan crash but not in the call to action plan. these include pilot domicile, differences in pilot training and hiring and pilot experience and pay. these issues present significant challenge for faa, congress and industry stakeholders in determining the nature and extent of actions needed.

at the request of congress, we are viewing the potential impact these issuers have an pilot safety and plan to record our findings later this year. mr. chairman, this concludes my statement. i'd be happy to answer any questions you or the member subcommittee may have pierced my thank you, general scovell. let me ask you to elaborate on one of the final point that you made. you mentioned while the faa received written responses from 80 of the 90 carriers, many were only partial commitments or no commitment at all an addition we found many carriers responses were either beg him not detailed in dreamland or stated they did not intend to take any action. i guess mr. scovell before ask you to elaborate i'd ask mr. -- administrator babbitt to respond. >> yes, sir. a response that we got i think we need to be cautious with the numbers that we're talking

about. that 82% represents 99% all of all the passengers in this country. also a program of gathering data across the fleet and looking for trends. that's the purpose of photograph. if you only have one or two in a fleet, roughly speaking the law books provide that turned for you. you don't need to gather data. and so, what we have exceeded the experience of the carriers not participating as for the most part people who are very small fleet or older airplanes that simply don't have the capability to provide that data in digital format to be gathered. >> would you agree with that, general scovell? >> mr. chairman, i'll acknowledge the validity of mr. babbitt statement, that their air carrier commitment initiative covers a huge majority of aircraft in operation in the country today. our point has to do mainly with faa's lack of a follow-up effort in response to the air carrier commitment. what the administrator had asked

for was that for all recipients of his request to respond to him. and though the 80 who responded, our analysis showed with respect to the most important efforts of the request pilot records, 14 either didn't commit or submitted letters that did not state their intention on this issue. one carrier stated it are to have a pilot selection process and another carrier stated it complied with prions, which in fact was not the subject of the substance of the administrators request. one carrier most interestingly remarked to us when i.t. was on-site at their location that while they appreciated the faa's desire to expand pilot rockers with you for utility during the hiring process, they wondered why faa purged records of accidents and incidents of the five-year mark because i carrier thought that information might be valuable to it in making

hiring decisions. now we realize that there may be statutory or regulatory requirements to purge records at designated intervals. but recognizing the carriers may be hungry for that information, we would encourage the agency to do what it could to honor their request. with regard to voluntary safety programs, folk was being won, 25 and 80 carriers responded that they did not plan to implement or giving nonspecific response. again, we would expect given the importance of it to aircraft aviation safety acknowledging that ntsb just this week recommended that faa mandate the implementation of faqua and all carriers. we would expect they would have institution responses. with respect to asap, 11 carriers total signal to the

administrator that they did not plan to implement or they submitted nonspecific responses. again, asap has been held up by faa as a key cornerstone of aviation safety and its record among the major characters has been quite good here it would expect the agency to follow-up, even down to the smallest carrier. in an attempt to further increase every aspect of aviation safety. timely, with regard to contract provisions and these are -- this is a question the administrator asked, does the carrier have procedures in place to see that regional in mainland characters are sharing best safety practices to the extent there are a partnership between them. fifteen carriers either did not respond or submitted unfair responses. again, we would hope that the agency would follow. >> you know, just a two weeks ago i heard an interview of someone interviewing president

obama. he was asked to rate himself on his first year in office. let me ask you to grade the faa. he talked about the positive things, some negative things come of challenges. what grade would you give the faa at this point on the call to action? >> on the call to action as her statement makes clear, we would give it with mixed success. if you were to press me for an actual grade and i resist that inherent in the past. i would have to tell you, sir, that i would read it incomplete. i certainly wouldn't grade it pass fail at this point because of mr. babbitt has the knowledge, very much needs to be done. i wouldn't grade in a comedy, or a thief. i do want to acknowledge that faa under mr. babbitt's leadership has signaled an intent to engage on two of the most important initiatives having to do with the teat and the rulemaking have to do is

crew training. i'm petite, sir, were in a fix as pointed out in your speech based on medical science that is even older than not. san saba was issued, much medical research has been done by faa itself and by nasa at the request of the congress and funded accordingly. get the current tool doesn't incorporate that. despite the effort in 1995, which met vociferous within the industry. faa in the intervening years and tell mr. babbitt arrived, chose not to engage on this front. i give great credit to mr. babbitt for signaling publicly in the call to action that he is going to press home i'm petite and crew training requirements. that said, other statement makes clear, we would take issue with how faa designed, implemented and followed crew on a number of its initiatives to include

attention to the professionalism matter, the initiative attempted to do that through mentoring. second-year carrier commitment to its most effective practices i addressed that in the last question either. which yielded some important information for the agency for its flawed in design implementation and some guidance to key inspectors who were designated to carry it out lost some of its impact. so for those reasons, sir, i'd have to give it an incomplete grade at this point. recognizing that there is room to improve in time to do so. >> thank you. the cherner recognizes the ranking member mr. petri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the inspector in his testimony made reference to the

fact that in four of the last six phaedo accidents there was a lack of highly professionalism and performance was cited as a contributory factor. and i'd like to ask administrator babbitt what is in the works to do with the problem. >> thank you. as i stated in my testimony in our call to action, one of the things we did we had 12 meetings around the country that were well attended and from those, we also called in both the air carriers themselves as well as a pilot unions. a birdie at one meeting just for the leadership of the pilot unions representing 95% of all commercial pilots in this country which scheduled for a meeting next week. it took a long time and i do appreciate the concern that some of these things are moving less quickly than someone like, but

i'd have to remind everybody the industry didn't get to this state. the industry didn't devolve into the state of where we see serious professionalism and attention in the cockpit overnight. it took years and it's going to take us years to bring us back. and i'm pleased to tell you that i had a wonderful response. i could cite and if you like i would submit for the record i received a report from the airline pilots association of a group they have now done a university outreach program. i have with me here -- this is the independent pilot association where they apply for ups. this is a special publication issue devoted entirely to professionalism. on the back of the code of professionalism. this was never printed or circulated before this. several of the carriers have done this. i've been asked to submit pieces to several different pilot unions to put a piece in our professionalism. i would say we've gotten their

attention and i would say they're taking very, very proactive actions, recognizing, working with us on working with the company. so i'm actually very pleased and to be candid, it's difficult for me to understand why people can see some of the positive actions that are resulting from this. >> i certainly would agree that we need to be focusing on and working hard for years to maintain professional standards in the cockpit. i hope it doesn't take years to achieve those standards because people are going to be flying in the meantime and we want them to be flying under professional conditions. >> in addition, i've had, if i may come a carriers have indicated several of them that are working with their private groups to revise the transition training when a pilot goes from the first officer to a captain and refresher training for captains as well as the transition to enforce professionalism. it's their duty.

it's their obligation and did something like you see in a lot of places. some people just have to be reminded to get it front and center of them and i'm pleased to see both carriers and their pilot groups recognized and working together to help achieve overall safety. >> general scovell, we've been wrestling with the area of the sterile cockpit rules here. the violation of those rules have been in both lexington and buffalo accident and have prompted the national transportation safety board to recommend the faa take actions to prevent further violations of those rules. what specific steps might be taken to step up the enforcement of the still cockpit conditions. >> you raise a good point because while it's also said that professionals and can't be mandated. i agree with that.

it's a concept we take apart that concept and recognize that there are discrete behaviors whether they relate or fitness for duty, training, the obligation to behave professionally in the cot that some of those discrete behaviors can be regulated, not to say that they always should be. sometimes the voluntary or consent this method is the way to go and those should always be impressed and enforced using that eerie but sometimes enforcement methods should be in place. i'm not in a position now because i don't have a body of work frankly on which to speak near it but i would say that we have instances that are common knowledge where we can say that those enforcement methods have been put in place. for instance, if a professional pilot will not report to work under the influence about golf. we would lie in the judgment of that individual to sustain a standard. no, we've got a bottle to

throttle rule. the professional pilot of the report for work overly fatigued. again, do we rely on individual judgment? know, for him and her employer we have crew rest requirements. there are a number of other actions. when we get to sterile cockpit, that's going to be a tough one. ntsb in its golden report just this week addressed -- tried to address these points when it recommended to assay a workload management training, leadership training and a complete ban by the@@@@z problem? what's the extent of the problem? with the danger to safety if the

problem continues? what are all the turn this to address it? the advantages and disadvantages to that approach, my office in gao and a few others in government can help this committee and the secretary identify those and it becomes a policy question thereafter. >> by thank you. mr. petri had to go to vote in another committee. he will return very shortly. let me just comment and then i will call on other members to ask questions. administrator babbitt, you indicated we didn't get where we are overnight and it may take years to bring it back. i understand where we are overnight, but i don't agree that it's going to take years to get us back. and that's one of the reasons why we introduced h.r. 3371 because of our fair that it takes so long to the rulemaking process to address some of these

issues. it were not just talking about the atp required and for additional hours. but both a qualitative training and experience need to be applied. you cover that many times. then our legislation, we provide comprehensive preemployment screening, pilots including assessment of skills, aptitude, suitability for functioning the airline's operational environments. we raised the minimum requirements of course to the atp, which there is some disagreement on. they're a number of other things that pilots must receive training effectively didn't air carrier operational environment outburst weather conditions including de-icing, altitude operations and multi-pilot crew. those are things that need to be addressed and that should not take years to bring us back. i'm not why acted so quickly to introduce this legislation after this tragedy. and that's why we did it in a

bipartisan way and pasta to the committee and through the house of representatives. unfortunately, it's been over in the other body like many other things and we hope the very shortly that will take this legislation as too so we can hammer out whatever differences we may have an come up with a different bill that addresses many of the needs that need to be addressed sooner rather than later and i think you agree with that. with outcome of the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from nevada, ms. titus. >> ms. titus went to vote in another committee and told so will return in the chair recognizes the journal of men from michigan, mr. schauer. >> thank you gentleman for testifying. i too very distinctive differences and the first one i'd ask mr. babbitt if you could take just a short amount of time

just to address. my district in battle creek, michigan is a home of western michigan college of aviation, i think the finest university-based pilot training program. power the call to action recommendations integrated into university pilot training programs and well today's notice of proposed rulemaking provide them an opportunity to offer alternatives the knickerbockers onto that briefly if you'd like. >> yes, sir. several fronts that multiple components of that to answer number one is indicated several of the pilot association has started an outreach so that you can begin to train young pilot on the value of professionalism and living examples right in the classroom during guests begin experiences, helping the curriculum. i know several of the pilot organizations are part of the board that the curriculum. we encourage that and am pleased to see they are actually engaging in that. second, the proposed rulemaking

that we have out the advance notice, certainly recognizes the variants and i would note for the record that we were discussing this prior to the point in time when people began to focus on this. i was concerned i felt that a commercial pilot license was not sufficient training or previous qualifications, having a lot of light shone from this accident and others that i felt we needed to improve. so, we've tripled the number of hours in this proposal. i think there is 750 hours and we have a number of key elements so if a pilot was doing today we have high fidelity simulation, the schools can teach the academic side of it. pilots today, with training and academic exposure to management of energy. these are large machines, hundreds of thousands of pounds in stopping them on a runway requires some knowledge of how you manage all this energy. all of these things are in the curriculum. we have not ruled out anything and perhaps one of the solutions

is more time or more training interchangeably. but we certainly offer an welcome the academic community to common course. >> thank you. i appreciate that. being from michigan, as the know, we nearly had a terrible tragedy over detroit on christmas. i know our time is very limited in your testimony talks about accidents in airline safety. there are other serious threats involving airplanes in the air and on the ground. and there's been a great deal of media attention continuing in my state on what happened. i don't think we know yet, but i wonder if you could at least comment briefly on the faa's jurisdiction over this type of incident in the air and on the ground and the protocols involved including on the ground i'm sure you've been following

that and if you could comment whether those were followed in the air and on the ground. mack guess, sir. your talking about the flight with the attempted tears. >> yes, sir, we of course obviously control that fighter air traffic control procedures and the aircraft landed. they indicated they had a problem. there's the communication gap between the cabin and the flight deck crew. the flight deck crew reported they had someone who attempted to set firecrackers off. so it didn't elevate to anyone whether it was the cockpit or air traffic control to anything of great seriousness at that point. however, he began to escalate and if you follow the timeline, we have a very robust system set up with homeland security, the transportation security administration, all of those procedures were tried, followed. we isolated the airplane as it was known to us what were doing. we also then began to very

quickly expand notification. we set up using our communication system and a domestic events that were. we reached out to other carriers in the country can't explain to them what was going on and set up procedures so that either we or they could contact their crews to put them on alert for the situation as it develops. >> thank you. within the jurisdiction of this committee by record the further opportunity to talk about that. another multiple agencies with multiple jurisdictions. the chairman has been very helpful. we immediately had a closed preceding on the matter involving a number of agencies. but it is a grave concern. i thank god there wasn't a loss of life in that situation and hopefully this will be another incident that we can learn from, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair thanks the lady for michigan and i asked the gentlelady from michigan. >> i think the four the

testimony and met with many of the members who have suffered a tragic loss and are moved by their efforts to make the skies safer. so we joined them, certainly help we can push the senate to pass with bipartisan airline safety and improvement act. first of all, i'd like to say administrator babbitt, i am from west virginia and i would like to thank you and your agencies cooperation as you note last month a u.s. airways flight overran the runway, which you don't want to do in west virginia because we're situated on the top of a mountain. we had heard he passengers and three crewmembers. but because our airport hadn't ema s., which then engineered material arresting system, a new technology that halted the plane on the ramp and saved a lot of life in a lot of industries. under the faa has helped with us in getting the rapid rebuild of that system on our airport. the thank you for that.

two things i'd like to ask about. but commuting thing that we learned in the tragic accident that the commuting times of the pilot on the one in particular was very lengthy, questionable leading to fatigue. you mention commuting, but is it possible to quantify the possible hazards and how are you facing this in interfacing us with a conversation i had with my regional air crewmembers on monday that this is going to be an issue that's very difficult for them as they tried to hold their job and live in different areas. so response. >> well, the primary focus that we have is on crews being arrested. we want every crew to show up for work, both mentally and physically prepared to go to work. and that's about exception. that is the charge, that is the challenge and it's our

responsibility, shared responsibility with the crews to make sure to not happen. there has been focused on the fact pilots to commute and that happens. different characters handle it different ways. we are literally on the brink and we discussed a little bit of the delay issue. it took somewhat longer, not dramatically longer. i sat in this very chair in 1992 and testified on this very subject on the air line pilots association. i appreciate how long it has taken. but were talking about delay that's measured in weeks, not years. so we're very close and our proposal, it notice of proposed rulemaking will include a provision where we seek comment on what do people believe is the appropriate thing. how can we limit this? i can give you lots of letters that i received on both sides of this argument. it's a serious issue but were focused on fatigue and management of fatigue in recognizing the fatigue and we've got several ideas on how to deal with that.

>> well, i certainly think, you know, i applaud you for that. i'd like is sooner than later in the fatigue issue is certainly hard to quantify for individuals who have different levels of, you know, sustainability research and hours of sleep. the other question that came up repeatedly in the last turn we had were the major carriers mentoring with the regional more seasoned pilots helping the younger pilots, appearing man. i think we had testimony from numerous people that said that most, the best way to learn after you attain that licenses to have somebody right next to you that can show you the ropes and help you meet the difficulties of any kind of situation that you might be in. as a mentoring program really going to come off here? and are they going to be a situation -- this is what i fear, is it going to be a situation that the carrier said that the more seasoned pilot say

that they will mentor but it's going to cost another -- i want to be compensated or mentoring. this is an something i'm going to voluntary do. what is your perspective on not enough on the pilot caring and neither one -- >> the mentoring is a natural event over the course of an oral airline you get tired comings and a number of years linus copilot and you learn other things. and that's part of the mentoring process. that's where the experience is built up. >> if i could interrupt some of the plane i was on monday i don't know who was mentoring you in the cockpit there. they both looked like my 25-year-old children, quite frankly. >> well, going back and look at one of the concerns we have, the model i describe for you as a traditional airline that has been around for a long time and has been politics that mentor the younger pilots. one of the concerns today is quite offered a new airline will

form in order to provide service for another carrier. and every pilot at the airline is new and therefore, how do we ensure that these pilots about that exposure? we know they meet the regulatory requirements. all of them do. so we've asked the carriers and i'm very pleased to say that they are all engaging in this. every carrier in this country today, every mainline carrier that carries passengers now has a program to exchange their people that the leadership in the union representatives of the other carrier that feeds them at the regional partner. we want to see how that develops. is that providing the information transfer we're looking for? other of their curriculum courses? should we reach adduces into current training. but we also recognize the need for it. it's how best to deliver it and we have better academic tools debut with high fidelity simulation today. we have signs today that we didn't have peers who are going to try to find the best ways to achieve these goals and work with everyone to do that. >> thank you dared

>> the chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes the gentlelady from nevada, ms. titus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like to continue the line of questioning that the chairman started. i appreciate your comment of the fastest way to implement safety improvement program is to be done voluntarily. but at the same time, i share the inspector general's concerns that when that was the case, that some airlines, one of them regional airlines either didn't respond or responded in some kind of vague way. so i haven't really heard from you what you plan to do next, either through the carrot or the state to get these other airlines to establish the safety programs. and second, i know that many times a program is just written and put on the shelf. to have any kind of timeline are any plans to follow up with those airlines they did submit programs to see that they really are being implemented? >> is a very good point. and yes, ma'am, we have first

off remember that we pressed this into service very quickly. we wanted a very rapid amount of focused attention on everybody in the industry. we want to get their attention. in the program i think again a misconception might be that we were going to go out and evaluate other programs. and that's not what we asked to be done. we asked to confirm the existence of programs. the follow-on now that everyone is confirming guess we're going to have these programs, the follow on is to now go back and say how is this program? are you just fill in a square for us or are you actually developing a program? we can see some of these programs. some of them are very robust. some of them aren't. will have to go back with our inspectors. we did hear -- remember what we asked these inspectors again to do to confirm that there was an active program they did that. we asked them to look at some of the programs.

some of the elements of over us to look at simply don't exist. so yes, we did get some answers. this is not applicable and not observable because they may not do that particular mover at the carrier. so yes, we got some vague answers on things, or you need to put them in the context of what our inspectors were looking not. remember these are -- we have and i'll put something else in context for you. we use a system of calculated risk. i was part of a review team that went out and review the risk management that we use in this country to ensure the safe levels. we focus on areas if someone didn't have a program, we put them on notice you were going to a focused attention. if you don't have a program, you are be going to suggested for further scrutiny from us. they usually say, you know what, maybe it's better we do the program. and that's exactly what we want to inspire. >> i would assess the inspector

general to comment on that if you have a suggestion to rethink that's going to be adequate or a timeline with which we need to do this. >> thank you, ms. titus. i appreciate the . . . training programs were first suggested is an guidance from faa to the aviation industry in 2006. it was suggested, it was put on record as guidance at that point. it wasn't mandated. yet under the urgency of the call to action initiative, which again i give credit to mr. babbitt for initiating. it was discovered that a sizable number of airlines at that point in jets have remedial training programs. they do now. so they've certainly checked the box to use mr. babbitt sprays.

they have something on the shelves on it to use your phrase and we would encourage faa diligently to follow up sooner rather than later in evaluating the effectiveness of those programs aired and the guidance that faa headquarters provides to its inspectors in the field will be absolutely key. >> thank you. >> the chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to clarify what i was sitting earlier because i still believe this is about quality of training and not quantity of training. i heard to comment about this is in just a number of hours. and i agree with that because we have other things in here obviously high-altitude training, whether training, besides being an att. that's been in an att that is the biggest limiting factor here together takes 1500 hours. with all due respect, the statement made earlier, a combat veteran who's got 300 hours in a

plane in all the training in the world isn't just learning how to fly. they are very qualified individuals and i do not want to limit those two folks that only have 1500 hours within apt certificate. getting in apt certificate doesn't make you a good pilot. what makes you a good pilot as a whole lot of other things that are out there. we need to be concentrated more on hiring practices with some of the airlines and weeding some of these folks out there do not belong in the cockpit. every person in this room that the pilot knows their people and the cockpit today who do not belong there. i don't want them commanding an aircraft that i've come a family on. even if they haven't atp certificate and abet high-altitude program and de-icing training and severe weather training. there is also people out there that have 500 hours or 750 hours to have trained some very capable schools, military trained were very qualified to sit in the right seat.

and move along to the process. but i understand what we are talking about here. and i know it isn't just about the number of hours. the fact of the matter is that is a huge limiting factor on the folks out there that we should have in the cockpit as a backup person, as that ray theatre. as far as the question now as a statement obviously been curious and i think mr. babbitt you gave me the answer, too. obviously just a commercial certificate is enough and you mention that. number of hours, total number of hours though i think you mentioned 750. is that just -- did you throw that out or that actually recommendation? >> in our advance notice i believe that the number we put in. but three times the amount of time. but with that as a requirement to have a number of training elements and academic requirements. so it's just not accruing 250 times three. it's occurring more flight time and accruing a portfolio of

education, exposure, high fidelity training. if i could, i'll give you an example. in 1974, i was a fairly young, imagine that, copilot for eastern airlines. and we burst with an airline called care bear. care bear flukes lucidly out of san juan, puerto rico all through. the integrated into her seniority list and i began to fly with the care bear pilots. but i was surprised when i first went to new york with the care bear pilots who had never seen snow fall on an airplane. only five years of experience, 15,000 hours, the pilot wasn't trained for the mission. conversely, we began to fly in air operations. my entire life i had on the east coast a lot of approaches. finally we are on a radio controlled environment. i wasn't trained for that mission. and i had plenty of time.

this is what i'm trying to shed the light on is just accruing hours doesn't necessarily assure us the u.s. been exposed to the things that i personally believe. and i would tell you the simplest thing i can say is that 1500 hours -- i don't believe that. ..

but, i think the comments acknowledge at least some of the initial work that needed to be done. in light of that however, mr. scovell in his testimony has said very specifically that the faa has not implemented key rulemakings onya crew fatigue in training requirements. dfa a special investigations of air carrier training programs were in effectively designed and implemented and then the other key that i wanted to highlight that he noted is that faa has missed its milestone for establishing programs to improve pilot professionalism and although you have talked about some delays, i think for the american the flying public, tolerance is not acceptable and it is not okay to say that we are doing better.

we have to fix it and we have to fix it now. so mr. babbitt what would be our response to mr. scovell's testimony? >> first, i have a great deal of respect for the general and i have a great deal of respect for the observations and i find them very helpful. obviously i can't watch everything that the fda does. i have my own goals and we try to do things and i appreciate the put some bright lights on some things we have not done so well and we take those things they suggest to us very seriously. >> do you agree with them? >> let me take the fatigue as an example. i came to the faa for months after this accident happened. i have been here seven and a half come eight months. and that eight months were promulgated for rules i have outlined a number of things we have done and i've tried to convince people horridly shed some light on in that eight months we are going to release their role in another month. now, this is a very deliberative process and rulemaking is a

collaborative process, making legislation as it delivered a process. the work the ntsb does. this accident happened year ago and it took a year-and-a-half for a hearing. i appreciate what they go through. >> mr. babbitt, i apologize, being a relatively new member i only have to and half minutes in my question is do you agree with mr. scovell's assessments and all the things to take a while i will also tell you that as a new member, i sat as many of my colleagues did when we got a call from secretary paulson and bernanke in saying this guy was-- and we had to react in two days. so sometimes depending upon the issue of the reaction has to be different. babbitt you or do you not agree with the testimony of mr. scovell which are not just limited to rulemaking and now i have a minute and 47 seconds. >> in 15 seconds i get an a-plus on milestones for professionalism.

training i get an incomplete and i get a b on fatigue. >> do you agree with his assessment? >> i agree with some of his assessments. >> look forward to your immediate reaction to them and i would say, i would rather see you come to us and be creative in think out of the box and maybe have to figure out how we can do things differently because i think the confidence of the american public is reducing every day that we delay, and i think there is room for us to think creatively and do it different and i look forward to helping you. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that. >> i thank the gentlelady and that recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. bush shahri. >> thank you for attending this hearing today. mr. babbitt last spoken to offline a number of times and i appreciate the professionalism you are bringing to the agency and your sense of urgency to tackle some of these big issues that should have been addressed decades before your arrival here

before this committee today. and i want to just stress some things that i think are very key to this discussion we are having right now. number one, we are talking about pilot experience and we are talking about something that is even proposed in the notice by the faa to train like you fly in fly lucky train. these were very experienced pilots by some measure, 5600 hours between them but even the best pilots to have hundreds of thousands of hours, it they climb into an airplane and they are not trained on the safety procedures and the safety equipment in that airplane, i don't care who they are, they are going to have trouble recognizing and implementing recovery procedures and in fact, the ntsb report suggested q400 check pilots interviewed demonstrated instruction of the aircraft pushers system is not even part of the training syllabus at colgan air.

in 1991, 200204, 05, 06 and 07 the captain of this airplane failed his check rights. and complete come a lack of retraining of remedial training. this was a tragic accident but it was completely avoidable in my opinion. since 1973, the ntsb has been required and asking the faa to implement procedures that advises the training should go beyond the approach to the stall to include control stall training recovery from a full stall condition. the ntsb has further said that these are open and unacceptable responses by the faa. all this happen before you got here but the inspector general just reported that over the last year, a year later the faa has not finalized the rule as established for training requirements as established in the call to action. since 1973 the ntsb has had a call to action.

in the last year, nothing has happened. even though in october this congress and the u.s. house of representatives passed a resolution to testing they will recognize and avoid a stall of the aircraft and it would require simulation. so i want to know why after a year, after decades we are not having any movement with respect to this, sir. >> it is a very valid question and one of the things, if i could take you to the timeline a year ago january the new roles that cover training were submitted and comments were taken. the volume of comments was absolutely incredible, 3,000 pages of observations came in and they ranged from training procedures, the better ideas, questions about what we were proposing, lack of technical capability to do it. similars did not do necessarily everything in their plan can do so to ask someone to do the

simulator and the simulator is not capable of doing that that someone would raise their hand and say we can't do that because the simulator want replicate that. however we are on the verge of high fidelity simulator that actually can and i know you are a seasoned pilot yourself. we wouldn't put people in a real airplane in harm's way. i have actually done a full stall in a 777 and it is one of the most violent maneuvers i have ever been in and number two it damages the airplane. you would never sell the airplane fdu stall that it is so big but that doesn't mean we can simulate it and that is with this rule proposes. we put a supplemental out or a supplement to will be going out and i look forward to having that out also the spring and put this to bed. >> we need to put it to bed after decades and decades of non-action by the faa with respect to this. in fact the ntsb has said the issues in the cold and investigation are not new ones are unique to regional airlines

and impact when they further press kogan why they did have a part of their safety features of this airplane is part of their curriculum, they suggested the faa did not require them so where we have seen these regional airlines were now doing more takeoffs and landings than are large airlines around the country, they have met and exceeded them in the past. they are now shooting for the minimum set by find this completely unacceptable when the minimum stone include in any of the training syllabus requirement for understanding and recognizing and recovering with the safety features on the airplane. so the congress is moving. i expect the faa to move to rnt lexton a good job of moving and shaking in showing the sense of urgency but it is very clear in here that this will be part of simulation and we are not going to rest until this is passo i look from four to further committeeman herrings rory press this. >> thank the gentleman and the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. guerra

mundy. >> thank you. i am exceedingly new to this job, just three months. i understand your situation, but when i looked at your name i thought perhaps i had gone back to where was in the mid-90s will secretary babbitt when i was his deputy secretary. we did it lot of rulemaking at that time. and it is a process that can be exceedingly slow. have you set out a definitive timeline? >> with regard to the fatigue rule, yes sir and i will offer you the same apologies that i offered this committee. we set a timeline. i asked for a timeline that we would have a rule out by the end of 09. i was overly ambitious. i was not aware, and we ran into some technical issues. is an incredibly complex rule. this for the first time we are going to take science into

consideration. we will take input from management carriers as well as the pilots themselves in various unions involved. so, it took us longer and we do plan to have it out this spring which will be eight months from when i indicated we would try. >> i am really not surprised. my own experience of writing rules is that the unanticipated is guaranteed to happen. and the delays will always be more than you anticipate. therefore, my question goes to the legislation that this committee has passed, that the house has passed and is now on the senate. do you support that legislation? >> i do. if you go through and look at the elements that we tried to advance, we certainly took you know a great deal of guidance from the legislation. we felt we could perhaps move these things along. i understand legislation itself as the deliberator process and if we could be moving these things in parallel, i expressed

privately but the chairman i would love to say you know, we passed all these things and they key to the faa that got them done. i would love for that to happen. >> do you support the legislation publicly and in the senate? >> i have not been asked by the senate, but yes sir. we support the goals that you have set forth here, yes. >> do you support the legislation then? you do support the legislation? >> yes sir, i do. >> i think you may find as low as the senate is it may be faster than the regulatory process. >> i mean, our goal here, what is interesting that think everybody but certainly the inspector general who i have a great respect four, this committee, everybody, we all have the same goal. the ntsb and they can be critical of us from time to time but i respect that. we need that attention but i would note we talk about celebrative process i just got a

set of regulations from an ntsb from an accident that happened three years ago. it is the deliberator process for them too. i just got the recommendations from a three-year-old accidents so all of us have this process where we would love to move faster. >> there are some elements in all of these issues that are common and agreed to come and for which there is relevant and information bradley available now. those mike mogahed, while others that have unknowns and deep additional information may be left out for a later time. are you considering that process as you go through your rulemaking proposals? >> yes sir and i think, and i love the-- would love to talk and we have more time but one of the things we have tried to do is take and use and chairman oberstar's words the bully pulpit to get people's to do things voluntarily with a lot of visibility. i published the names of every

carrier who did not respond to us. we made them public. you would turn us down at your risk if you chose not to comply, so we did as much as we could do voluntarily because we could do that quickly and put many of the things we are trying to do with regulation or with the help of your legislation are in place but we want as much as we get done on a voluntary basis to take immediate action. >> my point more than that is my experience in writing regulations is it sometimes it is better to separate issues and to write one set of regulations with things that can be done immediately for which there is knowledge and information and hold the other piece. sometimes if you wait for the last these there are quinn to be a lot of dead people. thank you. >> chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. scovell in your testimony where you are talking about the special inspections air carrier

training programs were in effectively implemented i find disturbing elements in there and i would like you to expand on them a little bit and then i will ask the minister babbitt to respond. it says faa, when talking about responses, only captured the responses and a true appelee which of the air carrier training program should have included effective this not just compliance with requirements i.e. we check the boxes that you know did it take, did it work, did we get the desired results? what sort of measures should there be? i mean how would we get to measuring effectiveness? how with the faa to that and why don't they do it? >> sir, we have a project underway to assess faa's the termination of the validity of training programs and we intend to follow up on that point. on this key one i will note that duest backs, the first goes to a

point that mr. boccieri raised earlier and that is the court-- pour performing parlett and the pilot in the colgan crass that repeatedly failed certain training of aleutians. we got the direction to faa inspectors in the field in phase one of this focus inspection initiative was to assess how carriers are able to identify track and manage load time pilots and pour performing pilots. faa use specific guidance to its inspectors in the field on how to define a low-tech pilot. faa did not issue any guidance to inspectors on how they should identify whether carriers are properly following for performing private. as a result of my team went to the field we found disparate approaches between inspectors at different locations. how did one team identified poor performance? it calls into question the validity of that part of this initiative.

>> infectivity to set elsewhere dew of them have an automated system to track poor performance and/or prevent the pairing of two poor performance pilots. is that correct? >> that is true for scheduling purposes. >> are there requirements coming along that are going to make them establish systems and some of our regional airlines, the better ones that figured out how to do that? why do we allow the substandard wants to continue? mr. babacan response to that? >> yes, sir. one of the things-- >> i would assume khaldun false in the category of not having the program. >> you are absolutely right. we have a.c.t. advisably for flight operations that addresses this and recommends that everyone and gives them the basics of this. >> the call to action at that point in time, which was six weeks on the job call to action was to go out and find out who has these programs and who

doesn't have them. to put scooby on those who don't. the good news is they now have all begun to move that direction, and i mentioned earlier in my testimony, cube minot have been in here that our next phase is to go back and evaluate the actual program what are the elements you are tracking and make certain that we have a good solid program in place and we will audit that but the good news is now they all have a program. how robust it is remains to be seen. >> okay, so i mean that does not get me tremendous confidence. i mean, it is improvement, but we need some sort of reportable metrics it seems to me from how many pilots have identified that are having performance problems. there should be some sort of requirement it seems to me that what steps are taken or have taken with those pilots in order to give them remedial training or perhaps to curtail their duty or only pair them meskel pilots.

what sort of steps are taken actively once they have identified problem people? that seems to me there should be some burden on the airline's to identify these people, track them and report to us why do you have got and what you are doing about it. are you envisioning that? >> yes sir i could agree with umar and i do think one of the things we have said all along, part of what will come of this in time is increased responsibility on behalf of the carriers. yes, in this case we identified some errors that the pilots made. but there's an obligation on the carriers to make certain that they have the quality training, that the tools are out there and it is our obligation to make certain they provide the highest standard for possibly can so it is a burden on all of us. >> i would go a little further and i'm not sure what you mean by carriers. in this case we have a contract carrier for a major airline. i would say the responsibility

goes to both come of a contract carrier and to the major airline. there should be some responsibility instead of going for the lowest bidder, there is responsibility for them to determine this lowest bidder is actually a qualified bidder. and i don't think we really have that kind of system now except for the market-based system where people say, gee a big loss, they have a crummy regional carrier and i think that will stay away from that airline. >> and i appreciated and we have certainly got a lot of comment and dialogue on that issue. i do think when we talk about you know the carriage rights and those types of things we are on the safety side. this agreements made between commercial operations are probably at a higher level in the department of transportation. >> but at least notification. we have fought over this for years. you think about a ticket on continental but actually you are flying with khaldun.

just at least that level of disclosure i think would be useful in perhaps, i don't know whether that is within the jurisdiction of the faa directly or whether that comes from some other party. >> there is a requirement that the requirement is rather small and often after-the-fact where you are right at the gate. you are obliged to tell you with notification it is being operated by-- >> it is delayed at that point i mean i think the original idea was people been notified at the time of booking. isn't that correct mr. chairman? so i guess we need to figure out a way to translate that because what i want to do is i want to advantage and then it that those regional carriers that are doing better and not allow them to be out competed and drove down by the ones who aren't. that is the system we have today, lowest common denominator rules. it is a problem we have had with both the already a and the big

association, the ata and i have said that to a number of directors over the years. you do not benefit. you are a high-performing airlines by representing the lowest value people in your organization. i know you want their dues but these other people we need to be bringing them up. the current system tracks of the people down and we have got to fix the problem. part of that is what we are arguing over hours in training so they can shortcut there but part of that goes to some of these other things. there has got to be some chain of responsibility, so thank you mr. chairman. >> chair thanks you and you are correct in your assumption about the bill that we have passed out of the house with just two things. number one there is a tradition that says truth in advertising and mandates web sites that sell airline tickets is close to the purchaser, the air carrier that operates each segment of the flight and also make them printed on the ticket as well.

so the chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes gentlelady from texas. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and i apologize for being late but dr. ehlers and i have been running between committees. i would like to ask unanimous consent to put my opening remarks in the record. >> without objection. >> administrator babbitt i know that your hands are probably fall but keep in mind that people are increasingly concerned about flying and that we don't want to see that stop. could you tell me what your review and tails when you repeal the crewmember training, the qualifications in management practices? >> sure. when of the areas that we are very focused on and are actually working with congress in this committee on is to remove the possibility that someone in the hiring process doesn't have or

someone who is responsible for the hiring come before the acquisition of a new pilot, that that person, he or she has the complete record of this pilots history and that would include the pilots military history, their history within the faa, their history at the other air carriers. we have realized unfortunately three tragedies that that wasn't always the case and be passed the pilot record improvements act, which gives the carriers that, but we left an unintended consequence there that the pilot has to come out because of freedom of information issues, the pilot has to give people the permission to do that so we are trying to work so there should be one place where you can say, i am about to hire this pilot. i would like to know their entire record. we have uniform traffic violations. if i get a speeding ticket in texas and another one in virginia is going to show up. that is what we want to see

here. the problem we have seen, oh well they have failed one check ride. bayfield one in the military into in front of the faa and to warrant their less carrier, that is a trend that is what we need to be able to put light on. >> thank you. the focus strickland pilots? >> these bills, yes maam. it is focused on pilot hiring. >> because the other crewmembers should have some training standards as well. mr. scovell, you made your statement that you cannot regulate professionalism and you are exactly right, but what action if any can faa and the industry take to address the key safety concerns? >> ms. johnson, thank you. i think my statement and my oral statement was we cannot mandate

professionalism. mine reinstatements says regulate. to draw that distinction more finally i think that certain key aspects of professional behavior can be regulated and on occasion should be. mr. babbitt has outlined a voluntary approach and consensus building approach to enhance professionalism across the aviation industry theroux pilots and we certainly endorse that. we would urge the agency as well, when significant safety problems are identified, in the professional-- professionalism area that regulation be considered truly as a tool in the toolkit rather than exclusive reliance on a consensus or voluntary approach. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman. >> the chair thanks the gentlelady and it is good to see you back with us. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan,

dr. ehlers. >> thank you mr. chairman and i apologize, as the gentleman from-- gentlewoman from texas has. i did want to comment on something that disturb me very much. i read most of the transcript, all the important parts of the colgan incident and i would just absolutely astounded and dismayed at the lack of professionalism that was displayed in the transcript. and i think that is a very key factor. now, i am familiar with some pilots who have gone to probably the best aviation school in the country, perhaps in the world and i won't name it because i will get in trouble with everyone else, but i am just very impressed at the knowledge that this person has and the ability.

this person did fly in the industry for some time, and left for various reasons. fat, when talking to this person about it, you know, it was just astounding that anyone would be allowed in the cockpit that displayed the lack of professionalism and a lack of confidence that the colgan pilots did. the question i think we have to worry about is how do you teach professionalism? i have not sure you can. how do you communicate it? i think you can do that by example, and perhaps the best way is the right person trains with excellent pilots nlf seat, who have exemplary teaching skill and even if they are not part of the same particular airline, but usually it is airlines are related so perhaps

commuter airline candidate would fly with some of the larger planes for a brief time in just observe what the experience of a well-trained pilots do and i am sure for example that we know the current administrator of the faa was an airline pilots association and i have talked to him about the good old days when i used to be able to fly in the cockpit, as the rest of our committee was, and it was just so clear the incredible professionalism of the average pilot in the airline industry. and, perhaps, maybe the candidates for positions have to ride for half a year in the jumpseat of the large jet and watch how carefully and thoughtfully the experienced pilots operate and the professionalism that they have. i don't think you can teach professionalism in a class. you can teach responsibility,

and then give them the opportunity to work directly or observed directly well-trained pilots who led been in the business along time. i think that would certainly do a lot more than require more hours, but i think it's a pilot is not well trained you can require more hours but it is the same bad habits. so, having rambled for a bit i appreciate the comments of the their witnesses on the points i have raised and potential solutions i have offered. ..

>> what i wanted is one violates the sterile cockpit rule says excuse me we are below 10,000 less finish the decline. somebody has to be reminded. what we have is in some cases come elapses like we have seen. it is put the bright lights on its i think we can do a lot with trading or by simply bringing it to their attention. you use the phrase that i like. practice makes permanent.

we want to practice the right things and use procedures and the right way to be a professional and the cockpit. we will bear fruit with it i see a lot of interest in it. i know myself we did not have to write quote the day's ride for half a year but have the month just sit in said john c. but today they have the initial operating experience and sits in the seat, but those to programs we can find what works better and enhance them and expand on them. >> i completely agree with you. >> mr. scovell? >> i would agree with mr. babbitt. mentoring, leadership by example, i think all of us can look back no matter our field and recognize the value that kind of experience has brought to us to enhance our own professionalism.

the ntsb point* is good with their reports on the coal didn't crash released the day before yesterday the specific aspects of behavior like leadership training and workload management ought to be required a mandate in training programs. also the fact we are victims a day of all the many potentially distracting electronic devices available to us. most unfortunately in the cold in crash there is evidence the first officer had been test messaging when she should have been observing this sterile cockpit rule. she was not called on it by her pilot but if there were a rule banning such devices as ntsb has recommended recommended, perhaps she would have followed that rule. no guarantees but as part of a rule or training or follow-up by a diligent pilot come and maybe that

particular aspect of the colgan would not have happened. >> given the transcript i read i am not sure it would have felt that much. what i was trying to get out when observing the pilots, it would not help much for a colgan pilot to observe another 214 pilates because that is not much out. and other pilots with 5,000 hours and knows the rules very well. most everyone who was in charge of the pirates would know who is best at that and who is not a grumpy pilots or snarl at is the newcomers but to be very friendly and enjoy teaching, , etc.. it is not too hard to identify those and that would be a plus. i yield back. >> the chair thinks the

gentlemen and now recognizes the ranking member mr. petrie. >> just a question to follow-up on the concerns expressed buy mr. defazio and others how you have economic pressure but yet have an economic framework that protects and ensures safety rather than put under increasing pressure to cut corners and the results is what we all fear which is increased in accidents and loss of life. the industry has a hierarchal relationship with the national carriers than the subcontractors sometimes one side more than one carrier to provide regional service and so on should we build on that and rely the

major carriers? or should we be making sure the federal government regulates everyone? or the way they contract with each other? do you have a comment on how we can deal with a hierarchical situation and the pressures put on with the performance of the regionals? >> that is a tough question. let me take a stab a. first off by statute come as a primary mission is aviation safety. that must extend throughout the aviation carriers under the jurisdiction of the faa. the committee rate-- may recall 10 years ago at the congress request my office did work concerning their responsibilities of u.s. carriers with regard to international co-chair

partners. but at that point* is the concern was there were safety lapses in the u.s. carriers had no role responsibility to see those were mitigated. the rules have changed now and u.s. carriers do indeed have the obligation to audit the safety and training and made its programs of their international partners and that is a model i think may have led to chairman oberstar and chairman costello reap spawns to my office yesterday that we look at the domestic market wite u.s. may nine characters -- carriers should have such a relationship with their domestic regional partners as well. we just got the request yesterday. we will turnover rose too expeditiously we hope to have stated that will be helpful to the committee. >> it is complicated because it is not just one carrier.

its may be an additional safety, but it could not be a primary delegation of oversight or would ever. you have to respond to that question but this is a concern whether there should be one regulator were multiple regulators regulators, hierarchy of regulation, we would appreciate your thoughts on how we should make sure we get to the highest, not -- common denominator rather than the flight to the bottom of the fear with competitive economic environment. >> guy vander stand we will do our best. >> let me think you mr. scovell for your good work has always. you have testified before the subcommittee many times did we give you plenty of work to do. i can assure you we will continue to do that as we

send our latest request yesterday. administrator mr. babbitt i said earlier that i know there are people including myself that get frustrated because of the process and the time that it takes to get something done, but i have dealt with a number administrators' on this subcommittee and you have acted very quickly. and bureaucracy is as it is we have had some success because of action and that airlines voluntarily do things we should have been doing on our own the four. and we trust you will follow up as we well to make certain what the airlines have agreed to do that we do follow up and carry out. let me also say in spite of your best efforts it will

take legislation to address some of the issues. that is why we have introduced legislation. we have indicated and we met several times about a number of issues in the legislation. i am pleased to stated today your support for the legislation and i would hope , the senate to act so we can move forward and actually passed legislation and get conference to the president. i appreciate your support and trust you will continue to work with us to perfect in legislation we might bring through to the congress. to the families, let me say again thank you for being here today. we appreciate your continued support to commit we appreciate the fact you take time out of your lives to be here to push the legislation and push and not only the

agency, faa's into action and i would encourage you as well to contact your united states senators to encourage them to address the airline pilots and safety issues we have put in our bill to stress the importance they need to act so we can move legislation or move it into law. let me again think you mr. scovell and administrator babbitt for being here and that concludes the hearing. we stand adjourned. [inaudible >> live at 7:, your phone calls

and comments on today's washington journal. jo i try to be entertaining, informative and relevant. >> thom heartman is our guest tonight on c-span's "q&a." >> now president obama meets with fellow democrats at their winter meeting in washington. he alks about their agenda for the coming year. this is 20 minutes. >> thank you. it is go to see you. good to be among friends.

>> i have a few folks i'd like to thank. dnc secretary and treasure. thank you for the great work you do. i want to thank tim caine who is an outstanding former governor and leader of this party. busy building the best on line and grass roots organization

we've ever have. give him a round of applause. >> mike, are you here? >> barbara lee. we love her anyway. give barbara and mike a big round of aplaws. >> i want to thank the governor and legislatures for working to move their states forte in challenging times. they have done heroic work. i want to thank the dnc members. and the millions of americans who have taken up the cause of change at the grassroots level in all 50 states.

i want to remind everybody. we knew from the beginning that this would not be easy. change never is. that's especially true in these times when we face an array much challenges as tough as any we have seen in depen operations. president kennedy once said, when we got into office, the thing that surprised me most was to find that things have been just as bad as we have been saying they were. the truth is that things were worse. we took office facing a financial crisis that was something we haven't seen since the great depression. an economy that was bleegged 750,000 jobs a job. a $1.3 trillion deficit and two

wars that were costly in every sense of the word. from the sector of terrorism to the demrobal fashion, we face new challenges. this is the toughest decade our middle class had ever faced. the income of the average american household actually declined. where the cost of everything seemed to keep going up. everything we've done over the past year has been not only to right our economy to break the back of this recession and restore the security some of the middle class families have felt slipping away. some of the steps were done without the help of the other party, which made a political

decision all too often to jump in the backseat, let us do the driving and critique whether we were doing the right turns. all the steps we took were necessary. none of us wanted to throw a lifeline to the banks. the outrage shouldn't be that we did. it had to happen to prevent millions more from losing their jobs. millions of businesses and homes foreclosed. the real outrage is that we had to do it in the first place. that's the outrage.

we pass the credit card bill of rights and put the law of principal behind equal pay for equal work. we extended the promise of healthcare to four million americans of working families. we passed a service bill named for ted kennedy giving folks new ways to give back to their communities. we appointed sownia and depan working with congress and our military that finally denied

the law that denies gay americans to serve the country because of who they are. >> i went to cairo to begin a new dialogue with the muslim world. we stood side by side with the people of haiti.

if you look at a tally of the things we said we would do, we kept our promise and commitments we have moved forward. we have acknowledge change can't come fast enough for many americans. recently, i visitted allen town, penn, talking with workers and families. they want to know how are they going to find a job when they only know one trade or how are they going to afford to send their kid to college or pay

their medical bills when they are sick or how will they retire >> smirble a good baro meter. the poll numbers were all banged up. if i'm a mom out there. my husband is working. we are worried about losing our job, cost of our healthcare premium just went up 30%, credit card company just jacked

up our interest rate. the home values have gone down by $100,000, our 401 k is all banged up and suddenly somebody calls and says, how do you think president obama is doing right now. of course people are frustrated. >> when unemployment is 9.7%, people are going to be frustrated and looking to the party in power to try to fix

it. when you have another party that says we don't want to do anything about it. folks are out there working hard everyday trying to meet their responsibilities but all around them, what they have seen is a wave of irresponsibility from wall street to washington. they see a capital city that everyday is treated like an election day. they've seen the outside influence of lobbyists and special interests of course they wonder if they could confront the real problems to touch their lives. here's what everybody here has to remember. that's why i ran for president.

that's why you worked so hard to elect the democratic congress. we knew it was tough. we stepped up because we decided to take the responsibility of changing it. it may not be easy but quhange is coming. [applause] i believe so strongly if we are going to deal with the challenges of our time, we are going to build a future and change the prevailing politics in this town. we'll have to careless about scoring points and solving problems. at this defining moment, that's

never been more important. we can continue to be consumed by the politics of energy. but we know that the nation in a leads the clean energy revolution will lead the 21st century global economy. we know the failure to act will be our country in deep peril. america can't wait to either. i don't intend to spend all my time taking polls to see whether or not we can spin on the future or not. meanwhile our kids keep trailing our counterparts. we know the countries that out

educate us today will out educate us tomorrow. i'm not toing to take a poll to figure it out whether or not we can tackle education. we can continue to allow the same special interest who stacked the deck, the black reform again in this decade. if we've learned anything from the devastating recession is that we know that wise regulation actually can enhance the market and make it more stable and make our economy work better. we can't return to the duty that helped deliver this recession we could ignore the

growing burden of healthcare. right now, it would be easy to say. it's too hard. we could lick our wounds, try to hang on. we have a long debate on healthcare. for some that say perhaps it is time to walk away. more big businesses would be

unable to compete internationally. we know our deficit will continue to grow healthcare costs are the single biggest driver. >> let me be clear. i am not going to walk away from health insurance or the american people. i'm not going to walk away on this challenge or any challenge. we are moving forward. we have moving forward

sometimes we may be moving forward against the prevailing winds. i'm confident that if we stay steady on all the people we meet. if we have them in mind and we are working to deliver on their behalf that in the end, that will be good politics in order to get any of these battles done, we'll have to change the

way washington works the first white house ever to post our visitors on line. we have excluded lobbyists before they come up for a vote, so you know how the money is spent. to allow special limits to spend without limits. we said that we worked to change the ways in washington and the ways we do things as a party.

i'm pleased to see the more americans that get involved in this party, the stronger this party will be. yes, we need to change the way we work with the other party as well i know we can't solve our problems alone. we need to extend our hand to the other side. we have been working on them. if we are going to change washington, we need to change the tone. >> as a step in that direction, i went and visited with the house of public caucus on friday. we had a good discussion with

the challenges facing the american people and the way to solve them. it was good to see the row bust debate. i had fun. there are going to be issues that republicans and democrats don't see eye to eye on. that's politics. it's one thing to disagree out of principal. it's another to simply stand in the way because of politics. now is the time to do what's right for the country. now is the time to do what's necessary to see us through this difficult time. now is the time to do everything in our power to keep

the american dream alive. i know we have gone through a tough year. we have gone through tougher years. we are the party of jefferson we are the party of franklin roosevelt we have the party that helped to lead that country out of that fear. we are the party of john f. kennedy who called us to bear any price and any burdeneren. we are the party of edward m.

kennedy who said here in the united states of america, that the promise of freedom should not be privilege but of fundamental right. that is who we have to be today. all the stories we heard, all the promises we made. this is the best chance to deliver chance for what the american people need. if we do that. if we inspire them instead of divid them and respond with the same sense of urgency. we are not just going to win elections. we will once again be the party that turns around the economy and turns their country forward and secures the american dream for the next generation. >> thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. [applause]

♪