i can show you a tree that is 12 inches in diameter that is old growth. i can show you a tree that is four-feet in diameter that is not an old growth. every time i go over the pass, i damn near cry. there are millions and millions of feet of wood standing that they are not allowed to cut because the environmentalists say it might hurt the ground. god forbid. if that was true, we would never have done anything with the till look -- tillamook burn. never. we used to have a very high rate of employment, with a relatively high average, annual salary when

the mills were operating. we no longer have mills. what in the hell are we doign to this -- doing to this state? >> do you want to share any thoughts on the east side forest plan my colleague has been trying to put together to get out of this deadlock? >> it all works soemtimes. -- sometimes. but every time that something gets going, it goes to the courts. we are stymied. >> thank you very much. whenever i am hiding in that area, you often see -- hiking in that area, you often see completely overgrown, second- growth forests that are not serving their purpose and are

often a source of disease, a potential fire hazard. it is a lose-lose-lose situation. there are a number of things that we need to push forward on. one is the thinning which produces a steady supply of logs, better timber stands, and improves the ecosystem. nothing moves past in this world, but another piece was -- senator wyden and i thought to get money to help for us to thinning. a second step is to be a true economy supporting forest jobs. we have always depended upon lumber. housing is completely down the tubes and will be for some time to come. we have the potential to create a second market in biomass

products. that might sit very well with the thin in cycle of the operations. then can produce -- thinning can produce modest logs and biomass. i have visited the new pacific pellet mill. i went over and visited an operation that is producing short, compacted logs. there is another group that is building the first ethanol plant from tree fiber. they are using -- to digest the tree, they are using bacteria from termites. they set up chemistry that goes from paint thinners to vinegar to ethanol, which they can interrupt at any point

to sell the product. often, it is just left or burned in the woods right now. another structure is biomass. there is another promising development. cogen -- co-generation, where we proceed to produce both heat and energy, working in partnership with the sawmill. another small step is the stewardship agreement which has kept us out of the courts. oregon has more stewardship agreements and any other state and none of them have ended up in court. the secret is that folks come together in advance to plan, rather than fighting each other in court after everything has been decided. that is not at scale. that brings me to senator wyden's effort. he has been trending bring people together in a much larger store should -- larger storage

chip agreement approached so that we stay out of the courts and get jobs 0-stewardship -- stewardship agreement approach, so that we stay out of the courts and get jobs back. the thing is that biomass could be a real part of a clean-energy strategy, along with wind, geothermal, solar. it takes carbon out of the air. i had a meeting a couple of years ago. a woman spoke up and said, wouldn't it be great if we had a machine that would take carbon dioxide out of the air? i said, you will be glad to know we grow millions of those in our state. thank you for question period we have to push forward on all of those fronts for our jobs -- question. we have to push forward on all

of those fronts for our jobs. >> the next question is 647. next, 619. there you go. >> hello. my husband and i have had a trucking business. it is not big. we have had it for about 15 years. last year, when we registered our trucks -- this is per truck. our registration went from a little over a hundred dollars to $1,600 -- $800 to $1,600 pair that was a bit of a surprise. when i called, i thought i had made a mistake. she said, yours is the first one to come in. i have it right here. it is no mistake. part of the -- what is it called -- oregon jobs and

transportation act. i said, ok. we'll put that in the budget somehow and cut something else out. we have lost our insurance coverage. now in october, next month, our milage tax on one truck will go up over $200. it will average, per truck, about $2,500 per year. i got this letter with the rate increase as part of the oregon jobs and transportation act of 2009. i feel abused. if our registration goes up, we are probably going to be done. when i talked to people, they say you can pass that on.

we do not set our rates. the load be used to get almost $600 per load for -- the load be used to get almost $600 per load for, we're getting $500. we cannot pass it on. if we do not take it, somebody else will. who else is paying for this act? i know it hits everybody who fuels up their car and that goes towards this. industry-wise, i really feel some abuse here. >> i would like to be able to introduce a state representative or state senator to explain what was passed here, but we do not have one here. i will shoot at it -- take a shot at it. indeed. do you want to take a shot at that? [applause]

>> i was being so quiet on the back row. pastyou're talking about in the 2009 session -- passed in the 2009 session. i opposed that bill. they did not listen. it did pass. there are a lot of components to the bill. one of them engaged you as of october of last year with the title, registration, and plates -- nothing was exempt. it is for agriculture, business, private individuals, anybody who has gone in to get their registration updated since october of last year. the fiscal automobile went up to $87 for the fee. the increase in registration and title went up $16 and $23 respectively. the plates and doubled in fees.

as of january, the fuel is going to go up 6 cents per gallon. the bad part of this story is not over. i did oppose the bill, but some of the positive points locally -- the county commissioners in the bases will be excited to know that the city and the counties split tax revenue off of fuel did increase which should help the county road departments. honestly, it was probably the only bill that we passed out of the 2009 session that will really create jobs in the private sector and the state through road contract and what not. it does not help, but does it answer your question as to where it came from? >> did a lot of those funds go to connect oregon iii? did it go into improving the

transportation infrastructure? >> that is a good point. madras, as of last thursday, the airport got $1.7 million out of that, which came out of the house bill. this man has come to -- >> this man has come to more town halls that i have held than any other state representative. he is serious. he is a major part of the conversation in the sand. i just think we should say you are doing a good job. [applause] >> the next question will be for 964 after her. >> ok. >> my name is michelle. i have three things. i want to thank for health care reform. i think we still need a public option.

we need to repair our infrastructure. i want to talk about afghanistan -- us out of afghanistan right now. >> let's talk a little bit about afghanistan. i went there on a trip earlier this year. i went to go to iraq and afghanistan last november. the schedule change. i came back and then i went back over to afghanistan, pakistan, and india. they are all involved in the dynamic over their care quite frankly, i believe that our mission has creeped into afghanistan. we went into takeout al qaeda training camps. we now have morphed into nation- building. this is a nation that has no tradition of the central government. it is a tribal society with a literacy rate of around 25%. the absolutely hate central

government. they hate for an folks being in their country. -- foreign folks being in their country. there is tradition in the wake transactions happen. i arranged to meet with 6 pashtun tribal leaders. they came from far away, wearing their traditional dress. each one of them spoke and had some version of the statement -- the government is an affliction. i ask them, what do you mean by that? they said, the competent and respected people in our community are never appointed to the government posts. it is always folks who are out to make money for themselves. the post are sold from the top on down. i talked to the american team and they said, yes, everything from governors down to

schoolteachers are sold. you make money back at the next level. it has become an affliction. i went up to a training camp for the police force. we are engaged in trying to build a larger army and a larger police force. i heard a lot of problems about the police force. the payrolls are stacked, another form of corruption. they were hired and then put to work in a part of the country where they did not speak the language and could not do an effective job and were not respected. i asked about these problems. the chairman man -- the man kind of froze, because he did not want to respond to these concerns. the american trainer came up to me afterwards and he said, senator, it is like this. the police in afghanistan are thugs. we equip them and train them. now they are equipped and trained of spirit that is the

problem. you might have noticed that there was an offensive in t -- into marjah. there were a lot of people who said they like the americans helping, but please do not send in the police force. the collective nato operations cent in the elite, best-trained police in afghanistan and it has been a disaster. even the best-trained are still in a state where they are not ready or able to operate in a professional capacity. the goal of taking out al qaeda was exactly right. there are less than 100 al qaeda in afghanistan, by all estimates. any training camps -- we need to go back in and destroy them.

the state building mission we're on -- i do not think it is proportional in terms of national security to the cost in the lives of our sons and daughters. i have been up to walter reed and that with folks who have come back missing various body parts from ied's. it is not worth the treasure we're pouring in at $1 million per year per soldier. you mentioned a jobs program. $1 million would create 40 $25,000 per year jobs thinning our forests, building our infrastructure, improving education systems, and that is the type of thing we need to keep in mind as we look at the overall budget. i have real concerns about the bat -- path that we are on. thanks. [applause] >> next? after this one will be -- next

question after this one will be 969. >> i want to thank you for a lot of things you have been doing for our state and for the country, especially in education. we have been fortunate to get a lot of funding through the stimulus and other programs. i do see lots of wonderful things. i thank you very much. we're going to be visiting the d.c. area in a couple of weeks. we would like to get some passes to your office, perhaps, and the senate chamber. we are going to be visiting our daughter who is in homeland security. we always like to visit the area. >> for you and for anyone who comes to d.c., our team would very much like to help you get

those passes. it is a good time for me to make sure i introduce susannah, my field representative. she is an easy path -- can you share your phone number? >> i am in bend. 541-318-1298. i am happy to take your calls and get you in touch however we can to help you. >> a little tip -- we can get lots of senate passes and tour passes, but if you want to go to the white house, six months in advance is necessary. those are really hard. i hope you will all find some chance to come to the nation's capital, because it is quite incredible. >> after this gentleman, it will be 646.

there you go. >> hi. my name is robert sinclair. i got one of your invitations and i thought what the heck. >> how many folks got an invitation? great. >> i thought if i had any ideas related to jobs i should say something. i worked at safeway at night. i used to work building homes during the day with a construction company. we built several homes all over this area and in madras. he is now out of the out-- now out of work. i believe one of the key reasons for this is that the monthly mortgage payments are just too high for most individuals were working-class people, people who

worked and a $14 per hour, taking home between 3 and $50 and $400 per week -- $350 and $400 per week. i had some thoughts. the government could potentially loan money to lower and moderate-income people over a longer periods of time at 0% interest. at that rate, every payment would create 100% equity. the bank will not be cut out. they could issue credit cards for profit. as people get equity, every payment they make, they could go out and purchase, which would put other people to work. i put a lot of this information to gather about mortgage tables and what not.

it is in this paper i have here. for example, a person at minimum wage making $6.25 per hour working 40 hours per week takes home about to win the $50 per week. a 30-year loan at 0% interest, it would cover all 140 bad -- $149,000 home. people working in mcdonald's, subway, top nobel -- taco bell. they could buy into a home and earn equity. when we rent, we never earn equity and we can never buy anything extra. if we can acquire equity, then the bank will not be cut out. they will be processing the loans. they would be able to issue credit cards and may be charged an annual fee or whatever. that equity builds. people can purchase more and

more things. it is just a thought an idea. i was wondering if it was a good idea. how long would it take to meet with larry summers or anybody in the economic advisers? would that be possible? >> yes. let me tell you, i so much appreciate you coming in with this particular idea. it is different than anything else i have heard. i used to work for habitat for humanity. we did 0% interest loans and put families back on their feet who would never have been able to be homeowners. it is interesting how you paired it with the credit card peace. a couple of weeks ago i had lunch with a group of freshmen and sophomore senators. we each had a chance to raise an issue. i raised the crisis in foreclosures and families who are underwater.

we need to be as bold and aggressive to help out families in this situation as we have been to put financial institutions back on their feet. the result was a follow-up meeting, not with larry summers, but with treasury secretary geithner, in which i laid out a couple of ideas which are cousins to what you proposed. one idea stems from when farmers were able to buy back their forms when they lost them in the midwest in the 1980's. there was a foreclosure rescue loan that enabled people to buy the house back at the price was being auctioned off to the public with a loan that was not based on fico scores, but on a fair analysis of the ability to pay. that way the family would be out from under water, no longer owing more than the family was worth, with a fair interest rate, a much lower payment, and

back on their feet. that was one idea to the second idea was to do 6% refinancing, not as low as 0%. at that rate, there could be a standard mortgage -- the way it is right now is 5% or less. there could be insurance for those who fail so that the treasury is not out any money. this would allow people who have subprime loans that have gone up to higher percentages to come down by probably 1/3 in their payments. if, in the process, you could take the amount that they were underwater, they could take that amount and have it beat a 0% interest mortgage that would be paid off at the end after they

have paid off the regular mortgage. that way, families would not feel under water anymore and would feel more comfortable. yes, i am going to make it. these ideas, the strategy is -- we have got to do more to help our families or we're not going to put ourselves back on track. >> i have this information that i put together. i will give that to you. when you have the time to look at -- i put that together to help other people. i have a home already and it is paid off. a lot of individuals that i talk to add work and -- at work say they could never get into a home. i thought it would put something together and say what i think and how this is one idea. maybe you could meet with their summers and other people and go over this.

it would turn things upside down, the banking industry -- instead of loading them money at almost 0%, you would be lending to court individuals. [applause] >> ok. thank you. how many folks think that we should have a much more aggressive effort to assist families in homeownership trouble? [applause] thank you. >> after this gentleman, we will have number 611. thank you for being here. i think there is a feeling that the stimulus package has been spent for the banks and this and that. i would appreciate it if you guys would spend it on -- i

have heard 100% --the route in united states. if we could spend the money on roads and fiber throughout the united states, that would put guys to work. it will last forever. we will not be stuck with slow speeds. the electorate infrastructure needs to be redone -- electric infrastructure needs to be redone. this is job money we could spend in america. it is not just gone in blown up. net neutrality is extremely important. if you continue supporting that, i will appreciate it.

>> let me just note that net neutrality is the concept that every user of the internet gets accessed at the same speed. there are special deals cut so that some people get put into the slow lane for the very slow lane. is that a fair description? >> if you have internet through time warner, they will not slow down your connection to fox or somebody else who is not part of them. >> i will repeat that. if you have your internet connection through time warner, they will not proceed, every time you connect to a competitor, they will not deliberately slow you down. it is a fair, even speak for everyone. i do support that. >> after jim, the next one will be six to seven. -- 627.

no? next one then will be 608. there you go. >> ok. i have a question. in lieu of our 13.3 trillion dollars -- $13.30 trillion deficit and are unfunded unfundedies -- our liabilities -- the only way we can do this is cutting the size of government, even to the point of been draconian. can you give me an idea of how you would get spending under control? this is not sustainable. >> one thing that really was very exciting to me was when, nine years ago, we were running a substantial surplus. it looked like, within five

years, we could pay off our national debt and have a debt- free america for our children pri is not just that we're going deeper into debt. it is that that debt is no longer owned by americans. when i was in grade school -- i suspect some of you have the same experience -- every friday, we would have a chance to buy savings bonds. anybody have that? .

we do have a challenge. the budget bill laid out a three-year path to get back to the point where we would not be digging the hole in the deeper. why did not lay out an instant path? if we shut them various pass right now, we would not a looking at the level of unemployment. we would be looking at the double that. there are decisions that i support, sending support to the state of oregon for medicaid and education. oregon discussed $170 million to support school districts throughout the state.

there would be some cost to an effort to help people in home ownership. we have to be extremely cautious or we will end up in a position like grease with an unsustainable debt -- greece with an unsustainable debt. >> if i do not pay my electricity bill, it is shut off. same with the sewer. if i do not have money for gasoline, i do not drive anywhere.

this gentleman was talking about the internet. we use our blackberry for a modem. you want to talk about slow. what i am wondering is why, if we have to live by the set of rules, that if you do not have the money you do not spend it, why doesn't the federal government have to live by the same rules? [applause] >> may be is a gambling habit are something of that nature. they go belly up. in the short term, the federal

government is able to borrower if they are able to pay back. if you shut down -- it is a counter-cyclical thing. if you shut down spending when consumer demand drops, you add to the debt of the economy. the drop in consumer spending was $3 trillion over a two-year time frame. the stimulus bill designed to help fill in some of the gap with $800 billion -- versus $3 trillion. it is a little more than a quarter of the hole from consumer spending. of the stimulus bill, there are three components. a third was tax cuts. the second and third were support for medicaid and education. state budgets were in deep trouble. the bastard was direct spending on jobs. -- the last was a direct spending on jobs. it is designed to insist across

a recession. it does not fail and the entire hole. -- fill in the entire hole. the family would be looking much larger at the debt. we saw what happened under hoover with the great depression when he said "i googling to predict i am going to balance the budget because there is love revenue." he drove into a dark depression that was awful. at the family pass the stimulus bill and and a plume was going up 1% a month in oregon and higher in many counties, the goal was to try to prevent from completely nosediving.

the nation is borrowing money to help us get there. we will have to pay it back. we have to be careful not to borrow too much the. >> 644? >> i have so many questions i do not know where to start. i will try to narrow them down. >> take your best down -- pick your best one.

>> congress seems to be under the impression that the american people want deficit. bureaucrats are running our health care. there are open borders. they are closing car dealerships 1/2. i am wondering when democrat of hoehling to take credit for it -- democrats are going to take credit for their own responsibility. it is always pushed for the summer down the line, it is going to have to be obama and the democrats. a turnaround in close car dealerships. they will not let them continue drilling in the gulf.

where is, a step -- they are trying to make themselves a viable in canada -- again. that is a decision by a private company. i love it for them to back off from that for the -- i lobby for them to back off. i am not running the private company.

it is their responsibility to make the decisions. they did restore some dealerships. it was not much. i guess we are going to find out whether it works for them or not. >> 958. 958? ok. it will be 954. >> what is your plan? what are you doing? >> i took a huge hit from a loss of jobs in from retirement savings. when people lost their jobs, and they lost their health care.

then the value has plummeted. they helped create a bridge through. i have been pursuing them every possible thing gulf to try to fight for us to take on the issue of a loss of value in homes and home ownership. much more aggressively than we are doing right now. the third thing is to really try to put our economy back on

track. elem not been so much time on it. they are creating jobs through energy policy, putting our construction back to work. that is essentially -- it is not just that they took a hit. the hit is ongoing. prices are continuing to drop. we are further under water. more families are owing more than their homes are worth, etc. >> we are down to our last two people. 613. after 613 will be 626. 626, are you here? there you are. >> in the bulletin, there was a story about the forest service. i think it was this week. they have money given to them by the federal government to clean up the forest.

they outbid a bunch of other people. they hired foreign workers with that money. is there something in place to keep that from happening again? >> are you saying folks from outside the united states or organ? >> i think it was from outside the united states. >> can you give me a copy of that article? >> i read that. it was outside of oregon. it was basically for fighting fires just like oregon goes to arizona to fight fires. they go to california to fight fires. other sources were hired to come in and tell.

>> i love to see the article. if the gentleman is correct and this from a state, that is not that unusual. our workers it hard from other states and vice versa. any time with their projects, we can proceed to hire people close by. it creates good for the local economy. people are traveling a long distance. other private contractors can

tap in. i understand they have to do a fair bidding process. it is hugely ivan stages to have them go to the communities. >> i have one other question. >> i'll ask to come and talk to me afterward. >> ok. >> i have a look to the questions. when you are talking about the smog jobs bill, i listened to the president talk on it the other day. he said it was already paid for. how is it paid for? do they have to be appropriated? congress has not passed a budget yet. this is an open check to spend it anyway they want. why do we have a budget in congress?

>> we adopted a pay for statute that said we had to establish a set of programs to cut foreign just in order to pay for something we are creating. that is a way to try to start exercising fiscal restraint. it does not apply for everything. it is not apply to unemployment benefits. i cannot specify the list. there are a whole bunch of things put together.

we would yield a list. follow with me. we will give your name in normal. that is part stock of the goal that i think probably resonates for most of us of trying to establish some form of fiscal discipline. on that note, thank you for coming this evening. thank you to our host and the commissioner for in seen -- emceeing. smucker see is a lot of trouble of their having town halls and no one is coming. that is when things are going to go off course. thank you for coming in sharing

your views for the of = = = = = = = -- for sharing your views. we are getting 10,000 letters from people across the state. it is more valuable to your person to person.

thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> tomorrow marks day and night and never share of these of timber 11 attacks.

on our web site, c-span.org, we will have president obama, robert gates, and the joint chiefs chair admiral mike mullen at a remembrance ceremony honoring people that died. >> about 50 days away, follow campaign 2010 online at the c- span video library with debate from key races across the country. it is easy to follow it any time of free on your computer.

>> she will talk about her life. she did not speak until issues almost 4 years old and is diagnosed as autistic in 1950. is not an animal science professor. >> today, ray lahood announced new rules aimed at preventing pilot fatigue on commercial airlines. the proposal has to go there a lengthy review process before coming official. secretary ray lahood is time by randy babbitt.

this is 35 minutes. >> i think the worst day i've had on this job in the 80 months as i have been here for the 18 months i have been here is the morning that i was watching television and saw the terrible crash that occurred in buffalo. it is a day that i will remember for a long time. since that time, who has spent a lot of time with the families. we have learned a lot from them. they have become strong advocate for airline safety. we are thankful for them. i want to say that. they have been very strong advocate for what we are proposing in this proposed rule today.

we are grateful to them no one has had greater pain in the family members. what they have done is they have given us w a lot givenin behindd our sales to do well we are doing here today. we owe them a special debt of gratitude. this afternoon, we are announcing a proposed rule making that will help protect 700 million passengers who fly every year. this rule will have a 60 day comment period. we want to hear about what we are proposing. we know we will hear from the industry. we want to hear from the public. we know we will hear from the families. i want to pay a special word

of the credit to two -- to randy babbitt. lady came to us after being a pilot for more than 25 years at eastern airlines. he knows the industry. he knows the culture of the industry. he brought an enormous amount of experience to this proposed rule. after last year's accident, we in president obama's @ evisceration about to improved safety. we take a backseat to nobody when it comes to airline safety.

safety is our number one priority. randy traveled the country with his team and held 12 safety forums across the country. we thank them for the leadership. we are announcing proposed changes that will go even further, increasing the amount of time the pilots are able to rest between flights if adopted, the role with the pilots the opportunity to a nine hours of rest before a flight, place new limits on the number of hours a pilot can fly weekly and monthly and insure that pilots have a greater number of hours of duty every week. it is a big airlines greater flexibility to address scheduling. they will have the option to tailor their scheduling in accordance with the types of

flights they fly. american skies are the safest the ever have been. flying is safe, but they must be safer. we are proposing a rule that will help ensure that flying is safer than it is today i am pleased to turn over the podium to our diminish trader randy babbitt. >> thank you of. i'm going to hit a couple of the highlights. many follow his comments. this issue has been around for a long time. i personally testified on this issue myself in 1992 the in some

ways, this i want to thing secretary ray loven. when we had a call to action, i invited the cemetery to speak to the group. he listened to the dialogue. he said we need to get this done. here are. i appreciate his commitment to where we are today. and also like to think a lot of experts. if this is a complicated role.

we will talk about some of a particular spin the. i want to thank the folks that the faa that were involved. we have active participation what this role is based on is hard science. that is what has been lacking in the past. this gives us the opportunity to acknowledge what science knows about circadian rhythms. it also says that if you are a pilot and to understand your own

body and you say you are too fatigued to fly, then you do not. that is a big step. what we are doing today is not as good policy. it is about duty. it is a bear responsibility for their it is about safety for everybody involved. it proposes to strengthen the requirement for their. it is the responsibility with equal weight upon the carrier. care's need to consider the commuting times that are required. they will need to understand and their pilots are can meeting. they need to be a sure that they are given the opportunity when they get to their home base to

get the amount of regulatory rest required. we've acted as if all flights are treated equally. they are not as if fatigue are universal. if your fifties, you should not fly. -- if you are tired, you should not fly. it factors in time zones. if factors in if the pilot will be able to get the required sleep. there is a big difference between flying one long leg between detroit and flying 10 takeoffs and landings in never leaving the state of michigan. both of those exist today.

we are also talking about a 9 hour minimum rest. that is rest. this means behind the door rest. the rules today provide the duty but there is no assurance that the pilots will get the rest. we have a new method of measuring that under the proposed rule. we will have new rules that address the calendar year. it provides a better environment to be saved. it puts the joint responsibility on them to be rested. it gives the passenger the reassurance they should have produced.

this is a long time coming. i am happy this day arrived. thank you pe >> it is universal. it will apply equally to every carrier. they are not be any imbalance. they will have to live by the same roles. they were developed within this. >> you want the aggregate cost, right? >> it will require airlines.

>> with modern scheduling, they should be able to mitigate much of this. there will be increase record and recording requirements. we believe a lot of this can be mitigated with better scheduling techniques. >> there is some concern about the total work day. analogous 16 hours. under the new schedule, it would slide to a maximum of 13. that depends on a whole bunch of variables. i get the impression that some parties would have liked to see harder rule. >> bringing science into this was very important. we recognize the difference of

circadian rhythm changes. in an optimum environment, yes. if a pilot normally works days series, can we expect they will be just as alert at 2:00 the next afternoon? what increase with the amount of flight time. >> how are you going to assure the pilots get eight hours back? they can get off the clock. they do not have an opportunity. how that injured there are eight hours of record time?

if it takes 45 minutes to get to the hotel and get back, that is part -- considered part of the rest. when you get to the hotel, you are insured nine hours for the opportunity of rest at the hotel. you are in the hotel behind the door. if it takes two hours to get the hotel, you still get nine hours. >> are some airlines plan to have to hire additional pilots to meet this? >> they will certainly be looking at how they schedule it. they have an opportunity to participate. most of it was agreed to continually. i believe they can find ways to live with this. it is certainly possible that it

to be required. >> i'm going to take a call. whoever is on the line, if you want to ask your question, go ahead th if you are on the line, please, identify yourself. >> how're you doing? i want to go on to this issue of industry impacts. you are talking about if the airlines are able to adjust their schedules for this. if you are talking about all of these extensions, for example, if the have someone doing a lot short flights, if there will be more energy. they will get it ready, landing, turning around.

can the industry actually pulled this off without more pilots or with all simply cutting plight? >-- flights? >> we are here to try to release safety. but that will not be done without some impact. we have to acknowledge that. right now we have too many situations where pilots were flying fatigued. that is what we are trying to eliminate. i imagine you run the risk of increasing costs. that is what he paid to eliminate the fatigue and save the environment. >> what are you doing about the issue of commuting? >> this is not part of the

press. we put some responsibility on the pilot of a bear the but irresponsibility on the corporation to understand when can meeting is taking place. we asked the industry for comment. this is a complicated area for us to understand. this is what we are proposing. what do they think we can do to help eliminate this problem? >> a you seen what they just mentioned? where are you seeing this? >> where are we seeing 50 show

up? it requires some fatigue management training some people recognize when they are getting tired. with or about training, people do not recognize they are not performing at 100%. right now, we have one size fits all. we have a 16 hour on duty. it does not matter. i use this in testimony. if i went to work it is o'clock in the morning, would you be comfortable driving it would meet in a plot that night? how about going door to the clock and night -- how about going to work at 10:00 at night and then driving with me at

12:00? it is the same 14 hours, but it is not. >> [inaudible] >> what is the meeting? is driving a car an hour to working meeting -- is driving a car an hour to work commuting? what is commuting? by air? by bus? what do we mean by it? how do you track it? we have done the best we could to try to define what we expect from people. >> did you discuss this with the

department or the charter airline industry? they were concerned the exceptions in current rules might disappear. had you discussed the other side effects? >> we had opportunity for input. the park itself made it pretty straight for the acknowledgement that we are trying to deal with 5fatigue. we also have a crew. why should a crew the exposed to less opportunities to sleep, a longer on duty, just because they are not behind the cockpit door? >> does it change the way they are doing things now? >> the airlines do it today by

augmenting crews. supplemental carriers often do not have to. >> this proposal would become a row. they would have to comply with the same standards that all the other operators comply with. >> another question from somebody who phoned in. >> my question comes from tom davis d >> they have been nine hours between flights. what about -- is this thing worked out? if you fly to australia it could be different then flying to buffalo. how are you going to sort that out?

>> not necessarily nine hours between flights. an opportunity and nine hours of rest behind the door. if that is the same no matter how far you flu. -- flew. you have to have the opportunity for nine hours of rest. that is universal. before the distinction, it to a shorter on the domestic side. now it is the same. >> anybody else? >> if you fly to australia and many have nine hours of rest and then a flight to california as opposed to navy flying to washington and resting. >> out simply answering the opportunity for rest. there are other limits. visit there is a requirement that has been increased.

fe are insured of one 24-hour free of duty. now it is 30. when you put all these in place, it makes it come into a better perspective. the pilot will be assured of rest. >> can you give us an update on the california situation? >> first of all, we are very concerned about the people and their families of those who lost their lives. we are still getting reports about that. this is a terrible tragedy. we have agreements that they have jurisdiction we have

someone either on their way or on site as we speak to make sure that things are being done correctly the investigation will be conducted correctly. we will take 24/7 oversight to make sure everything is done correctly. the responsibility for this falls under the state of california. >> they mentioned of infrastructure will continue. do you think the pipeline should be included in that? >> in areas where there is faulty pipeline, i guarantee you we will be putting some taxpayer dollars. it is an important consideration. we have a whole team of people here at d.o.t. that work 24/7 on reviewing pipeline safety,

reviewing pipelines. they spend a fair amount of dollars on that. >> [inaudible] >> i'm not going to bring the problem today. if i had a chance to talk to some of our staff, i might drink the problem. stay tuned. check back later. >> about the new rule that led the pilots call in fatigued, but pilot had the right. [inaudible] how is it different under the current rules to strengthen that? >> we determine it on to things. good, safe, and problem

management. secondly, often there is a contractual relationship. never before has a been regulatory. i appeal to people to use their judgment and knowledge that someone knows themselves. someone could half of a wonderful opportunity to have sleep and something happened, they had an emergency at their home. they had the opportunity to rest but they did not get it. we want and not to be punitive. the one people to be able to say i did not get a good not sleep -- a good night's sleep and i cannot fly. >> you say you may extend part 135. is there some sort of timetable? can they take a look at it? >> we have put the 135 operation, we have provided them with some heads of the guidance

the we will be providing them information as to what this proposed rule could look like. at the same time, we are also telling the operations to take a village at it. congress has taken a look. we are putting them on notice. this could well be coming to your neighborhood simpered. >> things have moved very rapidly on a number of fronts. you dramatically went after the regional airlines. congress immediately increased the amount of hours required of new commercial pilot.

now the faa is acting as quickly on issues. the speed with which these reforms -- will go down as when the most pivotal moment in aviation safety? >> i want to give credit for us moving quickly. we knew there is a sense of urgency. i know you have talked to these folks. every story is a sad story when you lose a loved one. when you see the results of a npsb report and to see what happened, it could have been prevented. we took our sense of urgency

from the family spreaies. we are pleased that this rule addresses a lot of the things that needed to be addressed. if i go back to what i said before. when it comes to safety, we will not take a back seat to anybody. in no more cash -- you know my passion on distracted driving. you know what we have done when people who work for the department of transportation or airlines is provided. when they have bad behavior, perhaps there will be punishment. we will people to know the when they get in a car or bus or airplane for whatever form of transportation that the people that are driving these vehicles or flying the planes are well trained, that the vehicles are

safe. all of us like a lot. we get on buses. the only thing we ask is that the people are well trained and that the equipment is safe. that is not too much to ask. we feel a real sense of responsibility here to take of the issue of safety for the public to believe when they get on these public utilities that they will be safe. >> it is taken a little more than a year when the ffa said they could do it and when you put out the proposal. there were some deadlines that he missed a th -- he missed. >> we are not going to do a post-mortem. we are here with the proposed

rule that we think makes sense that addresses a lot of the issues. there is no value in early trend to go through all the imaginations of this. this is a very big propose row. we will find out how good it is. people have 60 days to comment on we are going to hear from families. berglund a year from stakeholders for the -- we are going to hear from stakeholders. we are here today because a lot of people worked very hard. >> isn't this about transparency? >> i doubt if anyone in this room wanted to go through the whole litany. if you want this, you can talk

to our public affairs people and still with them through the next five or 10 days. i will be happy to make them accessible to you. there has been nobody that has been more transparent on transportation issues than this administration. that will not fly around here, excuse the pun. >> the criticism directed at the ffa and department of transportation from the family'ies been the speed in whh things have been done. i know the severity 60 day comment time. when can this become a role? -- ule? the -- rule? can you explain why these things

take so long? >> they take so long because there is a lot of people involved. there is a lot of different stakeholders. there are a lot of different issues that have to be addressed. nobody agrees with that statement more than we do. this has taken too long. given the fact that the time from the air crash in where we are today, we are a lot quicker than any other administration in the history of the department of transportation for the -- transportation. when we face safety issues, we get on them. we do not mess around. we think this took too long, but it did not take as as long as a lot of other administrations. >> sorry, i'm trying to write down "didn't do a dang thing." >> it is nice way without using

swear words. >> did this will meet the cost benefit analysis? in it not, what kind of leverage to do have to use. >> yes, it does. we have not in meetings about. anybody else? >> i want to back up a little bit. hours trying to as the questions earlier. -- i was trying to ask questions are there. are there any exceptions to the rules? does more rest required if you

fly more during the day, if you read the eight hour limit, do you get more rest? >> one of the things that this rule does is eliminate the exceptions. there is flexibility so carriers have the option to schedule different ways that are unique -- that are not unique to everybody. nine hours of rest has not changed. the old world did not have it. what you have is an opportunity for respite. >> that is its unless someone who did not ask a question has a burning question. i really appreciate your interest in this. this is a big deal for us. you on getting the word out for us is very important.

thank you very much. hos>> saturday, and look at isss facing candidates heading into the 2011 elections. shaun waterman discusses u.s. efforts to stabilize afghanistan. later, a discussion on underemployment with heather bouchey. "washington journal takes your calls and e-mails live every morning starting 7:00am est.

next, president obama talks about the economy and other issues. then report on how terrorist threats have changed since 9/11 burda after that, ray lahood outlined possible new regulations concerning pilot fatigue. . . .

he will see some movement on the tax cuts and loans packaged. he was toward ending that blockade, something the president applauded. some of the stimulus proposals the president has come up with in the recent few days, the almost appear to be a non- starter. there does not seem to be a lot of democratic support. there is not a republican support. it remains to be seen what the president's legislative strategy is. >> the health care plan continues to roll out. about how it is being received? >> sig knowledge is it -- he acknowledges it is not doing anything to stop the cost right

now. he said you have to give it time. it is a complex policy still being implemented. it will provide the results he is hoping for. >> it was a wide-ranging interview. and news conference today. a new series of middle east peace talks got under way. in a remark some progress there? >> the only thing i thought was interesting is something he said today. if these fields, we will keep trying. confident that these next round of talks are going swimmingly. he did commit to continuing to try. >> your story talks about the president's defense of religious pluralism. did he tie this into the florida pastor who plans to burn the karan -- the qur'an?

>> he repeated his belief that it does not reflect america's values to burn the sacred text of one religion or another. he called on his own christian faith and saying he understands how religion can inspire passion in folks. the president had his -- was at his most passionate when he was talking about muslim americans, especially muslim americans in the u.s. armed forces. he sees -- he is passionate in his defense. not making a case of us versus them. he says it is just us. >> thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> president obama suggests there may be enough republican support to pass a small-business bill when congress returns next week. he confirmed that austan goolsbee will be the next chairman of the white house

council of economic advisers. other topics at this news conference include the florida pastor who has threatened to burn the qur'an. this is an hour 20 minutes. -- an hour and 20 minutes. >> the morning. -- good morning. before i take your questions, i just want to talk a little bit about our continuing efforts to dig ourselves out of this recession and to grow our economy. as i said in cleveland on wednesday, i ran for president because i believed the policies of the previous decade had left our economy weaker and our middle class struggling. they were policies that cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires, cut regulations for corporations and for special interests, and left everyone else pretty much fending for themselves. they were policies that ultimately culminated in a

financial crisis and a terrible recession that we're still digging out of today. we came into office with a different view about how our economy should work. instead of tax cuts for millionaires, we believe in cutting taxes for middle-class families and small business owners. we've done that. instead of letting corporations play by their own rules, we believe in making sure that businesses treat workers well and consumers friendly, and play by the same rules as everyone else. so we've put in place common- sense rules that accomplish that. instead of tax breaks that encourage corporations to create jobs overseas, we believe in tax breaks for companies that create jobs right here in the united states of america. and so we've begun to do that. we believe in investments that will make america more competitive in the global economy: investments in education and clean energy, in research and technology.

and we're making those investments. so these are the principles that have guided us over the last 19 months. and these are the principles that form the basis of the additional economic proposals that i offered this week. because even though the economy is growing again, and we've added more than 750,000 private sector jobs this year, the hole the recession left was huge and progress has been painfully slow. millions of americans are still looking for work. millions of families are struggling to pay their bills or the mortgage. and so these proposals are meant to both accelerate job growth in the short term and strengthen the economy in the long run. these proposals include a more generous, permanent extension of the tax credit that goes to companies for all the research and innovation that they do here in america.

and i've proposed that all american businesses should be allowed to write off all the investments they do in 2011. this will help small businesses upgrade their plants and equipment, and will encourage large corporations to get off the sidelines and start putting their profits to work in our economy. we also announced a six-year plan to rebuild america's roads and railways and runways. already our investments in infrastructure are putting folks in the construction industry back to work. and this plan would put thousands more back to work, and it would help us remain competitive with countries in europe and asia that have already invested heavily in projects like high-speed railroads. but one thing we can do next week is end a month-long standoff on a small business jobs bill that's been held up in the senate by a partisan minority.

i realize there are plenty of issues in washington where people of good faith simply disagree on principle. this should not and is not one of those issues. this is a bill that does two main things: it gives small business owners tax cuts, and it helps them get loans. it will eliminate capital gains taxes for key investments in 1 million small businesses. it will provide incentives to invest and create jobs for 4 million small businesses. it will more than double the amount some small business owners can borrow to grow their companies. it's a bill that's paid for, a bill that won't add to the deficit. it has been written by democrats and republicans. it's a bill that's been praised by the chamber of commerce. and yet a minority of republican senators have been using legislative tactics to prevent the bill from even getting to a vote. now, i was pleased to see that yesterday, republican senator george voinovich of ohio said he would refuse to support this blockade any longer.

senator voinovich said, "this country is really hurting," and "we don't have time anymore to play games." i could not agree more. i understand there's an election coming up. but the american people didn't send us here to think about our jobs. they sent us here to think about theirs. and there are small businesses right now who are putting off plans to hire more workers because this bill is stalled. that's not the kind of leadership this country deserves. and i hope we can now move forward to get small business owners the relief they need to start hiring and growing again. and while we're on the subject of economics, i also want to make an announcement about my economic team. this week, christina romer returned to berkeley after a tireless, outstanding tenure as chair of the council of economic advisers. christy is brilliant, she is dedicated, and she was

part of the team that helped save this country from a depression. so we're going to miss her dearly. but today, i'm happy to announce austan goolsbee as her replacement. austan has been one of my good friends and close economic advisors for many years. he's one of the finest economists in the country, and he's worked as a member of the council of economic advisers since we arrived here in washington. he's not just a brilliant economist, he's someone who has a deep appreciation of how the economy affects everyday people, and he talks about it in a way that's easily understood. he already knows and works with the rest of the team very well. i have complete confidence he's going to do an outstanding job as cea chair. and finally, tomorrow we will commemorate not only the heartbreak of september 11th, but also the enduring values and resilient spirit of america.

both michelle and i will be joining our fellow citizens in remembering those who were lost on that day and honoring all who exhibited such extraordinary heroism in the midst of tragedy. i'll have further remarks tomorrow, but for now let me just note that tomorrow is a national day of service and remembrance and i hope each of us finds a way to serve our fellow citizens -- not only to reaffirm our deepest values as americans, but to rekindle that spirit of unity and common purpose that we felt in the days that followed that september morning. and now i'd be happy to take some questions, and i'm going to start with darlene superville of ap. >> thank you, mr. president. you said this week that democrats wouldn't do well in the november elections if it turns out to be a referendum on the economy. but with millions of people out

of work and millions of people losing their homes, how could it not be a referendum on the economy and your handling of it, and why would you not welcome that? >> well, the -- what i said was that if it was just a referendum on whether we've made the kind of progress that we need to, then people around the country would say we're not there yet. if the election is about the policies that are going to move us forward versus the policies that will get us back into a mess, then i think the democrats will do very well. and here's why. as i just indicated, middle- class families had been struggling for a decade, before i came into office. their wages and incomes had flat-lined. they were seeing the cost of everything from health care to sending their kids to college going up. job growth was the weakest of any economic

expansion between 2001 and 2008 since world war ii. the pace was slower than it's been over the last year. so these policies of cutting taxes for the wealthiest americans, of stripping away regulations that protect consumers, running up a record surplus to a record deficit -- those policies finally culminated in the worst financial crisis we've had since the great depression. and for 19 months, what we have done is steadily worked to avoid a depression, to take an economy that was contracting rapidly and making it grow again; a situation where we were losing 750,000 jobs a month, and now we've had eight consecutive months of private sector job growth; and made investments that are going to strengthen

the economy over the long term. but we're not there yet. we lost 4 million jobs in the six months before i was sworn in, and we lost 8 million jobs total during the course of this recession. that is a huge hole to dig ourselves out of. and people who have lost their jobs around the country and can't find one, moms who are sending out resumes and not getting calls back, worried about losing homes and not being able to pay bills -- they're not feeling good right now. and i understand that. and i ran precisely because i did not think middle-class families in this country were getting a fair shake. and i ran because i felt that we had to have a different economic philosophy in order to grow that middle class and grow our economy over the long term. now, for all the progress we've made, we're not there yet.

and that means that people are frustrated and that means people are angry. and since i'm the president and democrats have controlled the house and the senate, it's understandable that people are saying, what have you done. but between now and november, what i'm going to remind the american people of is that the policies that we have put in place have moved us in the right direction, and the policies that the republicans are offering right now are the exact policies that got us into this mess. it's not a situation where they went and reflected, and said to themselves, you know what, we didn't do some things right and so we've got a whole bunch of new ideas out here that we want to present to you that we think are going to help put us on the path of strong growth -- that's not what happens. the chairman of their committee

has said, we would do the exact same things as we did before obama took office. well, we know where that led. and a perfect example is the debate we're having on taxes right now. i have said that middle-class families need tax relief right now. and i'm prepared to work on a bill and sign a bill this month that would ensure that middle- class families get tax relief. ninety-seven percent of americans make less than $250,000 a year -- $250,000 a year or less. and i'm saying we can give those families -- 97 percent permanent tax relief. and by the way, for those who make more than $250,000, they'd still get tax relief on the first $250,000; they just wouldn't get it for income above that. now, that seems like a common- sense thing to do. and what i've got is the

republicans holding middle-class tax relief hostage because they're insisting we've got to give tax relief to millionaires and billionaires to the tune of about $100,000 per millionaire, which would cost over the course of 10 years, $700 billion, and that economists say is probably the worst way to stimulate the economy. that doesn't make sense, and that's an example of what this election is all about. if you want the same kinds of skewed policies that led us to this crisis, then the republicans are ready to offer that. but if you want policies that are moving us out, even though you may be frustrated, even though change isn't happening as fast as you'd like, then i think democrats are going to do fine in november.

caren. >> thank you, mr. president. you're looking for republican help on the economic proposals that you unveiled this week, and you also mentioned the small business bill. but you're at odds with them over tax cuts. is there room for a middle ground whereby, for example, the tax cuts on the wealthy could be extended for a period of time, and then allowed to expire? >> well, certainly there is going to be room for discussion. my hope is, is that on this small business bill that is before the senate right now, that we actually make some progress. i still don't understand why we didn't pass that two months ago. as i said, this was written by democrats and republicans. this is a bill that traditionally you'd probably get 90 percent or 100 percent republican support. but we've been playing politics for the last several months.

and if the republican leadership is prepared to get serious about doing something for families that are hurting out there, i would love to talk to them. now, on the high-income tax cuts, my position is let's get done what we all agree on. what they've said is they agree that the middle class tax cut should be made permanent. let's work on that. let's do it. we can have a further conversation about how they want to spend an additional $700 billion to give an average of $100,000 to millionaires. that, i think, is a bad idea. if you were going to spend that money, there are a lot better ways of spending it. but more to the point, these are the same folks who say that they're concerned about the deficits. why would we borrow money on policies that won't help the economy and help people who don't need help?

but setting that aside, we've got an area of agreement, which is, let's help families out there who are having a tough time. as i said, we could, this month, give every american certainty and tax relief up to $250,000 a year. every single american would benefit from that. now, people who make $250,000 a year or less, they'd benefit on all their income. people who make a million dollars would benefit on a quarter of their income. but the point is, is that that's something that we can all agree to. why hold it up? why hold the middle class hostage in order to do something that most economists don't think makes sense?

>> so are you ruling out a deal with republicans on tax cuts for the wealthiest? >> what i'm saying is let's do what we agreed to and that the americans -- people overwhelmingly agreed to, which is let's give certainty to families out there that are having a tough time. chip reid. >> thank you, mr. president. on the economic package that you rolled out earlier this week, first on the business tax cuts. why did you wait until this superheated campaign season to roll it out? a lot of your critics and even some democrats say, well, clearly he's just using this for political purposes, he doesn't have any expectation it's actually going to be passed, it's a political weapon. why did you wait so long to bring that out? and on the stimulus part, we can't get people in the white

house to say it is a stimulus -- $50 billion for roads and other infrastructure, but they avoid the word "stimulus" like the plague. is that because the original stimulus is so deeply unpopular? and if so, why is it so unpopular? >> well, let me -- let me go back to when i first came into office. we had an immediate task, which was to rescue an economy that was tipping over a cliff. and we put in place an economic plan that 95 percent of economists say substantially helped us avoid a depression. a third of those were tax cuts, by the way. a third of that economic plan was tax cuts for individuals and for small businesses. so we haven't -- this notion that we waited until now to put forward a series of plans, chip, we've -- just on the small business issue alone, we have cut taxes for small businesses eight times during the course of the last 18 months. so we're hardly johnnie-come-

latelys on this issue. now, when you put all the things we've done together, it has made a difference. three million people have jobs that wouldn't have them otherwise had we not taken these steps. the economy would be in much worse shape. but as i said before, we're not where we need to go yet -- which means that if we're not there yet, what else can we do? and the proposals that we've put forward are ones that historically, again, have garnered bipartisan support: a research and development tax credit so that companies that are investing in research here in the united states -- which is part of what's going to keep us growing and keep us innovative -- let's make sure that companies are strongly incentivized to do that. making sure that their expensing accelerated business depreciation is happening in 2011, so that if companies are

sort of sitting on the sidelines right now, not sure whether they should invest, let's give them incentive to go ahead and invest now to give that a jumpstart. on infrastructure, we've got a highway bill that traditionally is done every six years. and what we're saying is let's ramp up what we're doing, let's beef it up a little bit -- because we've got this infrastructure all across the country that everybody from governors to mayors to economists to engineers of all political stripes have said is holding us back in terms of our long-term competitiveness -- let's get started now rebuilding america. and in terms of paying for some of these things, let's stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas, let's stop incentivizing that. let's give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in the united states of america. those are all common-sense approaches. historically, as you know, you've been around this town for

a long time -- usually, republicans and democrats agree on infrastructure. usually, republicans and democrats agree on making sure that research and development investments are made right here in the united states. and so let's get it done. it has nothing to do with the notion that somehow what we did previously didn't work. it worked. it just hasn't done as much as we need it to do. we've still got a long ways to go and we're going to keep on doing it. >> so this is a second stimulus? [laughter] >> here's how i would -- there is no doubt that everything we've been trying to do -- everything we've been trying to do is designed to stimulate growth and additional jobs in the economy. i mean, that's our entire agenda. so i have no problem with people saying the president is trying to stimulate

growth and hiring. isn't that what i should be doing? i would assume that's what the republicans think we should do, to stimulate growth and jobs. and i will keep on trying to stimulate growth and jobs for as long as i'm president of the united states. hans nichols. >> thank you, mr. president. [inaudible] -- i'll ask my real question. it's now been more than two months since the financial reg reform bill has passed. a centerpiece of that was what you talked about as a consumer financial protection bureau. and yet you haven't named a head. is elizabeth warren still a leading candidate? and if not, are you worried about some sort of senate hurdle for her confirmation? thank you. >> this is a great opportunity to talk to the american people about what i do think is going

to be hugely helpful to middle- class families in the years and decades to come, and that is an agency that has been set up, an independent agency, whose sole job is to protect families in their financial transactions. so if you are getting a credit card, we are going to have an agency that makes sure that that credit card company can't jack up your rates without any reason -- including on old balances. and that could save american consumers tens of billions of dollars just in the first couple of years. if you are out there looking for a mortgage -- and we all know that part of the problem with the financial crisis was that folks were peddling mortgages that were unstable, that had these huge balloon payments that people didn't fully understand well. now there's going to be some

oversight in terms of how mortgages are shaped, and people are going to actually have to know what they're getting and what they're buying into. that's going to protect the economy, as well as individual consumers. so this agency i think has the capacity to really provide middle-class families the kind of protection that's been lacking for too long. now, the idea for this agency was elizabeth warren's. she's a dear friend of mine. she's somebody i've known since i was in law school. and i have been in conversations with her. she is a tremendous advocate for this idea. it's only been a couple of months, and this is a big task standing up this entire agency, so i'll have an announcement soon about how we're going to move forward. and i think what's fair to say is, is that i have had conversations with elizabeth over the course of these -- over these last couple of months. but i'm not going to make an official announcement until it's ready.

>> are you unofficially concerned about a senate confirmation? >> i'm concerned about all senate confirmations these days. i mean, if i nominate somebody for dog catcher -- >> but with respect to elizabeth warren, are you -- >> hans, i wasn't trying to be funny. i am concerned about all senate nominations these days. i've got people who have been waiting for six months to get confirmed who nobody has an official objection to and who were voted out of committee unanimously, and i can't get a vote on them. we've got judges who are pending. we've got people who are waiting to help us on critical issues like homeland security. and it's very hard when you've got a determined minority in the senate that insists on a 60- vote filibuster on every single person that we're trying to

confirm, even if after we break the filibuster, it turns out that they get 90 votes. they're just playing games. and as i think senator voinovich said very well, it's time to stop playing games. all right. chuck todd. >> given the theme, i think, of all of your answers, i've just got a short question for you. how have you changed washington? >> well, i'll tell you how we've changed washington. prior to us getting here, as i indicated before, you had a set of policies that were skewed toward special interests, skewed towards the most powerful, and ordinary families out there were being left behind. and since we've gotten here, whether it's making sure that folks who can't get health insurance because of preexisting condition can now get health insurance, or children who didn't have coverage now have coverage; whether it's making sure that

credit card companies have to actually post in understandable ways what your credit card rates are and they can't jack up existing balances in arbitrary ways; whether it's making sure that we've got clean water and clean air for future generations; whether it's making sure that tax cuts go to families that need it as opposed to folks who don't -- on a whole range of issues over the last 18 months, we've put in place policies that are going to help grow a middle class and lay the foundation for long-term economic growth. now, if you're asking why haven't i been able to create a greater spirit of cooperation in washington, i think that's fair. i'm as frustrated as

anybody by it. i think part of it has to do with the fact that when we came into office, we came in under very tough economic circumstances, and i think that some of the republican leaders made a decision, we're going to sit on the sidelines and let the democrats try to solve it. and so we got a lot of resistance very early. i think what's also true is that when you take on tough issues like health care or financial regulatory reform, where special interests are deeply entrenched, there's a lot of money at stake for them, and where the issues are so complicated that it drags on for a long time, you end up having a lot of big fights here in town. and it's messy. and it's

frustrating. >> [inaudible] >> well -- and so there is no doubt that an option that was available to me when i came in was not to take on those issues. i mean, we could had decided, you know what, even though we know that the pace of accelerating health care costs is going to bankrupt this economy and bankrupt businesses and bankrupt individuals, and even though we know that there are 30 million people, and that's a growing number of people, who don't have health insurance, we could have said, you know what, that's just too controversial, let's not take it on. and we could have said with respect to financial regulatory reform, you know what, we're just going to get too much resistance from republicans, we shouldn't take that on. i don't think that's the kind of leadership that the american people would want from their

president. and are there things that i might have done during the course of 18 months that would at the margins have improved some of the tone in washington? probably. is some of this just a core difference in approach in terms of how we move this forward between democrats and republicans? i'd say the answer is a lot more the latter. anne kornblut. >> thank you, mr. president. nine years after the september 11th attacks, why do you think it is that we are now seeing such an increase in suspicion and outright resentment of islam, especially given that it has been one of your priorities

to increase -- to improve relations with the muslim world? >> i think that at a time when the country is anxious generally and going through a tough time, then fears can surface, suspicions, divisions can surface in a society. and so i think that plays a role in it. one of the things that i most admired about president bush was after 9/11, him being crystal-clear about the fact that we were not at war with islam. we were at war with terrorists and murderers who had perverted islam, had stolen its banner to carry out their outrageous acts.

and i was so proud of the country rallying around that idea, that notion that we are not going to be divided by religion; we're not going to be divided by ethnicity. we are all americans. we stand together against those who would try to do us harm. and that's what we've done over the last nine years. and we should take great pride in that. and i think it is absolutely important now for the overwhelming majority of the american people to hang on to that thing that is best in us, a belief in religious tolerance, clarity about who our enemies are -- our enemies are al qaeda and their allies who are trying to kill us, but have killed more muslims than just about anybody on earth. we have to make sure that we don't start turning on each

other. and i will do everything that i can as long as i am president of the united states to remind the american people that we are one nation under god, and we may call that god different names but we remain one nation. and as somebody who relies heavily on my christian faith in my job, i understand the passions that religious faith can raise. but i'm also respectful that people of different faiths can practice their religion, even if they don't subscribe to the exact same notions that i do, and that they are still good

people, and they are my neighbors and they are my friends, and they are fighting alongside us in our battles. and i want to make sure that this country retains that sense of purpose. and i think tomorrow is a wonderful day for us to remind ourselves of that. natasha mozgovaya of haaretz. is she here? natasha -- there you are back there. >> mr. president, back in the region, the palestinian and israeli leaders, they sound a bit less ready for this historic compromise. president abbas, for example, said the palestinians won't recognize israel as a jewish state. the question is, if these talks fail at an early stage, will this administration disengage? or maybe you're ready to step up and deepen your personal involvement. >> president abbas and prime

minister netanyahu were here last week, and they came with a sense of purpose and seriousness and cordiality that, frankly, exceeded a lot of people's expectations. what they said was that they were serious about negotiating. they affirmed the goal of creating two states, living side by side in peace and security. they have set up a schedule where they're going to meet every two weeks. we are actively participating in that process. secretary of state hillary clinton will be flying to the middle east for the first series of next meetings on september 14th and 15th.

and so what we've done is to bring the parties together to try to get them to recognize that the path for israeli security and palestinian sovereignty can only be met through negotiations. and these are going to be tough negotiations. there are enormous hurdles between now and our endpoint, and there are going to be a whole bunch of folks in the region who want to undermine these negotiations. we saw it when hamas carried out these horrific attacks against civilians -- and explicitly said, we're going to try to do this to undermine peace talks. there are going to be rejectionists who suggest that

it can't happen, and there are also going to be cynics who just believe that the mistrust between the sides is too deep. we understood all that. we understood that it was a risk for us to promote these discussions. but it is a risk worth taking. because i firmly believe that it is in america's national security interests, as well as israel's national security interests, as well as in the interests of the palestinian people, to arrive at a peace deal. part of the reason that i think prime minister netanyahu was comfortable coming here was that he's seen, during the course of 18 months, that my administration is unequivocal in our defense of israel's security. and we've engaged in some unprecedented cooperation with israel to make sure that they can deal with any external threats. but i think he also came here understanding that to maintain israel as a jewish state that is also a democratic

state, this issue has to be dealt with. i think president abbas came here, despite great misgivings and pressure from the other side, because he understood the window for creating a palestinian state is closing. and there are a whole bunch of parties in the region who purport to be friends of the palestinians and yet do everything they can to avoid the path that would actually lead to a palestinian state, would actually lead to their goal. and so the two parties need each other. that doesn't mean it's going to work. ultimately it's going to be up to them. we can facilitate; we can encourage; we can tell them that we will stand behind them in their efforts and are willing to contribute as part of the broader international community in making this work. but ultimately the parties have to make these decisions for themselves. and i remain hopeful, but this

is going to be tough. and i don't want anybody out there thinking that it's going to be easy. the main point i want to make is it's a risk worth taking because the alternative is a status quo that is unsustainable. and so if these talks break down, we're going to keep on trying. over the long term, it has the opportunity, by the way, also to change the strategic landscape in the middle east in a way that would be very helpful. it would help us deal with an iran that has not been willing to give up its nuclear program. it would help us deal with terrorist organizations in the region. so this is something in our interest. we're not just doing this to feel good. we're doing it because it will help secure america as well. jake tapper.

>> thank you, mr. president. a couple questions. first, were you concerned at all when you -- when the administration had secretary of defense gates call this pastor in florida that you were elevating somebody who is clearly from the fringe? and then more substantively, on health care reform, this is six months since health care passed. you pledged, a, that you would bend the cost curve, and b, that you democrats would be able to campaign on this. and cms reported yesterday that the cost curve is actually bending up, from 6.1 percent to 6.3 percent, post-health care legislation. and the only democrats i've seen talking about health care legislation are running tv ads saying that they voted against it. thank you. >> with respect to the individual down in florida, let me just say -- let me repeat what i said a couple of days ago.

the idea that we would burn the sacred texts of someone else's religion is contrary to what this country stands for. it's contrary to what this country -- this nation was founded on. and my hope is, is that this individual prays on it and refrains from doing it. but i'm also commander-in- chief, and we are seeing today riots in kabul, riots in afghanistan, that threaten our young men and women in uniform. and so we've got an obligation to send a very clear message that this kind of behavior or threats of action put our young men and women in harm's way. and it's also the best imaginable recruiting tool for al qaeda.

and although this may be one individual in florida, part of my concern is to make sure that we don't start having a whole bunch of folks all across the country think this is the way to get attention. this is a way of endangering our troops -- our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives who are sacrificing for us to keep us safe. and you don't play games with that. so i hardly think we're the ones who elevated this story. but it is, in the age of the internet, something that can cause us profound damage around the world, and so we've got to take it seriously. with respect to health care,

what i said during the debate is the same thing i'm saying now and it's the same thing i will say three or four years from now. bending the cost curve on health care is hard to do. we've got hundreds of thousands of providers and doctors and systems and insurers. and what we did was we took every idea out there about how to reduce or at least slow the costs of health care over time. but i said at the time, it wasn't going to happen tomorrow, it wasn't going to happen next year. it took us decades to get into a position where our health care costs were going up 6, 7, 10 percent a year. and so our goal is to slowly bring down those costs.

now, we've done so also by making sure that 31 million people who aren't getting health insurance are going to start getting it. and we have now implemented the first phase of health care in a way that, by the way, has been complimented even by the opponents of health care reform. it has been smooth. and right now middle-class families all across america are going to be able to say to themselves, starting this month, if i've got a kid who is under 26 and doesn't have health insurance, that kid can stay on my health insurance. if i've got a child with a preexisting condition, an insurer can't deny me coverage. if i get sick and i've got health insurance, that insurance company can't arbitrarily drop my coverage. there are 4 million small businesses around the country who are already eligible and in

some cases will be receiving a 35 percent tax break on health care for their employees. and i've already met small businesses around the country who say, because of that, i'm going to be able to provide health care for my employees, i thought it was the right thing to do. so -- >> -- the cms study from february predicted a 6.1 percent increase, and now, post-health care, 6.3 percent. so it seems to have bent it up. >> no, as i said, jake, the -- i haven't read the entire study. maybe you have. but if you -- if what -- the reports are true, what they're saying is, is that as a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care, at the margins that's going to increase our costs, we knew that. we didn't think that we were going to cover 30 million people for free, but that the long-term trend in terms of how much the average family is going to be paying for health insurance is going to be improved as a consequence of

health care. and so our goal on health care is, if we can get, instead of health care costs going up 6 percent a year, it's going up at the level of inflation, maybe just slightly above inflation, we've made huge progress. and by the way, that is the single most important thing we could do in terms of reducing our deficit. that's why we did it. that's why it's important, and that's why we're going to implement it effectively. >> sorry, and then the house democrats running against health care -- if you could comment on that. >> well, there are -- we're in a political season where every candidate out there has their own district, their own makeup, their own plan, their own message. and in an environment where we've still got 9.5 percent unemployment, people are going to make the best argument they

can right now. and they're going to be taking polls of what their particular constituents are saying, and trying to align with that oftentimes. that's how political races work. april ryan. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to ask a couple questions. on the economy, could you discuss your efforts at reviewing history as it relates to the poverty agenda, meaning lbj and dr. king? and also, since senate republicans are holding up the issue of cobell and pigford, too, can you make any assurances before you leave office that you will make sure that those awards are funded? >> let me take the second question first. for those who aren't familiar, cobell and pigford relate to settlements surrounding

historic discrimination against minority farmers who weren't oftentimes provided the same benefits as everybody else under the usda. it is a fair settlement. it is a just settlement. we think it's important for congress to fund that settlement. we're going to continue to make it a priority. with respect to the history of fighting poverty, i got my start in public service as a community organizer working in the shadow steel plants that had been closed in some of the poorest neighborhoods on the south side of chicago. that's what led me to want to serve. and so i am constantly thinking

about how do we create ladders for communities and individuals to climb into the middle class. now, i think the history of anti-poverty efforts is, is that the most important anti- poverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there -- single most important thing we can do. it's more important than any program we could set up. it's more important than any transfer payment that we could have. if we can grow the economy faster and create more jobs, then everybody is swept up into that virtuous cycle. and if the economy is shrinking and things are going badly, then the folks who are most vulnerable are going to be those poorest communities. so what we want to focus on

right now is broad-based job growth and broad-based economic expansion. and we're doing so against some tough headwinds, because, as i said, we are coming out of a very difficult -- very difficult time. we've started to turn the corner but we're not there yet. and so that is going to be my central focus: how do i grow the economy? how do i make sure that there's more job growth? that doesn't mean that there aren't some targeted things we can do to help communities that are especially in need. and probably the most important thing we can do after growing the economy generally is how can we improve school systems in low-income communities. and i am very proud of the efforts that we've made on education reform -- which have received praise from democrats and republicans. this is one area where actually we've seen some good bipartisan cooperation.

and the idea is very simple. if we can make sure that we have the very best teachers in the classroom, if we can reward excellence instead of mediocrity and the status quo, if we can make sure that we're tracking progress in real, serious ways and we're willing to make investments in what goes on in the classroom and not the school bureaucracy, and reward innovation, then schools can improve. there are models out there of schools in the toughest inner- city neighborhood that are now graduating kids, 90 percent of whom are going to college. and the key is how do we duplicate those? and so what our race to the top program has done is it's said to every state around the country, instead of just getting money based on a formula, we want you to compete. show us how you are reforming your school systems to promote

excellence, based on proven ideas out there. and if you do that, we're going to reward you with some extra money. and just the competition alone has actually spurred 46 states so far to initiate legislation designed to reform the school system. so we're very proud of that, and that i think is going to be one of the most important things we can do. it's not just, by the way, k-12. it's also -- it's also higher education. and as a consequence of a battle that we had -- and it was a contentious battle -- in congress, we've been able to take tens of billions of dollars that were going to banks and financial intermediaries in the student loan program and said we're going to give that money directly to students so that they get more help going to college. and obviously poor kids are the ones who are going to benefit

most from those programs. helene cooper. >> thank you, mr. president. two questions. one on afghanistan. how can you lecture hamid karzai about corruption when so many of these corrupt people are on the u.s. payroll? and on the middle east, do you believe that israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu should extend the settlement moratorium as a gesture to peace? and if he doesn't, what are you prepared to do to stop the palestinians from walking? >> okay. on afghanistan, we are in the midst of a very difficult but very important project. i just want to remind people why we're there -- the day before september 11th.

we're there because that was the place where al qaeda launched an attack that killed 3,000 americans. and we want to make sure that we dismantle al qaeda, and that afghanistan is never again used as a base for attacks against americans and the american homeland. now, afghanistan is also the second poorest country in the world. it's got an illiteracy rate of 70 percent. it has a multiethnic population that mistrusts, oftentimes, each other. and it doesn't have a tradition of a strong, central government. so what we have done is to say we are going to, after seven years of drift, after seven years of policies in which, for

example, we weren't even effectively training afghan security forces, what we've done is to say we're going to work with the afghan government to train afghan security forces so they can be responsible for their own security. we are going to promote a political settlement in the region that can help to reduce the violence. we are going to encourage a afghan government that can deliver services for its people. and we're going to try to make sure that as part of helping president karzai stand up a broadly accepted, legitimate government, that corruption is reduced. and we've made progress on some of those fronts. i mean, when it comes to corruption, i'll just give you an example.

four years ago, afghan judges in the legal system were indicted for corruption. this year, 86 of them were indicted for corruption. we have seen afghan-led efforts that have gone after police commanders, significant business people in afghanistan. but we are long way from where we need to beyond that. every time i talk with president karzai, i say, as important as it is for us to help you train our military and your police forces, the only way that you are going to have a stable government over the long term as if the afghan people feel that you are looking after them. that means making sure that the tradition of corruption in the government is reduced.

we are going to keep on putting pressure on him on that front. is it going to happen overnight? probably not. are there going to be occasions where we look and see some of our folks on the ground have made compromises with people who are known to have engaged in corruption? we are reviewing all of that constantly. there may be occasions when that happens. right, you're certainly helene, that we are not sending mixed messages here. one of the things that i have said to my national security is to be consistent. -- let's be consistent in terms of how we are cross-agencies. that is not be seen giving a week and an eye to corruption. if we said publicly that that is important, then our actions have to match up across the board.

but it is a challenging environment in which to do that. with respect to prime minister netanyahu and the middle east, a major bone of contention during the course of this month will be the potential lapse of the settlement moratorium. the irony is that, when prime minister netanyahu put that moratorium in place, the palestinians were skeptical. they said, this does not do anything. it turns out that, to prime minister netanyahu is credit and israel's credit, the moratorium has had actual significance. it has significantly reduced settlement construction in the region. that is why they say, even though we were not that keen on it at first we thought it was just window dressing, it turns

out that this is important to us. what i have said to prime minister netanyahu is that, given so far the talks are moving forward in a constructive way, it makes sense to extend that moratorium so long as the talks are moving in a constructive way. ultimately, the way to solve these problems is for the two sides to agree, would visit quantity, is real? what will be the state of palestine? if you can get that agreement, then you can start constructing anything that the people of israel see fit in and disputed areas. -- in the undisputed areas. there are members of his coalition who have said, we do

not want to continue this. one of the things that i have thatto president the bosabbas s you have to show the israeli public that you are serious and constructive in these talks so that the politics for prime minister netanyahu, if he were to extend the settlements moratorium, it would be a little easier. one of the goals that i think i have set for myself and for my team is to make sure that president abbas and prime minister netanyahu start thinking about how can they help the other succeed, as opposed to how do they figure out a way for the other two failed. if they are going to be successful in bringing about is theey now agree

best course of action for their people, they need to see the world through the other person's eyes. that requires a personal relationship and building trust. hopefully, these meetings will help do that. ann compton. >> mr. president, what does it say about the status of the american system of justice when some many of those who are thought to be plotters for september 11 or accused of suspected terrorism are still awaiting any kind of trial? why are you still convinced that a civilian trial is correct for clique shake muhammed? why has that stalled -- for kahlik sheik mohammed?

why has that stalled? >> we have succeeded in delivering elecampane promises that we made. one where we have fallen short is closing guantanamo. i wanted to close it sooner. we have missed that deadline. it is not for lack of trying. it is because the politics of it are difficult. i am absolutely convinced that the american justice system is strong enough, that we should be able to convict people who murdered innocent americans, who carried out terrorist attacks against us. we should be able to lock them up and make sure that they do not see the light of day. we can do that. we have done it before. we have people who engaged in terrorist attacks who are in

our prisons, maximum-security prisons, all across the country. but this is an issue that has generated a lot of political -- .icrhetoric people, understandably, are fearful. but one of the things that is worth reflecting on after 9/11 is that this country so resilience. we are so tough. we cannot be frightened by a handful of people who are trying to do less harm, especially when we capture them and we have the goods on them. i have also said that there will be circumstances where a military tribunal may be appropriate.

the reason for that, i will give a specific example. there may soon to predict there may be situations where somebody was captured in theater -- there may be situations where somebody was captured in theater and is now at guantanamo. it is hard to piece together a chain of evidence that would be required in an article 3 court. but we know that this person is guilty. there is sufficient evidence to bring about a conviction. so what i have said is that the military commission system that where appropriate for certain individuals that would make it difficult for article 3 courts for a range of reasons, we can reform that system so that it meets the highest standards of due process and prosecute them there.

so i am prepared to work with the democrats and republicans. and we, over the course of the last year, have been in constant conversations, about setting up a sensible system in which we are prosecuting where appropriate those in article 3 courts. we are uproot -- we are prosecuting those where a proper it in a military tribunal. we put them in military prisons where our track record shows they have never escaped. from a purely fiscal point of view, the costs of holding folks in guantanamo is massively higher than it is holding them in a super maximum security prison here in the united states. >> what about kahlik shiek

muhammed? will that trial ever happen? >> i think it needs to happen. this will be on a bipartisan basis to move this forward in a way that is consistent with our standards of due process, consistent with our constitution, consistent also with our image in the world of a country that cares about the rule of law. you cannot underestimate the impact of that. al qaeda operatives still cite guantanamo as a justification for attacks against the united states. still, to this day, that is so. there is no reason for us to give them that kind of talking point. we can use the various mechanisms of our justice system to prosecute these folks and make sure that they never attack

us again. ok. said henry. >> you talk about some of the al qaeda leaders you have captured. when you have not is osama bin laden. tomorrow will be the ninth year since americans were killed. the last administration had seven years and could not do it. what you said as president- elect, use of capturing osama bin laden is a critical step in setting out al qaeda. he is not just a symbol, but the leader of an organization planning attacks on the u.s. do you still believe that it is a critical policy to capture or kill him. you campaigned saying that you would run a smarter war on terror. you have not captured him. you do not seem to know where he is. >> capturing or killing the

layton would be extremely important to our national security. -- capturing or killing been laden would be extremely important to our national security. we have put the pressure on al qaeda and their leaders. as a consequence, they have been holed up and making it harder for them to operate. as a consequence, some of the layton has gone deep underground. -- osama bin laden has gone deep underground. but we have the best minds, the best intelligence officers, the best special forces who are thinking about this day and night. they will continue to think about it day and night as long as i am president.

>> do you think americans will face another nine years of this terrorist threat, another generation? >> here's what i think. in this day and age, there is always going to be the potential for an individual or a small group of individuals, if they're willing to die to kill other people, some of them will be well-organized and some of them will be random. that threat is there. it is important for the american people to understand that. not to live in fear, but it is the reality of today's world that there will be threats out there. we have greatly improve our homeland security since 9/11 occurred.

i am constantly impressed with the dedication that our teams apply through this problem. they are chasing down every threat, not just from al qaeda, but from every other actor out there that may be engaging in terrorism. they are making sure that even what might appear to be a lone individual who has very little organizational capacity, if they make a threat, the follow-up. but one of the things that i want to make sure we do, as long as i am president and beyond my presidency, is understand america's strength and part comes from its resilience and that we do not start losing who we are or overreacting if, in

fact, there is the threat of terrorism out there. we go about our business. we are tougher than them. our families and our businesses , our churches and mosques and synagogues, our constitution and our values, that is what gives us our strength. we are going to have this problem out there for a long time to come, but it does not have to completely dominate us or our foreign policy. we can just constantly fight against it. ultimately, we will be able to stamp it out. but it will take some time. >> [unintelligible] >> wendell. >> thank you, mr. president. i wonder if i could get you to weigh in on building -- on the wisdom of building a mosque

near ground zero. what would it say about this country if they were talked out of doing that? have not the florida minister's threat to burn a couple hundred copies of the koran itself put american lives in danger? >> on your second question, there is no doubt that, when someone goes out of their way to be provocative in ways that we passionsinflatinflame the of 1 million muslims around the world at a time when we have our troops and a lot of muslim countries, that is a problem. it has made life a lot more difficult for our men and women in uniform who already have a very difficult job. with respect to the mosque in new york, i think i have been

pretty clear on my position. that is that this country stands for the proposition that all men and women are created equal, that they have certain inalienable rights. one of those in alienable rights is to practice their religious freedom. but that means is that, if you could build a church on a site, you could build a synagogue on a side, if you could build a hindu temple on a site, then you should be able to build a mosque on the site. i recognize the extraordinary sensitivities around 9/11. i have met with families of 9/11 victims in the past. i can only imagine that the

continuing pain and anguish and sense of loss that they may go through. and tomorrow, we, as americans, will be joining them in prayer and remembers. -- and remembrance. but i go back to what i said earlier. we are not at war against islam. we are at war against terrorist organizations that have distorted is long or falsely used the banner of islam to engage in their destructive acts. we have to be clear about that. we have to be clear about that because, if we are going to deal with the problems that ed henry was talking about, if we are going to successfully reduced the terrorist threat, then we need all the allies we can get. the folks who are most interested in a war between the

united states or the west and islam are al qaeda. that is what they have been banking on. fortunately, the overwhelming majority of muslims around the world are peace-loving, are interested in the same things that you and i are interested in. how can i make sure that i can get a good job? how can i make sure that my kids get a decent education? how can i enjoy my faith? how can i improve my lot in life? they have rejected this violent ideology for the most part. overwhelmingly. from a national security interest, we want to be clear about who the enemy is here. it is a handful of tiny minority of people who are in speaking -- who are engaging in horrific acts and have killed muslims more than anybody else.

another reason it is important for us to remember that is because we have millions of muslim-americans, our fellow citizens in this country, they are going to school with our kids. they are all our neighbors. they are our friends. they are our co-workers. when we start acting as if their religion is some how offensive, what are we saying to them? i have muslims who are fighting in afghanistan, in the uniform of the united states armed services. they are out there putting their lives on the line for us. and we have to make sure that we are crystal clear for our sake and their six.

they are americans. and we honor their service -- for our sakes and their sakes. they are americans. and we honor their service. we do not lead -- we do not differentiate between them and us. it is just us. that is a principle that i think is good to be very important for us to sustain. i think tomorrow is an excellent time for us to reflect on that. thank you very much, everybody. >> a report on how terrorist threats have changed since 9/11. after that, ray love the outlines possible new regulations concerning -- ray in

the hood -- ray lahood al once possible new regulations concerning airline fatigue. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," robert fuentez talks about the proposed infrastructure bank and how it could change how the u.s. invests infrastructure. and former cia deputy chief klingner. >> solve all as he is considered the father of modern community organizing. in his 1971 book, "rules for radicals," is still used for change. nicholas von hoffman spent 10 years working for him and writes

about his experiences with him. that is sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on monday. a new report finds that terrorist threats are now even more difficult to detect than they were before september 11. but they are also less likely to produce mass casualties. the report also notes that a growing number of u.s. citizens are training for terrorist activities abroad. the report comes from an organization cochaired by a former 9/11 commission. this is about 45 minutes. we are at the bipartisan community center that was produced to produce a bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems.

i would like to introduced mr. kaine. >> thank you, michael, and good morning. we are here again, preparing for another anniversary of 9/11, preparing to mourn with the families, to look at what happened in the past, to remember, but also to look forward. part of that looking forward is to reassess what the threat is today, how we are doing. are we doing any better than we were before? has the threat changed in any way? that is what we want to talk about today. this is a very important time to reassess, to reexamine, to look at what this threat is. we have met now with all leaders of national security in this

administration. we have heard from people who led the national security efforts in the past. we're trying to formulate what the country should do, what we should be aware of, and what we should -- and where we should go. in that context, this is a very important day. the report we will present today is looking for, is looking at where the threat has changed, and at the kinds of things we may have to do and the ways that women have to change as a nation in order to meet that threat. at this point, i would like to introduce my partner, my friend , washington's other national monument, lee hamilton, who has been so instrumental in national security and in some any of the ways in this town. lee, if you'll take it from here -- >> good morning to all of you. thank you very much for coming. it is good to be with governor kaine again. we have conducted a good many of

these over time of several years. i step forward simply because i want to recognize the members of the national security prepared this group. we will turn to bruce hoffman -- national security preparedness group. we will turn to bruce hoffman. they put together this report. i know you want to hear from verse. i think bruce intends to summarize the report briefly and then he, john, and steve will take your questions. tom and i will kick in if we can. -- will chip in if we can. we have assembled and remarkable group of people with regard to their backgrounds in national security and homeland security. they are a real group of experts. john dannon is one of the experts here. he has had a very long and

distinguished career in the intelligence community. he now works at bae systems as one of their trusted advisers. our group includes fred townsend, who worked in the white house on homeland security matters. that includes the former secretary of dhs, governor of pennsylvania, tom ridge. it also includes former energy secretary, spencer abraham. we have two former attorney general and the group. dick former guard and ed meese. we have former members jim turner, david kirby, and dave beckmann. put all these people together and you have a pretty good group to assess where our government stands with regard to national security preparedness.

we believe that this assessment that is being released today -- and burress will describe it to you in just a few minutes -- is a very important document. i do not think i have seen anything quite like it. i have not seen all of the things that come out of government, but i have seen a good many of them. you'll see that it gives a very fresh perspective on the threat that we confront from al qaeda. our focus today is on this paper and the evolving threat from al qaeda. in the future, we will explore other aspects of homeland security and national security preparedness. but today, the focus will be on the report. so, burress, to get this into this report, we ask -- so, bruce, to give us into this report, we ask you to step

forward. >> all right. before i begin, i want to first thank very warmly and appreciatively the bipartisan center, especially the executive director michael allen, whose support throughout this entire project was absolutely critical and essential. i would also like to thank the other members of the group, the chair and the co-chair, who were selected ably. unfortunately, my co-author peter bergman is not here. this report clearly benefited from peter, who is not only the leading expert on al qaeda and has not only written a book, but two books on osama bin laden. he is also a magnificent editor who greatly improved this product. to any of you who are familiar with either peters or my work, we came at it from two

perspectives and complemented one another with the expertise of the group. we produce something that is rather important. it would have been impossible without the assistance of katherine tutor men who took what peter and i had written, --know that it together, melded it together, and came up with this document that you have before you. instead of summarizing, let me 0 win briefly on the key or most -- let me 0 in -- let me zero in briefly on the key or most important elements. we thought it was appropriate to do a complete threat

assessment, an assessment of the threat. also significant is the three long years since the last publicly disseminated u.s. government threat assessment. this was the national intelligence assessment produced by the national intelligence council in july 2007. it was important to establish a foundation or baseline assessment of the threat as it exists today. more importantly, how it has evolved and changed since both the 9/11 commission report and the assessment from three years ago. fortunately, we have had wide access to an array of single policy makers across the united states government to were open and frank with us and generously offered their thoughts and their opinions. this, of course, was supplemented by the ongoing research that peter bergman and i have conducted on this phenomenon.

the fundamental conclusion is that the threat is both a diversified and has become much more complex than it has been at anytime since the attacks of september 11, 2001. equally of concern is the fact that there is no single profile of the terrorist threat in the united states today. what we see as an adversary that is drawn from all sectors of society and all walks of life. we -- this includes persons born in afghanistan, pakistan, somalia, residents and naturalized american citizens. in the past few years, also, we have seen american citizens themselves, people born in the united states also gravitating and being summoned to the call of terrorism, in this case, g hyde. we have discovered perpetrators are the people -- in this case, and jihad.

we have discovered perpetrators are the people that have been men and women, young and old, high school dropouts or petiteds, and bemba's, blue-eyed blonde who can easily in as well as hardened terrorist operatives. subsequently, we have continued to carry out reconnaissance for future terrorist attacks on behalf of al qaeda, other pakistani jihadist groups, and

others. the leadership of the terrorist movements that are in the united states are becoming increasingly americanized. key operatives, whether it is someone in al qaeda central, someone in the al qaeda arabian peninsula, or in of chabad, a somali colleague. the world 3 born in the united states, turning on their country, going abroad, making common cause with terrorists. that is something we found fundamentally disquieting. finally, we concluded that the threats of the past year or so are not and should not be regarded as one off as we were often told. rather, we see them as part of a broader strategy embraced by our adversaries to flood us, in

essence, with multiple threats from a diverse array of adversaries. we found, too, that the united states has failed to adequately in a stand and prepare for these threats. there was a prevailing conviction that existed long past its shelf life that he could not happen here, that the communities in the united states from which terrorists we thought would draw their recruits have become more affluent and elsewhere, particularly in the united kingdom and europe. we thought to the american melting pot would provide a fire wall for recruiting in this country. now we are confronted with an alarming trend. the threat we concluded is more complex, more diverse than what we have encountered in any time since september 11, 2001.

an important challenge that we discovered is that there is no single government agency responsible for identifying radicalization and interdicting recruitment. the problem is that, if it is everybody's responsibility in the end, it is no one's. moreover, we found that it is not even clear which agency, amongst the large array of agencies, which one should have the lead responsibility. -- the lead responsibility for countering radicalization and recruitment. thus, terrorists may have found our achilles' heel. we have no strategy for dealing with this growing problem. the array of recent terrorist recruits presents greater challenges to the intelligence community and -- presence new and credit houses to the intelligence committee.

they have to run down this new panoply it of threats. we found that the threat facing the united states is different than it was nine years ago. it has also changed and evolved profoundly since the 9/11 commission presented its report six long years ago. today, the u.s. faces a dynamic threat with a broad array of potential attacks, from shootings to car bombs, to simultaneous suicide attacks, to in-flight passenger aircraft attacks. this is cause for concern. thank you very much. >> steve, do you want to say something? >> thank you appeared i am the present for the -- thank you. i am the president for the center for national policy.

just a couple of things i would like to highlight, particularly from a homeland security perspective about what i think we should infer from their key finding. they have given us a very uncomfortable finding. i think it is uncomfortable for the american people, but also for our national security and intelligence community as well. there are many who are drawn to this cause and have essentially made a strategic shift against from the spectacular attacks like this on september 11 and a consensus that many of us have to equal or better that attack, to one where less is more. less sophisticated attacks connected more frequently would have a bigger bang for the block. the bar for carrying out these

attacks is much lower. you do not need as highly capable people. you do not need to put together a very sophisticated conspiracy. the more sophisticated attacks have an upside. their complexity often trips waters off that allows us to intercept them. much smaller scale attacks, particularly when drawn from domestic recruits, are almost impossible for our national security intelligence community, as it is currently constructed, to detect and intercept it. as a practical matter, it means that we would certainly have a successful terrorist attacks on u.s. soil and we have to start to come to grips with that. the important finding is that there is not likely to have a 9/11 scale. we will see the kinds of things we saw recently in new york, in times square, an american nationalize citizen who, drawn to the cause, goatgets training

abroad and returns to new york city. the most important thing about * -- the new york times were event is that it was done by a t-shirt vendor on the corner. one of the people we did convene with was the commissioner of l.a. what -- of nypd literally, across the street, there was a squad car. that was not the detection point. it was an ordinary citizen who detected the problem. we have operated on focusing energy and efforts to keep them from our shores so that we can

lead our daily lives confident that it will not be on our shores. that is not how the threat is today. it has evolved much more with a domestic component. it still has overseas elements. but our intelligence community is not adapting as much as any to for this threat. there are up to 50,000 public safety it agencies who will be on the front line of this threat. most important, it would be the everyday citizens. the christmas day but that was not stopped by the federal air marshal. it was stopped by the passengers of the airplane. the times square attack was detected by a t-shirt vendor. the threat is much different today than it was nine years ago. our national security and intelligence committee needs to

adapt to that. as the american people, we need to as well. i welcome the work of bruce hoffman and peter bergman for bringing this very important finding to the american people. i hope that we take this action soon. >> i want to join in the applause for this paper. i think it is a very thoughtful, insightful, and provocative piece of work. i hope it will stimulate the larger public debate on the important issues that it raises. for someone who spent most of my adult life in the intelligence community and in the analytic world, and focus on the issue of radicalization -- i focus on the issue of radicalization. from my you point, is an issue of globalization. our adversaries have a much easier time in the era of globalization in moving people

and moving finance and moving capabilities and destructive know how across our borders. i think this paper makes it clear that they also move cultural information across borders. cultural information, they're not just from places we would expect, from the east and south asia, but from our own. the imperative that comes from this is the need to recognize analysis and integrate foreign and domestic intelligence analysis more than any time in our history. this is an absolute imperative for us if we are going to deal with the issue of radicalization. i think the paper also makes clear that intelligence analysis is not just a matter of taking human intelligence and imagery analysis and pulling them together. it is much more important today if we will understand the nature of terrorism by putting more

cultural information into the context of the analysis we do. that means understanding the culture from which the terrorists, and also our own culture and how is -- from which the terrorists come and also our own culture and how is represented in it. there will be a conference on domestic intelligence at the willard hotel. the new dni will be there along with the director and others from the intelligence community. we will discuss the elements that this paper raised. i look forward to that. i hope many of you will join us for that conference. thank you. >> at this point, we would be glad to answer any more of your questions. >> you mentioned that there is no one organization responsible for looking at the domestic threat and handling it.

some might think that that would be the role of dhs. where does the responsibility lie? what is your recommendation on how this should be conducted? >> that is a subject of the next report. to put it simply, we thought that this report stood on its own. but it turned out to be far more weighty than we thought it would be. we decided that the group really needs to be focused its attention -- needs to focus its attention on that in the next few months. >> the report on commercial threat. is the man againsbigget how effective have the efforts

been, both since 9/11 and more recently with the advanced machine technology, to stop the threats that you talk about? >> the problem i think is that, our adversaries, despite all of our detections for technological sophistication, the organization of our government to detect commercial aviation threats, this is a high-value target, one that can not only generate a mother lode of publicity and attention, but also one that soaks worldwide fear, that radiate beyond the target nation of the attack. it has a profound impact on the globalized economy, on international travel. one of the things we talk about in the report is that al qaeda

and in particular focus on economic targets. they believe that is fundamentally how they win. they do not claim they will be this in the battlefield. they understand the fundamental symmetry of terrorism. they seek to bankrupt us and our allies. one of the key vehicles to do so is turning commercial aviation -- is targeting commercial aviation and cause the paralysis that they hope will cause the paralysis that we saw in the weeks after 9/11. but your question goes right to the heart of the report. this is the main challenge that we face in countering this threat. this threat does not come from one adversary in one place with one set or one tool box of capabilities. we see a variety of adversaries with different capabilities and that each pose unique and separate threats.

we have to, in effect, as we go into the second decade of the century, go defend the waterfront. on metro's, on subways, on buses, the way we have seen them in other countries, they go back to the same targets because of the value in having catastrophic impact from that attack. >> the key is that the data tells us that commercial aviation continues to be a target and there continues to be planning their. the court's finding of this is that, nine years later, the adversary has a strategy that has adapted significantly. other parts of the infrastructure remain in the cross hairs of future terrorists. the expectation is that, by targeting these, they can get a

big bang for our their boouck. if we have an attack on a mass transit system and our current efforts have shown as one thing, then we have a political reaction, often with very expensive kinds of and not very well thought out cures that continued to motivate. that is another finding in here. to some extent, the strategy has adapted because they are motivated by how we react to acts of terrorism. it is -- we do very expensive things or very destructive things for our economy or our civil liberties. that is a motivator. in the panel, we will look at how do we do much better at managing terrorist attacks when they happen if they take on these various other modes of transportation? >> is this just security theater

or is it helping? >> we did not, as a panel, lookit that. there's no question that the impulse -- look at that. there is no question that the impulse was to startle the public. more studies need to be done to see if those tools will work effectively or if we need to look in another direction and have more tools for. this is not entirely well thought out when it was executed. that is part of the problem. we often reacted in ways where there were usefulness for those tools, but we need to use them in different ways. >> the technology will continue to change on both sides. they found a new kind of plastic that was undetectable as an explosive. they use it to try to assassinate the head of the intelligence of the saudi

arabian government, the prince. he told us all about it. we did not react. the next thing was the so-called underpants' bomber who tried to bring down an airplane. so we will keep working on the technology side. we will try to come up with new things and try to counter their things. our best defense will still be the flying public response things on an airplane, who brings things to people's attention. we have to keep people aware because, in the end, they are our best defense. >> the word "dangerous" has not been used yet. we have said that these attacks are more diverse, but i am not sure that we have used the word "dangers." we consider the threat -- "dangerous." we consider the threat still

dangers. the american people should not become complacent. a paragraph or two in the report on page four, in there we state that in this past year, it was a watershed in terrorist attacks and plots on the united states. 10 jihad attacks, two actual attacks, three serious-but- disrupted plot, five incidents involving groups of americans conspiring to travel abroad to receive training -- by our count, 2009, 43 american citizens or residents were charged with terrorism. that really brought me up when i

read that paragraph. the idea to the extent that the american people have it that this is fading into the past, that is just flat wrong. take a look at page 4. >> making sure that you do not create the kind of fear that undermines resiliency and reads the sort of reaction that might fuel terrorist propaganda it is a very delicate one. i wonder if you had an opportunity to assess the scale of the threat.

bruce talked about the adversaries wishing to flood the united states with a series of smaller tax. but in terms of the actual scale, in terms of numbers, are you suggesting that american people should be afraid now, should be nervous, that they're nervous -- there are thousands of thousands of sleeper cells or terrorists in this country -- and they should be with nervous about their neighbors or have you had the attendee to assess the scale of the threat in the united states? >> i think your question is very good and sets up the dilemma that you confront. did you do not want to scare people and throw them into a panic. we do not mean to do that by this report. it is my perception -- could be wrong about this -- that the american people have kind of lost their focus on the threat. i think that one of the values of this report is that it brings the threat more into

perspective, still serious and still dangerous. the american people just have to get a more realistic sense of what they are confronted with. steve said a moment ago, did you not, steve, that you anticipate one of these attacks sunday will succeed and the american people have to be prepared for that and resilient to it. so the balance that you striking your question is very hard to hit, hard for the american leaders to hit it right. we are trying to do the best we can to say, "do not forget about this, do not be complacent, do not panic." but there are a lot of things we still need to do to make our country safer. >> yes. >> with regards to that

homegrown terrorism, can anyone speak to why it is occurring, why we see an increase as you mentioned on page four of the report? >> why is it increasing? bruce, you can take it. >> these people can recruit on the internet. some of them are very charismatic. they can speak to young and impressionable people who happen to be muslims. that is certainly one factor. second, i think it is a change of strategy. of that it is trying to do this because i have been but -- al qaeda is trying to do this because they have been unsuccessful. >> one of the things stated in

the report is important. we have been talking about change and how this has evolved. that is all correct. one thing has not changed -- in tent. we know the intent of those who wish to do less harm. what may have changed or has changed is capability of them to attack us. but they are still after us. they still want to do us harm. and they still want to get at as any way they can, in our view. intent is the driving force here behind the terrorist activity and it remains the same. >> i think governor kaine and mr. carlson is absolutely right. we have seen terrorist organizations becoming much more comfortable in their communications. someone in the united states,

they can communicate and has theological credentials as a credentials scholars -- and has to lodge a credentials and academic scholars but is from new mexico. the threat is radiated outwards from al qaeda central itself. it used to be that if you wanted to be a terrorist or if you wanted terrorist training, you went to one point, either afghanistan or, more recently, pakistan. one of the problems that is part of al qaeda's strategy to enlist, to encourage, to motivate light-minded jihadi groups to spread their wings has meant that individuals

looking to receive terrorist training, unfortunately, today have more destinations to select from to go. they tend to go to somalia rather than pakistan. there have been other incidents, not just those emanating from yemen, but when u.s. military recruiter was murdered and another was seriously injured in little rock, ark. and left the country. the threat has diversified, not only in terms of profile of adversaries in the united states itself, but also in terms of the number of groups in addition to al qaeda who are independent, but, in many cases, may have a common cause with al qaeda who also threaten us. >> i am surprised about the why

and motivation in this discussion does not have u.s. policy. the basis that have -- the basis that the u.s. has all over the world, -- the bases that the u.s. has a love of the world and the recent religious threats, can you talk we need a very conscious decision on this report. i think we thought we would present to the report very much as you have seen at and then add to it a number of policy recommendations. we rejected that because we thought the important thing was to focus on the assessment of the threat as stated in the

report, and we wanted more time, frankly, to formulate policy recommendations. your question clearly predicts what we have to do now. we have got the assessment of the threat. now we have to figure out what kind of policy recommendations. there are sentences, paragraphs in the report that suggest some of our future recommendations. you can clearly see by reading a report we will put more emphasis on state and local police forces. we did not articulate that, but i am sure we will in the future. we backed away from policy here. we were not quite ready to address that.

>> one of the key issues was that the u.s. wanted to engage in a struggle of ideas. that has come almost to a complete standstill at this point. there's debate in this country taking place about the ground zero islamic center and the situation in florida. i am wondering how you see that , and your perspectives and recommendations that you made over five years ago at this time, and what more can be done. >> chapter 12, he says. you are right. we're looking at all our recommendations. we know that most of them have been implemented, at least in part. some of them have been implemented in greater than that. some of them we want to see more action on. we would like to see the position strengthened.

we want better communications. we are not there yet. the recommendation involving congressional oversight has not been implemented at all. we think that is a glaring failure. the recommendations involving foreign policy, and the war on ideas -- we are not there yet. it does not mean we will not continue to work on it. high stylemean actions among american citizens, particularly ideas interpreted by many to be anti muslim. they are harmful. these kinds of issues, these kinds of debates do not help when we are trying to prevent people from being recruited. they do not help in the war and on my -- war on ideas. >> i simply say i think the american relationship with the

islamic world is one of the really great foreign policy challenges of the next decade. we are not going to solve it in a year or two, or even 10 years. the kind of debate we're having in new york city today reflect that. how do we get right, how do we line up this relationship better than we have been able to do? i don't know whether we will get into that. i jokingly said in response to your question, look at one of the chapters in the now-ancient 9/11 commission report. it addresses this question of how you should approach the islamic world. incidentally, that chapter has had considerable impact in the foreign policy community in the sense that it has stimulated an enormous amount of work and

thought about how to go at it. i must say, i don't think it has been implemented very effectively at this point. i am encouraged by the fact that we are beginning to address this key relationship. one point -- 1.4 billion muslims from london to jakarta, an enormously important force in the world. we have to understand it much, much better than we do, and how to address it. >> if i might add, i think one of the clear implications of the finding that we're more likely to have increasingly domestic- related terrorism attacks and that these are extremely difficult to prevent, and almost certainly be will have one be successful, there is a lot of domestic policy issues that need to be fleshed out that we largely postponed in the aftermath of 9/11 because we

treated it as a foreign policy issue. to draw a silver lining out of the debate, it is that we are engaging around these are questions. political leadership cannot exploit this in near terms, but use it as an opportunity to get americans engaged around the challenge, and how we safeguard our values going forward. there should not be a sense of trade-off. you want more security, you give up more liberty. resilience is about being able to safeguard those liberties in the context of a threat. we have to engage around how we do that. the challenges will be different from those the commission six years ago looked at. >> one more question? >> you said before the melting pot theory no longer works.

why has that changed? you mentioned there is no single profile for potential terrorists. aren't they all muslim radicals? >> well, i think, first of all, the melting pot was more wishful thinking, that we could be insulated from the heavy currents of radicalization that we have seen affecting communities in other parts of the world, united kingdom, spain, belgium, germany, and so on. we were not different. that comes back to the question about policies. in some cases, you have countries that either do not -- did not participate in the invasion of iraq, who do not have forces in afghanistan, and still are under threat. i'm not sure it all boils to foreign policy. i think it is more complex than that.

1998, the u.s. did not have troops in iraq or afghanistan. the superintendent, perhaps the greatest offense meant he had in the peace process. that is when bin laden was blowing up our embassies in tanzania. they have no shortage of issues to gravitate towards to bang the drum to summon people. we are talking about people from one particular demographic group who have somehow been in fews, been responsive to, in some cases theological justification, in some cases, men pumped up with testosterone , and i think the fundamental issue is that people from a wide variety of walks of life have become much more susceptible to these calls, in part because of

the war on terror has lasted nine years, longer than world war ii. they have found more fertile ground, more recruitment. i think their messages and their means of recruiting people, using a diverse array of lures, have become more effective. the u.s. has caught up with europe. this is a problem especially since the suicide attacks on the london underground. britain also thought they could remain immune to this before that occurred. they were surprised on july 7, 2005. the point is not to sound the alarm bell. we are talking about small numbers, 10 or 11 plots, 43 persons is disturbingly large only because it was zeroth few years ago.

the u.s. department of justice indited more than two dozen persons on charges last year. if we don't recognize this is an emerging problem and a growing threat coming in a few years, it will because for alarm. now was a time to look at the threat, to understand it is one that is dynamic, and except that what worked yesterday are even today is no longer says it shipped -- no longer sufficient. we need to be flexible, as our adversaries are. >> thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> live tomorrow, michelle obama and laura bush join interior secretary salazar in pennsylvania. live at 2:00 p.m. eastern,

pilots, air traffic controllers, and other officials talk about their experience on 9/11 at a symposium at the university of texas at dallas. that is tomorrow on c-span. also, president obama attends a remembrance ceremony at the pentagon with defense secretary gates and mike mullen. we will strain that live on c- span.org beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern. >> next, ray lahood outlines possible new regulations on pilot fatigue. then, war veterans discuss the challenges of re-entering civilian life. after that, president obama discusses a wide range of issues that today's news conference. >> the bottom line is we need border security. we cannot afford the legal immigration. >> it has hurt us. it has hurt arizona economy. >> with midterm elections about

50 days away, follow campaign 2010 online at the c-span video library, with the bait from races across the country. it is easy to follow candidates any time, all free, on your computer. >> now, transportation secretary ray lahood talks about new rules aimed at preventing pilot fatigue on airlines. the secretary is joined by randy babbitt. this is about 35 minutes. >> i'm going to say a few things, randy will say a few things, and then we will answer questions.

>> i think the worst day i've had on this job in the 18 months i have been here was the morning that i was watching television and saw the terrible crash that occurred in buffalo. i learned that 48 people were killed -- 49 people were killed. it is a day that i will remember for a long time. since that time, we have spent a lot of time with the families. we have learned a lot from them. they have become strong advocates for airline safety. we are thankful for them. i want to say that. they have been very strong advocates for what we are proposing in this proposed rule today. they have been on capitol hill. they have been in our offices. they even had an opportunity to meet with president obama when he was in buffalo.

we are grateful to them no one has had greater pain in -- than the family members. what they have done is they have given ourselves to do what we -- given ourselves a lot of wind to do what we are doing here today. we owe them a special debt of gratitude. this afternoon, we are announcing a proposed rule- making that will help protect 700 million passengers who fly every year. this rule will have a 60 day comment period. we want to hear about what we are proposing. we know we will hear from the industry. we want to hear from the public. we know we will hear from the families. i want to pay a special word of the credit to randy babbitt. -- gratitude and credit to randy babbitt.

randy came to us after being a pilot for more than 25 years at eastern airlines. he knows the industry. he knows the culture of the industry. he brought an enormous amount of experience to this proposed rule. after last year's accident, we in president obama's administration talked about improved safety. i think those of you who befallen our work know thatwe take a backseat to nobody when it comes to airline safety. we are proud of that. the president and i have talked about this a great deal. safety is our number one priority.

immediately after the crash, randy traveled the country with his team and held 12 safety forums across the country. they took positive steps to strengthen safety. we thank them for the leadership. we are announcing proposed changes that will go even further, increasing the amount of time the pilots are able to rest between flights. if adopted, the rule will allow the pilots the opportunity to get nine hours of rest before a flight, place new limits on the number of hours a pilot can fly weekly and monthly, and insure -- to ensure that pilots have a greater number of hours off duty every week. it gives big airlines greater flexibility to address -- adjust scheduling. they will have the option to tailor their scheduling in accordance with the types of flights they fly. this rule gives pilots the right

to decline an assignment if they are fatigued without the penalty. the bottom line is this. american skies are the safest they ever have been. flying is safe, but they must be safer. president obama's administration -- we are proposing a rule that will help ensure that flying is safer than it is today i am -- today. i am pleased to turn over the podium to randy babbitt. after that, we will answer questions. >> thank you. i'm going to hit a couple of the highlights. many follow his comments. -- let me follow his comments. this issue has been around for a long time. i personally testified on this issue myself in 1992. the rules have been unchanged until today.

i have followed this since 1985. in some ways, i want to thank secretary ray lahood. his commitment has been unwavering. his commitment to was moving this role -- rule forward has never varied. when we had a call to action, i invited the secretary to speak to the group. he listened to the dialogue. in conclusion, he turned to the group and said,he said we need to get this done. here we are. proposing a new rule. i appreciate his commitment to where we are today. i'd also like to think a lot of -- to thank a lot of experts. this is a complicated rule. we will talk about some of the

particular spins. i want to thank the folks that -- at the faa that were involved. we have active participation. unions gave us their thoughts and allowed us to create a rule almost by consensus that makes the industry say for. captain john freighter is with us today. thank you. your leadership has helped us bring this rule about. with all of that said as background, what this rule is based on is hard science. that is what has been lacking in the past. this gives us the opportunity to acknowledge what science knows about circadian rhythms. it also says that if you are a pilot and you understand your own body and you say you are too fatigued to fly, then you do not.

you can do that without penalty. that is a big step. what we are doing today is not as good a policy. -- not just good policy. it is about duty. it is a big responsibility. it is about safety for everybody involved. it proposes to strengthen the requirements. the pilot has to report that for duty. that means being fully rested. it is the responsibility with equal weight upon the carrier. carriers need to consider the commuting times that are required. they will need to understand when their pilots are commuting. they need to be a sure that they -- be assured that they are given the opportunity when they get to their home base to get the amount of regulatory rest required.

for far too long, we have acted as if all flights are treated equally. they are not as if fatigues are universal. -- they are not. the effects of fatigue are universal. if you are tired, you should not fly. there's a difference between going to work at 8:00 in the morning and going to work at 11:00 at night. it factors in time zones. it factors in if the pilot will be able to get the required sleep. there is a big difference between flying one long leg between detroit and flying 10 -- between detroit and narita and flying 10 takeoffs and landings and never leaving the state of

michigan. both of those exist today. we are also talking about a 9 hour minimum rest. that is rest. the calendar year definitions have been changed to a more practical basis under the new rules. this puts in place a better proposal to be safe. it puts the joint responsibility on them to be rested. it gives the passeng the rules today provide the duty, but there is no assurance that the pilots will get the rest. this is a long time coming. i am happy this day arrived.

thank you >> [inaudible] >> it is universal. there have been forecasted costs on this rule. it will apply equally to every carrier. they are not any imbalances. they will have to live by the same rules. they were developed within this. -- with input from all parts of the industry. they weighed in. this rule was essentially a consensual, developed through. >> you want the aggregate cost, right? >> it will require airlines. >> will there be anything to

cause their costs to go up? >> with modern scheduling, they should be able to mitigate much of this. there will be increased record and recording requirements. we believe a lot of this can be mitigated with better scheduling techniques. >> tom? >> there is some concern about the total work day, 16 hours. under the new schedule, it would slide to a maximum of 13. that depends on a whole bunch of variables. i get the impression that some parties would have liked to see a harder rule. can you address that? >> bringing science into this was very important. we recognize the difference of circadian rhythm changes. in an optimum environment, yes. a pilot can work 16 hours.

if a pilot normally works days series, can we expect they will be just as alert at 2:00 the next afternoon? the answer is no. sciences says it is not. what increase with the amount of flight time? we must acknowledge that as well. >> how are you going to assure the pilots get eight hours back? -- rest? they can get off the clock. they're eating dinner. they do not have an opportunity. how does that ensure there are eight hours of rest time? >> you said the key word. "opportunity" for rest. we have between-duty periods. if it takes 45 minutes to get to the hotel and get back, that is considered part of the rest.

it will no longer be considered part of your rest. when you get to the hotel, you are insured nine hours for the opportunity of rest at the hotel. you are in the hotel behind the door. that is for nine hours. if it takes two hours to get the hotel, you still get nine hours. >> are some airlines planning to have to hire additional pilots to meet this? >> they will certainly be looking at how they schedule it. they have an opportunity to -- they had an opportunity to participate. most of it was agreed to continually. i believe they can find ways to live with this. crew patterns will migrate can change to accommodate the new rule. it is certainly possible that it to be required. >> i'm going to take a call. we have some people. whoever is on the line, if you

want to ask your question, go ahead. we will come back to the room. if you are on the line, please, identify yourself. >> i do have a question. >> how are you doing? i want to go on to this issue of industry impacts. you are talking about if the airlines are able to adjust their schedules for this. if you are talking about all of these extensions, for example, if the have someone doing a lot -- if you have someone doing a lot of short flights, if there will be more energy. they will get it ready, landing, turning around. you use the example of going for narita to detroit. can the industry actually pulled this off without more

pilots or without simply cutting flights? >> we are here to try to releasincrease safety. but that will not be done without some impact. we have to acknowledge that. right now we have too many situations where pilots were flying fatigued. that is what we are trying to eliminate. i imagine you run the risk of increasing costs. that is what you pay to eliminate the fatigue and save the environment. -- and create a safer environment. >> what are you doing about the issue of commuting? >> we have the knowledge that

this is not part of rest. the pilot of a bear the but irresponsibility on we put some responsibility on the pilot of a bear the responsibility on the corporation to understand when fatigue is taking place. we asked the industry for comment. -- comments. this is a complicated area for us to understand. this is what we are proposing. what do they think we can do to help eliminate this problem? >> have you seen what they just mentioned? where are you seeing this? [inaudible] >> where are we seeing fatigue show up? it requires some fatigue management training some people

-- training, so people recognize when they are getting tired. with or about training, people -- with or without training, people do not recognize they are not performing at 100%. the problem is, and this is where science gets introduced,right now, we have one size fits all. we have a 16 hour on duty. it does not matter. i use this in testimony. if i went to work at 8:00 in the morning, would you be comfortable driving with me at 10:00 at night? that is 14 hours. you may raise a question on that. how about going to work at 10:00 at night and then driving with me at 12:00? it is the same 14 hours, but it is not. this rule distinguishes that. >> yes, sir?

>> [inaudible] what kind of commuting is preventable? >> the group said they could not identify this well enough to give you a rule. is the meeting? is driving a what is commuting? is driving a car an hour to work commuting? what is commuting? by air? by bus? what do we mean by it? how do you track it? we have done the best we could to try to define what we expect from people. to try to define what we expect from people. >> did you discuss this with the department or the charter airline industry?

they were concerned the exceptions in current rul might disappear. had you discussed the other side effects >> we had opportunity for input. the park itself made it pretty straight for the acknowledgement that we are trying to deal with 5fatigue. we also have a cre why should a crew the exposed to less opportunities to sleep, a longer on duty, just because they are not behind the cockpit door? >> does it change the way they are doing things now? >> the airlines do it today by augmenting crews.

supplemental carriers often do not have to. >> this proposal would become a row. they would have to comply with the sme standard that all the other operators comply with. >> another question from somebody who phoned in. >> my question comes from tom davis d >> they have been nine hours between flights. what about -- is this thing worked out? if you fy to australia it could be different then flying to buffalo. ow are you going to sort that ut? >> not necessarily nine hours

between flights. an opportunity and nine hours of rest bind the door. if thais the same no matter how far you flu. -- flew. you have to have the opportunity for nine hours of rest. that is universal. before the distinction, it to a shorter on the domestic side. now it is the same. >> anybody else? >> if you fly to australia and manyhave nine hours of rest and then a flight to california as opposed to navy flying to washington and resting. >> out simply answering the opportunity for rest. there are other limits. visit there is a requirement that has been increased. fe are insured of one 24-hour

free of duty. now it is 30. when you put all these in place, it makes it come into a better perspective. the pilot will be assured of rest. >> can you give us an update on the california situation? >> first of all, we are very concerned about the people and their families of those who lost their lives. we are still getting reports abou that. this is a terrible tragedy. we have agreements that they have jurisdiction we have

someone either on their way or on site as we speak to make sure that things are being done correctly the investigation will be conducted correctly. we will take 24/7 oversight to make sure everything is done correctly. the responsibility for this falls under the state of california. >> they mentioned of infrastructure will continue. do you think the pipene should be included in that? >> in areas where there is faulty pipeline, i guarantee you we will be putting some taxpayer dollars. it is an important consideration. we have a whole team of people he at d.o.t. that work 24/7 on reviewing pipeline safety, reviewin pipelines. they spend a fair amount of dollars on that.

>> [inaudible] >> i'm not going to bring the problem today. if i had a chance to talk to some of our staff, i might drink the problem. stay tuned. check back later. >> about the new rulthat led the pilots call in fatigued, but pilot had the right. [inaudible] how is it different under the current rules to strengthen that? >> we deterne it on to things. good, safe, and problem mnagement. secondly, often there is a contractual relationship.

never before has a been regulatory. i appeal to people to use their judgment and knowledge that someone knows themselves. someone could half of a wonderful opportunity to have sleep and something happened, they had an emergency at their home. they had the opportunity to rest but they did not get it. we want and not to be punitive. the one people to be able to say i did not get a good not sleep -- a good night's sleep and i cannot fly. >> you say you may extend part 135. is there some sort of timetable? can they take a look at it? >> we have put the 135 operation, we have provided them with some heads of the guidance the we will be providing them

information as to what this proposed rule could look like. at the same time, we are also telling the operations to take a village at it. congress has taken a look. we are putting them on notice. this could well be coming to your neighborhood simpered. >> things have moved very rapidly on a number of fronts. you dramatically went after the regional airlines. congress immediately increased the amount of hours required of new commercial pilot. now the faa is acting as quickly on issues.

the speed with which these reforms -- will go down as when the most pivotal moment in aviation safety? >> i want to give credit for us ming quickly. we knew there is a see of urgency. i know you have talked to these folks. every story is a sad story when you lose a loved one. when you see the results of a npsb report and to see what happened, it could have been prevented. we took our sense of urgency from the family spreaies. we are pleased that this rule

addresses a lot of the things that needed to be addressed. if i go back to what i said before. when it comes to safety, we will not take a back seat to anybody. in no more cah -- you know my passion on distracted driving. you know what we have done when people who work for the department of transportation or airlines is provided. when they have bad behavior, perhaps there will be punishment. we will people to know the when they get in a car or bus or ailane for whatever form of transportation that the people that are driving these vehicles or flying the planes are well trained, that the vehicles are safe. all of us like a lot. we get on buses.

the only thing we ask is that the people are well trained and that the equipment is safe. that is not too much to ask. we feel a real sense of responsibility here to take of the issue of safety for the public to believe when they get on these public utilities that they will be safe. >> it is taken a little more than a year when the ffa said they could do it and when you put out the proposal. there were some deadlis that he missed a th -- he missed. >> we are not going to do a post-mortem. we are here with the proposed rule that we think makes sense that addresses a lot of the issues

there is no value in early trend to go through all the imaginations of this. this is a very big propose row. we will find out how good it is. people have 60 days to comment on we are going to hear from families. berglund a year from stakeholders for the -- we are going to hear from stakeholders. we are here today becau a lot of people worked very hard. >> isn't this about transparency? >> i doubt if anyone in this room wanted to go through the whole litany. if you want this, you can talk to our public affairs people and still with them through the next five or 10 days. i will be happy to make them

accessible to you. there has been nobody that has been more transparent on transportation issues than this administration. that will not fly around here, excuse the pun. >> the criticism directed at he ffa and department of transportation from the family'ies been the speed in whh things have been done. i know the severity 60 day comment time. when can this become a role? -- ule? the -- rule? can you explain why these things take so long? >> they take so long because there is a lot of people

involved. there is a lot of different stakeholders. there are a lt of different issues that have to be addressed. nobody agrees with that statement more than we do. this has taken too long. give the fact that the time from the air crash in where we are today, we are a lot quicker than any other administration in the history of the department of transportation for the -- transportation. when we face safety isses, we get on them. we do not mess around. we think this took too long, but did not take as as long as a lot of other administrations. >> sorry, i'm trying to write down "didn't do a dang thing." >> it is nice way without using swear words. >> did this will meet the cost

benefit analysis? in it not, what kind of leverage to do have to use. >> yes, it does. we have not in meeting about. anybody else? >> i want to back up a little bit. hours trying to as the questions earlier. -- i was trying to ask questions are there. are there any exceptions to the rules? does more rest required if you fly more during the day, if you read the eight hour limit, do you get more rest?

>> one of the things that this rule does is eliminate the exceptions. there is flexibility so carriers have the option to schedule different ways that are unique -- that are not unique to everybody. nine hours of rest has not changed. the old world did not have it. what you have is an opportunity for respite. >> that is its unless someone who did not ask a question has a burning question. i really appreciate your interest in this. this is a big deal for us. you on gtting the word out for us is very important. thank you very much. ho

contentn's local vehicles are visiting the country -- touring the country, investigating the most hotly contested races. >> i am the local president [inaudible] we have almost 6000 employees there. this is our annual pig roast. we are here to get out the vote. people are labor friendly. >> i'm in the marines. >> marines.

>> i am serious. i am so proud. really. >> the congressman has represented the 11th district since 1985. this district is in northeastern pennsylvania. it has voted consistently democratically. it voted for obama. the republicans think they can win this district, even though they are heavily outnumbered. the hazleton mayor won -- ran in 2008. they think they can win. >> this is the mayor. we just wanted to say hello.

>> great job. >> [inaudible] i wish the whole country would do it. >> our mayor was born and raised in hazleton. his family ran a well known amusement park down there. he is popular in his home city. hazleton is a small part of the district. hazleton is at the forefront of local municipalities trying to close in illegal immigration rules. they adopted ordinances to penalize landlords who rent to illegal immigrants.

what is unique about this race is it has been named one of the national congressional committee campaign's young guns. that is really interesting. it is a heavily democratic district. it is not a district you typically see republicans go after. he came close to beating the opponent. >> he has been a congressman since 1985. until 2003, the district did not include scranton. since 2003, it has. he represents the three largest cities in northeastern pennsylvania. he has served on the house financial services committee. he was a big part of the wall

street reform package. he succeeded a popular congressman. he has tried to emulate him in terms of bringing home the bacon to the district. he is making the case for himself. he says he has the seniority to bring back the bacon that the new congressman would not have. >> longevity means that you know who the people are in washington, who are in the 2000 most powerful positions in the federal government of the united states. i work with -- and worked with most of those people spanning back 26 years. >> it might be the second oldest county in the nation.

big employers are education, health care, manufacturing. it is targeted a lot by the presidential candidates. it is full of swing voters. the race was much higher than the rest of the nation during the recession. we were lucky. we were more in line with the national rate. that should be a key factor in the race. they have not talked about that much yet. >> most people tell me 26 years

is long enough. when americans voted for change, they did not want to change america. they wanted to change washington. i don't believe they think that is the change they got. i believe we will get it right. >> we head -- we have someone trying for the third time. if he does not beat him this time, i don't think we will see a fourth time. >> the local content vehicles are traveling the country visiting communities and congressional districts, as well as some of the closely contested house races of the midterm election. next, iraq and a chemist and war veterans discuss the challenges of re-entering civilian life. president obama discusses a wide range of issues at the news conference. then, a report on how threats have changed since 9/11.

>> this weekend on "booktv," commemorating september 11, lawrence wright on the events that led up to 9/11. william langewiesche also speaks. arianna huffington puts the blame on corporations. for all of this week and's programs, go to booktv.org. >> a task force presented a final recommendation to overhaul the defense department go so -- department's response to suicides of veterans. this is about an hour and 15 minutes.

>> i just see one vip after another. you are the folks that can help us make an impact. i want to thank some of the sponsors that have already made an impact. we will mention them again. they sponsored our lunch. could you all just wave your hands so we can think you? it is time to introduce our second panel discussion, embracing the experience. i was just talking with alex, who is going to be the person to run this particular panel. she said, don't read my whole

biography. as you know, she reports for cnn. she has been overseas with our forces in afghanistan and iraq. 18 months on and off. she has been embedded with every service we have fight in these wars. no, it isn't. she has won an award for excellence in journalism. i will get right with it. please welcome warmly alex quade. >> the admiral wants to know what is wrong with "embedded." it is the terminology sometimes. i wanted to thank all of you for attending the today.

on the eve of the anniversary of another 9/11 anniversary, the discussions we are having today are so important. as a war reporter, the organizers asked me to talk about what i have seen and how that applies to all of that. i have had a unique view of all of the angles, from down-ranked with the troops, to back at home with them on the home front, from care givers to policy makers, from commanding generals to veterans, from corporations to charitable organizations. i have witnessed some amazing things that not -- and not all of it is good, especially when it comes to the unseen injuries of ptsd and reintegration. this is my observation. what i have seen is that the cookie cutter approach does not necessarily work in the

continuing care of these troops, nor does it work with the continuing care of vets and their families back into the civilian community. the defense forum asked me to give you a story. one example that walks us through the reintegration process and covers where things stand, and many of the issues that we will be discussing today, so for your background, i was embedded in afghanistan during a huge operation in helmand province. it involves special forces and the 82nd airborne parachute infantry regiment. the helicopter that i was supposed to be on was shot down by the taliban. it killed everyone on board. a lot of that classified information from that operation made news recently onwikileaks.