i think the pressure point is ruling from the administration to the congress. the administration is committed to getting the first three trade agreements done. and they are talking actively now about the trans-pacific partnership. at the end of the day, it could be the most important one when viewed 10 years from now. that is now a dialogue that the president and alistair cooke are having. that represents a sea change in their willingness and is not an easy pot politically. there is a lot of statesmanship in their drive. when you do frame it in an economic and competitive context, it is very clear.

i think they are stepping up. i do. the congressional approval cycle still has to be managed. that is my sense of it. i think there is one right there. yes. >> in your focus on the defense exports as an element in all of this, i am thinking back. i did not hear the president specifically mention this, that he has talked about these businesses and education. is this something that he has avoided? >> no. i do not want to speak for the president.

i think what he is trying to do is read frame competitiveness in terms of global capability, driving global sales, and driving jobs at home. he is framing the discussion. when you frame it that way, you end up with industries -- for example, the industry with the largest balance of trade is the aerospace industry. it has about 100 billion exports, something on the order of $40 billion or $50 billion in export. if you look at aerospace in the way the issue has been framed, there are no -- you get to a lot of places.

any other ones? or? well, good. >> you settled at all. [laughter] >> after president obama met with his export council, we talked with a journalist covering the south korean trade issue. this is five minutes. why is the south korean trade agreement so as important to the obama administration? >> 1, the administration wants to double exports over the next

five years, and it feels korea is a fast-growing country with a big market. second, we all know about the terrible pressure between north korean and south korean now with north korean shelling and killing four people. the u.s. and south korea wants to show that the ties remain strong, and one way to do that is to cement a new trade deal. >> the article shows a narrowing gap between imports and exports between the u.s. widening this year. what is causing that? >> there have been slowdowns in various countries, and the currency has gotten weaker. the korean currency is not as

strong as it was a year or two ago. >> which industries stand to gain or lose if the agreement is passed? >> my sense is that the american auto industry stands to gain somewhat and stands to lose some what. clearly, the administration went to bat to pressure korea and south korea to opening its market to automobiles. south korea is loosening its environmental and safety restrictions to provide another 75,000 cars a year. if the u.s. can keep the tariff on korean cars and trucks a few years longer than planned, that could help detroit. the deal is becton to help

american farmers and ranchers, because -- expected to help american farmers and ranchers, because it lowers tariffs. >> you write about the report of the american auto workers union, but today the president of the organization coming out against the trade union. what is the concern? >> they are against free trade agreements. even though this is more labor friendly and goes the extra mile, it is still a free trade agreement, and it is going to hurt our trade picture and is going to hurt american jobs, and they really want you trade deals -- to use trade deals as a way to strengthen worker rides in a

country like south korea and also the united states. they have argued that is not improving. that is not what trade deals are about. also it wants language to prevent south career from engaging in manipulation. they say the european union deal is more favorable than it is for the united states, so it has a lot of issues. t. is not nearly as vehemenc i think the support has caused them to modulate the rhetoric. >> does congress have to pass this 5 a certain deadline?

>> they are hoping to pass it early next year. it might mean easier -- be easier for the republican house than for a democratic house to get a deal, because democrats are closer to organized labor and might be more willing to cede and block the deal. we have two strong unions supporting the trade deal, and that could go far to of said the opposition. >> you can read his article and more. thank you for that update. >> this month, c-span 3 is showing interviews from the nixon library oral history project. david frost and his interview

with richard nixon. also airing this weekend from the harry s. truman library, a discussion of the containment policy, the soviet threat, and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. and then the library of congress on the federalist papers, encouraging the states to ratify the constitution. see that online on c-span.org, or you could press the c-span alert button and have it mailed to you. >> in a few moments, a briefing on u.s. and europe security cooperation. in about half an hour, a safety forum on the best way to keep children safe while they fly, and after that, a panel of scholars and officials examine the plan to expand exports.

>> the couple lives results. an author discusses his book on the history of the federal reserve with paul volcker. that is live at 9:00 a.m. eastern. the secretary of state hillary clinton and the treaty israeli prime minister speak on u.s.- israel relations at the brookings institution's. >> c-span's latest book is being offered directly from the publisher at a special price. just $5 plus shipping and handling. this handsome hardcover edition is the first book to tell the story of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices themselves. 10 original interviews with current and retired chief

justices. it is rich with history and tradition with 16 pages of photographs, and handsome addition to the bookshelf of any raider. to order it for $5 go to c- span.org/book, and be sure to use the code cspan at checkout. you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every weekend is our lives program connecting you with the elected officials, policy makers, and journalists. during the week, watch our coverage of the transition to the new congress, and policy

forums. also, on the weekends, you can see our interview programs. on sunday, newsmakers, "q&a", and questions at the british house of commons. it is all searchable at our c- span video library. washington coming your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> u.s. security and law enforcement officials met with european counterparts today to discuss counter-terrorism and cyber crime. speakers included eric holder and tenants napolitano. this is half an hour. -- janet the call a timeout. this is half an hour. -- and janet napolitano.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> good afternoon. >> also with us are the minister of justice of belgium and minister we welcome representatives of the next president say in hungary. over the past two days, secretary napolitano and i have had the opportunity to once again participate in the european union it-united states ministerial. i truly believe that the work that we do together is a testament to the importance that the united states attaches to its justin's -- justice and law enforcement relationships with

its member states. the topics that we discussed at our meeting, ranging from coordination of our work on counter-terrorism to understanding on protectinghe privacy of personal information, to immigration. it shows the depth of the e- u.s. law enforcement relationship. that relationship is paying dividends on bh sides of the atlantic. we have worked together on cases involving major fraud, narcotics trafficking, and child exploitation. our cooperation has had a real impact on putting premier -- criminals behind bars and protecting their citizens. as our colleagues returned home, i hope that we note -- they know that we look forward to continuing the strong partnership in the years ahead. >> thank you.

let me join the attorney general and saying that we have had very productive conversations with our european colleagues on confronting the common press that we face. the threats environment that we confront is constantly evolving. it requires that we continue to be partners and that we've evolved and adjust our methodologies as well. we discussed a number of issues. one of them was cyber security and the establishment of a working group. we actually created this in lisbon during the summit there. now we are often terms of the actual collaboration that will be done. we talked about aviation

security and all the things that have happened since the january 2010 meeting in spain. between the united states and the eu on improving and building international cooperation or passenger security is involved. we are now embarked upon t actual the association of what is called t passenger name record agreement, which will build on the agreement that we had in 2007, but will allow us to continue to share critical information for the protection of passengers. that gives you a sense or a flavor of some of the issues that were raised and discussed. i want to think the attorney general for hosting the meeting this time and to our colleagues for coming to the united states for these discussions.

during this time we had in spurring this year in madrid, so we are continuing to advance quickly, and we have taken very seriously what two weeks ago in lisbon our leaders have been discussing a necessity to advance on security issues, and they have underlined also the need for working towards a protection agreements to make it easy for all the security

transfers of the data, which are absolutely necessary in order to ensure the security of our citizens to have the protection of personal data. centered our discussion on the immediate next step. there is a mandate that is a chief negotiator. our chief negotiator together with the u.s. counterpart is having exploratory discussions in order to see how we can advance on this topic. the ball is in the field of our american counterparts. we hope that until the next meeting, we will have advanced -- so that we can link together

security expectations and the protection of rights. >> very glad to be here. we have discussed a lot of extremely important things today. regarding security issues where we do have a common agenda and we can only move forward by doing this together. i am very happy about launching of the group. we also discussed terrorism and howe can address this ise of increased radicalization and our society. we lunched also the negotiations on pnr. it is important to fight terrorism and organized crime. we will move quickly to set up an agreement.

we also voiced from the european union are concerns about -- we have sent them into the relevant american authorities. we think it is a problem in our joint ambition to increase the mobility over the atlantic. this is creating some annoyance for the citizens. it has been a very good and fruitful meeting. thank you. >> belgian minister of justice, would you like to make some remarks? >> it will be coming at the end of the six months. we are very glad to be herend to seek the discussions continued. we discussed with the european union and the united states. we had a council of ministers together last week.

we discussed plenty of items. the political action in the european union and the action in the united states is converging in a very positive way. we can start. we made to decisions last week on sexual abuse of minors and and pornogphy. we discussed it today and said, we have to work together. we were able to discuss this today. we are very happy to be here to seek that we can continue with this cooperation. we need some more dialogue on some other items to be more effective in our cooperation and to be more creative. one of the main items that we

discussed is the cyber criminality and that is a huge objective. it is a really big problem and we have to be very creative to find the solutions. we are very happy to be here. we hope that it will be continued from our colleagues from hungary. >> i would like to advise the belgian minister of home affairs to make some remarks. but still a very much. i am very glad that last week, we approved the mandates of the european commission to start negotiations with the united states concerning pnr. i hope that we will have us and as possible at agreement on that issue because it is so important in our fight, are common fight, against terrorism. i have also explained that during this meeting, all the

measures have taken last week concerning the cargo security and how we can improve the cargo security, i think it is very important that we can always exchange the measures that we are taking in the european union. they are measures that can improve our common fight against terrorism. last point, because i do not want to repeat everything, we talked about the prevention of radicalization. i think we have a very good exchange of best practices between our two continents and we have some very concrete examples during our belgian presidency concerning e prevention of radicalization, how wecan involve me of civil society in that prevention. how we can give the manual to our policemen.

if we are going to give that manual to our policeman. how they can detect as quick as possible all symbols of radicalization. we had a very good exchange of information on that prevention. that is the most important thing, taking the measures possible that something does happen. >> i would not like to invite the hon dairy and minister of justice and hung there in the minister of the interior to speak. -- secondary and -- hungarian. >> we want to continuehe efforts made so far across the eu and the united states. there are a lot of shared concerns and problems, so we

need shared solutions. we have a good turning point in this cooperation. we will have another meeting in april in budapest and we will have a chance to have a debate on the pnr, the data protection, how to tackle cyber crime and organized crime. we have to find common solutions because we have common background. >> before we open ourselves to questions, i would like to ask express our collective thanks to our ambassador to the eu, william. he is right there. he was an integral part of our conversation today. he is an old friend and a great ambassador. it is good to have him back in washington.

thank you, bill. >> the question is for the secretary. i believe several months ago, you were saying that the existing agreement in 2007 was working very well. the eu is saying that it wants a new agreement. on the other agreement, data protection agreement, i believe one of the the key issues is a fact that european citizens do not have the same rights and records as u.s. citizens under the u.s. privacy act. i am wondering what you think are the prospects for any change to the data privacy act that would give the citizens equal access. >> the nice thing about pnr is that we do have existing

agreement. it can always be improved. particularly in light of the systems that are in place now which has been improved since two dozen 7. because of some of the issues that have been identified, we need to address them together. the purpose of the mandate is to make sure that the agreement between the eu and the united states on the pcr takes care of some of the issues that have been raised over the last few years and also really sets us up for the future as we move forward on passenger security. >> the way that would get to that question is -- the united states and the european union share the same values when it comes to the protection of privacy rights. the systems that we have in place, though different, have been effective.

with regard to the privacy act that exist in the ited states, one of the things that we discussed is the possibility of coming up with administrative measures that would deal with the ccernthat you've raised. >> [inaudible] >> i cannot hear you. >> [inaudible] and that right -- you mentioned that private security was discussed. what type of pressure have you applied on a companies like mastercard in terms of spending accounts? >> i am not going to talk about the ongoing investigation that i have described over the course of the last week or so. we hav an active ongoing and

serious investigation of that matter. we had informal conversations about wileaks, the concern that it was raised in the minds of all of us. the hope here is that the investigation that we are conducting will allow us to hold accountable the people responsible for that unwarranted disclosure of information that has put at risk the safety of the american people and the people who work on behalf of america. >> paypal said yesterday that they have received letters and the administration. >> i am not going to comment on the investigative steps of the taken. >> as part of this operation payback that was a cyber war, with the computer intrusions,

having directed the fbi to look at these incidents? is there any investigation? >> we are aware of the incidents that you have described and we are looking into them. >> have you identified all the people involved? >> the investigation is ongoing. >> yesterday's fbi operation in baltimore was related to a string of undercover stings targeted muslims. some muslim organizations have expressed concerns regarding the fear of entrapment. how do you balance the need for security it with the concerns of such organizations? what sort of recommendationsid you have coming out of your meeting last week? >> one of the things that we do -- we are bound and determined to protect the american people. we will use every legimate

lawful technique that we have in order to do that. were very mindful of the rits that people have. we did not engage in tactics that in trapped people. -- in trapped people. i think you will see that in the case yesterday in baltimore, the other one in oregon, any number of occasions, the people who were arrested and given the opportunity to turn away from their stated desire to harm american citizens. the techniques that we used are legitimate. the way in which the techniques have been employed has been appropriate. we are very sensitive to the way in which we use these tactics and these techniques. >> any recommendations coming out of the meeting? >> this meeting?

>> the muslim organizations last week. >> i think tt we are on an appropriate course. i will b going to california this afternoon and speaking to a muslim group tomorrow. i will undoubtedly talk about this in some form or fashion, but i am comfortable with the way in which we have been conducting ourselves in connection with these investigations. >> would you address the legislation in congress that would seek to block a civilian trial for any -- >> i sent a letter to senator reid as well as to minority leader mitch mcconnell. indicating that the administrati opposes that proposed measure. i, as attorney general, signed that letter in opposition to the

proposed legislation. it simply does not make any sense to get away from the president's options that he needs. options that i need to keep the american people safe. to remove from us the ability to use the article 3 courts to try terrorist. it is an unwise move and puts the american people at risk. this is a tool that has been used successfully hundreds of times, most recently in the new york. the inability that we will have this measure was to pass is something that i think is on y s and puts the safety of the american people at risk. >> what else are you doing at this stage -- this intimate picked it up at any point. -- the senate may pick it up at any point.

would you recommend that the president veto the legislation based on that provision alone? >> this is the statement that is contained in the letter that goes to the senators. it is administration statement. it is an indication that the president opposes that provision. in the strongest possible terms, on a very personal level, and as the person who knows these cases better than anybody, anybody. this legislation is unwise. it takes away from the justice department, from our investigative agencies, from the american people the ability to hold accountable people who have committed mass murder, people do intended to harm, kill american citizens. this is an extremely unwise piece of legislation. it is our hope that with this very forceful statement of

opposition that is contained in the letter that i signed and sent to the congress that the bill would not become law as it is presently constructed. >> [inaudible] >> my hope will be is that this law will not become a factor. >> if you and your colleagues in your meetings today reach an agreement about a uniform approach? >> we did not talk about wikileaks. >> secretary, recently, an ambassador was visiting with local officials in mississippi had to undergo a pat-down. she presented her diplomatic credentials at the airport and everything. indeed thi that searchers like that go too far -- do you think that searchers like -- searches

like that go too far? >> we have spoken with th ambassador. it was by the book. it was something that followed our procedures. i think it was appropriate under the circumstances. we do have protocols in place if there is a for warning before somebody gets to an airport. they have special credentials that we cannot work with them on that, but in this case, that protocol had not bn utilized. again, what was done by the officer was done appropriately and by the buck. >>-- book. >> do you have any countries as the focal poin for any wikileaks research backs like iceland?

-- like icelan >> i do not want to go into any of this the specifics. >> some have suggested that the response b a thoses support wikileaks to attack amazon and other companies is a cyber war. what you are doing -- cyber issues are in your purview. what are you doing to mitigate that? >> i think the attorney general has already said that he will not comment on any ongoing investigations with respect to wikileaks. with respect t the protection of the private sector, we are working very closely with a variety of matters involving

cyber attacks, cyber intrusions and the like, but i think your question raises the importance of cyber. that is why our discussions with the eu to da were to follow up on the agreement made by our leaders in lisbon two weeks ago to formulate a u.s.-eu cyber working group and to really focus on issues about intrusions into critical infrastructure and into the financial markets and into other areas that are cyber dependent. that working group has already begun and i think we will see some very important measures that come out of that that will be between the united states and the eu. >> are you suggesting that the next release of documents could be confidential threat assessments of detainees at guantanamo? are a concern that sources may cut out as aesult of that? are you concerned that there could be some additional

questions regarding whether some detainees have gone back into [inaudible] >> client concerned about to -- i am concerned about the nature of the release. the release of this information has put at risk american national security. whatever it is 2, i think will not -- whatever is to come will be consistent with the concerns i have expressed. >> can you address that? >> use all the reports that was issued yesterday. one of the things that i take fr that report is the substantially smaller number of people who have turned to the fight. under the obama administration

and the process that we used where we had an interagency effort to an analysis of each of the detainees before a transfer decision was made. a unanimous vote was required. you have seen a much smaller number of those people who are transferred by the obama administration returned to the fight. there is obviously a concern abt anybody returns to the fight. it is our obligation to hunt them down and to bring them to justice and that is what we will do. >> one question. can some of that just be attributed to time? the bush administration had more me. >> i am actually confident that the mechanisms that we put in place, the interagency effort that we put in place, the

painstaking examination of all the paper that existed, the fact that we required unanimous votes with regard to how each of the detainees was goi to be handled, disney a great deal confidence that the numbers that we have seen should remain fairly constant. >> do you believe that the offices professional responsibility is addressing allegations of misconduct? >>opr does a really good job. the overwhelming majority of federal prosecutors in this country handle themselves inappropriate -- anna -- in inappropriate ways. the people who represent the united states on behalf of the

department of justice do so honorably and do so with the rules. >> thank you. >> can i ask you one question about wikileaks? >> they are trying to get their hands on the fountain. -- the founder. [inaudible] >> [inaudible] the currency is accused of, if he is then sent to sweden, he will be persecuted accordingly. i am not part of the swedish government. i trust that the independence of this will be conducted as always. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this month for the first time on television, c-span 3 is

showing videos from the oral history project. 1977 interviews with frost and nixon. also a discussion of america's containment policy after world war ii and the wars in iraq and afghanistan and then a special collection in the library of congress. see the complete schedule online at c-span.org/history. telling the american story every weekend only on c-span 3. >> in a few moments, and national transportation forum on how to keep children safe while they are flying. federal officials examined the

plans to expand exports. >> on washington journal, more about the trade deals between the u.s. and south korea with the head of the national foreign trade council. david greenberg will look at recent presidents in the midterm point, and we will discuss the european debt situation. washington journal is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of live the events, arthur allan meltzer discusses his book on the history of the chairmen reserve. that is live at 9:00 a.m. eastern. here on c-span, hillary clinton and the deputy prime minister's speech on u.s.-israeli relations. that is live at 8:00 p.m.

eastern. >> find great holiday gifts for the c-span fans in your life at the c-span store. it is all available online at c- span.org/shop. >> the federal aviation administration does not require children under to be contained in a car seat while flying but is recommended to do so. next the child safety issue. you will hear officials from the faa, the airline trade association, unions, an advocacy groups on how best to keep children safe while flying. >> good morning, and welcome to our board room.

>> it is my pleasure to introduce my colleagues. we convene this session on safety. this kicks off a promotion of child safety across all modes of transportation. like to recognize at the accident survivors and family members who may be watching. many of you, like jan brown, had been directly involved in accidents where children had been killed or injured. you have been some of the strongest advocates for improved transportation safety for our young guest passengers. we are grateful for your continuous support. also in our audience today is someone who has been a leading advocate for child restraints in europe.

he attended our forum on child restraints in aviation in 1999. we welcome him back. would you like to stand up? thank you. as many of you know, the safety board investigates the problems of major accidents and issues recommendations to make travel safer. we also examined safety issues by bringing together leading experts to identify safety risks and solve problems even when they are not tied to specific accident. we gather today at a time when our skies and our roots are safer for all travelers, including our smallest passengers. 35 years ago when i was a child, nearly 1400 children aged 12 and younger died. last year, that number had

fallen to 750 -- a decrease of 50% in one generation. these gains have been achieved in large part because individuals and organizations around the nation, including some represented here today, worked diligently to change the culture of child-passenger safety and the culture around child protection has changed. we can all recall an environment that looked very different. i remember writing in our family's station wagon a generation ago where my little sister's favorite spot was on the armrest in the front seat. she was not restrained by a seat belt or a car seat. she could see better from where she was sitting. today, americans install their

first car seat before their children are even born. they have never known any other way to ride in a car. these anecdotal examples of cultural shifts and highway safety -- in highway safety are reflected in several concrete policy changes. every state has a law that requires children under the age of four to be transported in child-safety seats. pediatricians and nurses in maternity wards across the country counsel parents and caregivers about the importance of child seats before they take their baby home. community organizations distribute free or low-cost of child seats at fire stations and a baby superstores. education campaigns are successfully reaching parents and caregivers. yet even with this progress, a

vehicle crashes are still the number-one cause of death for children in the united states. of the 750 children that are killed in car crashes last year, more than 40% were not using a child's seat where a seat belt. many of these deaths were preventable. we can and must do better for our children. the safety board has long advocated child safety in automobiles. we have issued more than 20 recommendations suggesting child-passenger safety. 12 of those recommendations have been on our most wanted list of improvements. the board has seen the benefit of child seats in its accident investigations as recently as march when a 15-passenger van was hit by a tractor-trailer in kentucky. although the advance experienced

very severe crash forces with significant intrusion into the passenger compartment, the only two survivors were children in safety seats who sustained only minor injuries. our work is not limited to highway safety. the safety board has issued 14 recommendations on child-safety in aviation. among them is a recommendation for the faa to require restraint used for all occupants of airplanes, including infants and small children. while the faa guidance notes that a child younger than two is safer in a restraint-system then on and adult's lap, disinformation, unfortunately, is only a suggestion and not a requirement. yet we see it regularly when we travel. parents putting their children in child-safety seats when they drive to the airport and

checking the car seat like their luggage and then holding their child in their lap during the flight even when everyone else on the plane is required to be buckled in. wants to their destination, they pick up their seat at the baggage claim and a secure their child again on the trip from the airport. the laws of physics do not change whether you are on an airplane or an automobile. we know that no parent would intentional put their child in a less safe position than they would put themselves in. if we are so careful to stress our children into car seats when we drive to the airport, why are we not as diligent in requiring them to be secured in their own seat on an airplane? how many times have you seen car seats on the baggage carousel?

our recommendation to the faa regarding restraint used dates back to 1970. our focus today, however, is not to engage in a statistical stalemate about diversion. rather, we are here to inform and educate those who travel with children about the safest way to transport their most precious cargo. children cannot make decisions themselves. they are relying on adults to know what is best and to do what is right. to bring about a cultural shift in how we look at child safety, we must remain consistent in our attitudes regarding the use of safety equipment whether we are flying or driving on the interstate. the main focus of our form is closing that education gap so that securing our children in proper restraints is what we do each and every time. as part of that education, we

have displays and is a big step -- we have displays and exhibits showing approved devices and how to properly restrain a child. i encourage you to visit those displaced during the break. we think the organizations and companies here with us today. today he would hear from experts on four panels. this morning we will focus on the safety of children in aviation and this afternoon we will transition to child- passenger safety on our highways. will conclude the form with a look at positive steps moving forward. safety is our priority. in case of an emergency, please note the nearest emergency exit. there are three exits here -- the rear door you use to enter the conference center, and two emergency doors on the side in

the front. if you have not done so, please sign your electronic devices. if you have a laptop, you can connect to our connection. today's agenda and speakers biographical information is available in the atrium and posted on our website. within the next several days, presentations provided by our speakers will be posted on our website. the video archive of the form can also be accessed in the next several months. for those who are attending in person who are safety technicians, you may attend the forum. please make sure you signed in on the signup sheet out front. i would like to turn your attention to the monitors as we did you a video on the importance of appropriate -- as we ebut a video on the

importance of proper restraint for children. >> welcome aboard, ladies and gentlemen. please make sure your seat belt is fastened. to release the belt, lift the top of the buckle. for your safety, remained seated with your seat belt securely fastened. please keep your seat belt on whenever you are seated in case we experience turbulence. greece -- please bring your seat to the upright position and make sure your belongings are properly stowed. have you thought about the child on your lap. your baby could substantially shift during flight in case of turbulence. he or she could be thrown several rows away from your seat due to your failure to provide a proper seat restraint system.

>> that concludes our safety demonstration. we would like to invite you to sit back, relax, enjoy the flight. >> most parents drive to the airport with their child in a safety seat. the laws of physics do not change when you get on an airplane. why would you not want the child to have the same level of protection on the airplane that they have in the car? we have investigated accidents where the board concluded that the recent the child survived the accident is because they were in a child safety seat. many parents think they can hold a child on their laps. we have been looking at these issues since the 1970's. we know that children on a lap or at great -- are at great risk during turbulence or an accident. we want children to be off the lap and in a

restraint. it is recommended that children travel in child restraint systems, but it does not required. we know parents want to do what is best for their children, that is why we made the recommendations. you want your baby to get the best protection they can. you protect them in every other way. why does it become less important to protect them on an airplane? i have been in the aviation safety business for 40 years. i have seen parents who have lost children in an accident. the most devastating interview i ever had this a mother who said she was told she could hold her child on her lap. in -- as a parent, you never want to be in that situation.

>> recalculating. a child under 4 feet 9 inches should be sitting in her own seat. also, your car seat is unstable. it appears you did not take the time to have it checked. both of your kids are at great risk for personal injury in the event of a crash. when possible, head to the nearest shopping center to purchase a booster seat for your child. recalculating. >> the safety board has studied the safety of children in cars extensively including over 100 accident investigations. the best thing parents can do is make sure their children are in an age-appropriate restraint.

the youngest children need to be in a rear-facing seat. next would come a booster seat which uses the vehicle's shoulder belt. the seat belt is designed for an adult. when you are -- when they are born, you put them in a product especially made for them. it does not stop when they are older. they need to be in a booster seat. i know it can be confusing. there are resources available to if you need the help. i have seen cases where children were ejected or seriously injured or killed because they were not in a proper restraint. somebody you do not know, one

second and things changed forever. you can prevent it by doing something as simple as getting a car seat, making sure it is installed right, and making sure your child uses it every trip. i talked to parents and interview them. they want to know why or what they could have changed to prevent this horrible outcome. i think by helping parents realize that keeping their kids safe in cars in proper restraints, that conversation will never have to take place. i will not have to go to an accident and have been asked me, "why?" >> simple precautions can sometimes mean the difference between life and death. should your child not be just as protected as you are?

>> our first panel will be led by ms. laura marshall. she is in the office of aviation safety. our panel will discuss research, rules, guidance, passenger education, and issues related to lap children and child restraints on air carriers and general aviation aircraft. please proceed. >> thank you, chairman harrison. i am joined by the quality assurance division and someone from the office of research and engineering. our first presenter will be from the faa's medical institute and

research team. we thank him for coming to visit us from oklahoma. please began your presentation. -- please begin your presentation. >> i would like to thank the board for inviting me today. we continue a longstanding collaboration on a variety of safety issues. i appreciate the opportunity to share the child safety research with you and the public. for several years, the faa has encouraged parents to use child restraints when traveling by air. it is the best way to ensure child safety during turbulence or an emergency. at this time, the choice of whether to use a child restraint is up to the parents. the reason the faa so strongly

encourages child restraint used is that some of the seating options for children do not provide the highest level of safety possible. flat help children and children secured in their seat with a seat belts are our concern. while holding a child under two on the lap is allowed, there is a risk of serious injury in the unlikely event of severe turbulence for a crash landing. the person holding the child cannot react fast enough to counter an unanticipated and suddenly applied load as it occurs during turbulence. they also do not have enough strength during the extreme conditions during a crash landing. to study child safety on aircraft, we have simulated crash landings.

the tests shown up here simulates an impact that a significant for deceleration. -- significant forward deceleration. the lap-held a child moves straight forward, hitting the seat back. in an actual crash where the aircraft would be bouncing, there is a good chance the child would be ejected from the seat. in some countries, lap-help children or attached to the adult seat belt with a loop of wedding are wrapped around their midsection. this is sometimes referred to as a belly-belt. however, this kind of restraint provides no protection during a crash landing.

performance is evaluated during a test using a forward-facing impact. in this test, the adult and the child translate forward together, then fold over and strike the seat back. the adult continues to fall forward onto the child who is trapped between the adult and the seat back. systems, commonly referred to as a baby-slangs, are allowed during the cruise portion of a flight. they may be used to restrain the lap-old child during turbulence, however, they are not allowed during takeoff and landing. like the belly-belt and other similar devices, they provide no real protection during a crash landing. another reason baby-slings are

permitted during takeoffs and landings -- are not permitted to during takeoffs and landings, a child restraint in one is not much safer than being unrestrained during a crash landing. in this test, the strap-buckle failed during a low impact, completely ejecting the child. children of any age are permitted to occupy a passenger seat, being secured with just the lap-belt. that can provide restrained during turbulence, however, without shoulder straps, these children are at an increased risk for injury during a crash landing.

during forward impact, a person restraint which is a lap-belt folds forward around the belt. in smaller children, attention produced in the neck due to this of weeping effect can call spinal cord injuries. children about the height of a three-year old test dummy used in this test are at risk for head injuries. they can easily strike be rigid frame just under the front of their seat. one way to provide the highest level of safety for your child using an automotive child restraint -- they also have been approved for aircraft. carriers for small children have a protective shell that distributes the crash forces evenly and prevents the child from contacting surrounding objects.

forward-facing child restraints are designed to limit the child's forward movement. it is often possible to prevent had contact with the seat in front. it significantly reduces the chance of a head injury. in this test, the child restraint is coupled to the aircraft seat. the child's excursion is short enough to prevent impact with the seat in front. it is not to say that using an automotive child restraint in an aircraft is a perfect solution. aircraft seats differ from automobile seats that could restrained performance. one important factor is the location of the anchor. the video shown earlier patent

belt anchors estate similar location as an automobile. the seat in this video has built tankers further forward. these are found on some airplane seats. it is this that is causing the excessive and excursion. the good news is that airlines are gradually replacing these older seats that had the poor interfaced with newer ones that have an interface similar to the one in the first video. a frustrating problem that parents can sometimes face is that the larger child restraints do not fit in all airplanes. during preboarding is not the best time to find this out.

if a child restraint is less than 16 inches wide, it should fit in nearly all transport seats. ensuring that there is enough room to accommodate a child restraint is a more complex issue. there is not enough space available to place ann aft- facing restraint. it is based on the shape of a typical seat back in a 30 inch area. the space in between the rows, not the distance between the seat back and the seat behind it. if the actual route-pitch is known, this relationship could be used to determine the maximum length of child restraints that could fit on any aircraft. since the aft-facing restraints

are longer so they could safely accommodate larger children, this is likely to be an issue. some good news for traveling families is that the faa has directed the airlines to make every effort to accommodate child restraints that are brought on board. this includes moving to a wider seat for a seat with more room between at rows or the front row. that is often a good choice because of the extra ram that is always there. -- the extra room that is always there. aircraft do not have the latching points that cars have. since the child restraints were not designed to accommodate an

aircraft style belt, the buckle can sometimes interfere with the child restraint shell. in general, with a little practice and patience, most child restraints can be successfully installed. if you want to see how atypical installation goes, the faa has just posted a video on our website showing the steps for installing a four-facing child restraint in an aircraft passenger seat. because of the concerns about performance of automotive child restraints when used in aircraft, the faa worked to develop a safety standards specifically for aircraft child restraint systems. meeting the standard would ensure that the child restraint would fit and perform well in any transport aircraft seat. to achieve this goal, the

standard required the test parameters be more representative of a transport aircraft seat installation. the faa also issued a tfo that revises the operating rules to allow airlines were passengers to fly and use the approved devices. so far, this standard has proven to be technically challenging. while there are some models under available -- under development, they have not been issued to the tfo yet. it specifically addresses systems that incorporate a protective shell. to properly evaluate these innovative -- the faa developed and approval process that requires any proposed device

demonstrate an equivalent level of safety to tso c-100s. the shares that at the upper torso restraints to the lap belt has been approved using this procedure. i want to thank you for your attention. i hope this presentation provided some information parents can use the next time they are flying with their children. >> thank you. our next presenter is from the f a a's flight-standard service. she has been the team lead on it will making project regarding the use of child restraint systems on aircraft. she has developed the guidance documents associated with those regulations. thank you for attending today. you may begin your presentation. >> thank you.

first, i would like to thank you and the members of the board. >> if you could pull up that microphone just a little bit. >> thank you. i would like to thank you and the members of the board. it is a great opportunity to present information to you and the board for using child restraint systems on aircraft. the faa and the ntsb agree that the safest place for a child on an aircraft is in a child restraint system. the fda continues to do everything we can to encourage the use of child restraints on aircraft. we make recommendations, conduct outreach and education programs to inform parents and guardians of small children about the information they need to facilitate, and courage, and

increase the use of child restraints on airplanes. however, the faa does not require a child restraint for children under two. we believe requiring this would significantly increase the price of travel for a small targeted population of families. the extra cost of that seat may divert a small percentage of families to the highways, which is the mode of travel that has the greatest chance for fatality or an accident. diversion to highways will have the unintended consequences in transportation debt. we rely on many cities to get our conclusion, starting back in the 1990's. more recently, in 2003, 2005,

several of the cities are from. you'd scientific journal articles. several are independent of faa. in the aggregate, they didn't give us an exact percentage. but we do know that a certain percentage were deferred to the highways. there is such a large disparity between safety and air travel and safety on the highways. this is a very important consideration for us and for regulators. aviation is much safer. it is highly regulated. it is highly controlled. aviation accidents are very rare. for example, if we look back over the last 32 years, there were three accidents where the fatality of a child would have been prevented if the child had been in a child restraint system. the long-term fatality rate in aviation has decreased dramatically since 1994.

the faa does everything it can to encourage and promote the use of child restraint doses. when the rules for child restraint was originally written years ago, it was not appropriate to require a restaurant because there were not effective restraints for children under the age of 2. at the time, the regulations -- under the age of 2 at the time the regulations were originally written. but now they have some that are approved to be used to be safe in aircraft. in 1992, they're required carriers to allow the use of a child restraint device on an airplane. we conducted a study at the faa federal medical unit. in 1998, the a they did publish

an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to receive public comment on requiring child restraint of aircraft. but, at that time, we did not require any military changes. in order to encourage innovation in the use of child restraint to provide parents more options, we have done additional rulemaking to allow operators and passengers to use new innovative types of child restraints approved for use on aircraft. one such example was mentioned. by any standard that over 70,000 of those have been distributed. that was because the faa did the rulemaking that allow them to be used on airplanes. parents and guardians of small children have a lot of child restraint options now. in commercial aviation and general aviation, we have the

typical ford and after approved child restraints. but the ones that i just talked about that are approved under faa process these as well. you reach out to general aviation and commercial aviation, carriers and operators, with guidance and tools they need to facilitate the use of child restraint on aircraft. our guidance helps our carriers develop crewmember policies and procedures, crewmember education, address specialized tissues. we discussed the use of chuggers trend for children with disabilities, education about new types of child restraints. we address many of the fit and placement issues that were raised in the presentation. we give airlines the best information that they need to develop emergency procedures to be used when their children on board in an aircraft.

the faa continues with its education and outreach. we developed a very large, on a national scale, national media campaign. there were a lot of partners and child safety brochures and print and television and radio service announcements. we join with a lot of partners to get the word out, that child restraint is the safest place for your child on an aircraft. we updated the campaign in 2004. we designed a new faa website dedicated to informing passengers about the use of child restraint on aircraft. we currently average 6700 hits a month on that website. we're getting the word out. we developed brochures and partnered with babies are us. but the education and outreach continues and it does so in a way that is from me to this new generation of parents.

we do outreach to travel web site, trouble blogs, -- travel blogs and travel bloggers. we get hit on our website every month. 67,000 -- 6700 was the average last year. we also place an instructional video that shows parents the effective way to use a child restraint on aircraft. we reach out with social media. dot secretary ray load encourage parents to use child restraint lahood encouraged parents to use child restraint. it is the safest way for your child to fly on an aircraft and we reached an audience of 114,000 appeared -- 114,000.

we enable the use of new and innovative types of child restraint the regulations. we do everything we can to educate our operators in the use of child restraint. we educate parents. we reach out to other stakeholders to join us in these efforts. and we provide more options by encouraging innovation, research, and new design for child restraints. although the faa does not require a child restraint for children under 2 on aircraft, we do everything we can to enable and educate, reach out, and inform to encourage the use of child restraint on aircraft. that is the safest way for a child to fly. thank you. >> thank you. our next presenter is this petition a friend, the president of the association of flight attention attendance --

association of flight attendants. please begin your presentation. >> thank you. thank you for this invitation to speak on behalf of our 42,000 flight attendant members. one of the goals of the association of flight attendants members is to ensure safe air travel for our members and the flying public. flight attendants are responsible for the safety and security of all occupants of the cabin on commercial airplanes. perk -- for our youngest passengers, we continue to believe that there is only one safe way to fly. that is the reason for our steadfast support that proper use of approved child restraint systems be required for passengers under the age of 2 during takeoff, landing, and turbulence. on the aircraft, flight

attendants are required to secure all items in the cabin, galley, and lavatories. from carry-on baxter coffee pat's. -- coffeepots. -- from carry on bags to coffeepots. unsecured child has a lucite nominally suffer serious injury, but may also injured others -- unsecured child as a loose item may not only suffer serious injury, but may also injured others. -- also injure others. united airlines flight 232 on route from denver to chicago on july 19, 1989 experienced a loss of hydraulic pressure. at the time of that accident,

the crash landing brace position that united airlines had for lap children was to have parents place their small child on the floor at their feet and hold them there while the parent assumed the protective predisposition. one child on flight 232 died of asphyxia secondary to smoke inhalation. five years later, on july 2, 1994, another child died on u.s. airways flight 1016. investigative reports described the difficulties faced by the parents and their inability to hold onto their children. these two accidents should be reason enough to require the use of crf for all small children traveling on commercial aircraft. it has been said that a small member of children die in aircraft accidents. i would submit, if it is your child, one is too many.

in preparation for this forum, we ask our members to find out what is happening in the cabin regarding black children and the use of child restraint systems. just over 600 flight attendants finished this survey. we are more than willing to share the survey data. one consistent response from our members is that, if a crs was not approved or had a hard back, it was not allowed. everyone agreed with that. however, with respect to all other questions regarding carrier policies, procedures, and training related to lap children and crs, survey responses were confused and contradictory. this confusion is apparent from

an analysis of responses representing all airlines included in the survey. as seen in the data. also apparent in the survey was the frustration among the more than half survey respondents who feel they are either not allowed to question parents about a child's age or not encouraged by their employer to ask the age of the child, even when the flight attendant suspects that the lapp child is above 24 months of age. this frustration was apparent in both tone and the quantity of flight attendant responses to this question. multiple attendance describe situations where the lapp child seemed larger than average for child seemed larger than a 2-year-old. specific guidance from our

guidance has members confused and frustrated over the obviously inconsistent application of the federal aviation occupant safety regulation. one member who responded to our survey summed it up quite nicely -- "some children, some lap children are as big as my 4- year-old. it is tricky because i have to tell my passengers that they cannot hold their laptop computer on your lap. however, a weekly 20-pound human is allowed. this inconsistent application of safety standards occurs because federal regulations do not require parents to show proof of or airlines to otherwise verify a lap child's age. by default, each airline may choose how and even whether to enforce the age to limit for black children -- for lap children.

people who would otherwise fly would use cards. since highway trouble is inherently less safe, there would give such a shift that would result in additional lives on the nation's highways. as asa has said in the past, this is a flawed and unproven argument. in fact, they commissioned an independent review of this contention in 1995. our review identified four key shortcomings in the faa assumptions. we are happy to share that report with the ntsb. but to summarize, the faa analysis lacked key data to determine sensitivity. it used an industry demand curb that unrealistically shows a complex situation. it fell to take into account the price competition generated by low-fare -- it failed to take into account the price

competition generated by low- fare sales. and it also failed to account for -- it is not a cost-effective safety improvement that turns on assumption on cross-demand elasticity. the travelling public has a slightly increased awareness regarding the need to protect infants and small children. we were therefore in disappointed when the ntsb removed the recommendation to the faa to require infants and toddlers under age 2 to be safely restrained on takeoff, landing, and in turbulence from their most wanted list of aviation safety improvements. that said, we were pleased to see the recent ntsb

recommendations to the faa to amend the regulations to require each person who is less than two years of age to be restrained in a separate seat position by an appropriate child restraint system during takeoff, landing, and turbulence. we wish to thank the ntsb for sponsoring today's public forum. an event like this and subsequent education campaigns are useful for increasing public awareness of the hazards of allowing children under the age of 2 to be held on the lap. the unfortunate, the decision to continue allowing children under the age of 2 to be held on a gives parents the false impression that this practice is safe. with no change in regulations, no matter what indication the public receives, this impression will be impossible to eradicate. united flight 232, one level safety is still not accorded to our most precious passengers,

children traveling on laps. to achieve a level of safety for our smallest travelers, we must develop a strong regulation and couple it with adequate monitoring and enforcement. thank you for your attention to these comments and for taking the time to hear the concerns expressed by our member flight attendants. >> i would like to thank the panel for the excellent presentation. let's turn the first round of questions to jeff markets. >> i would like to start with ice.dewey' what i gather from your presentations is that there are two sets of standards. there is the tsa when there's something that is not an faa standard -- there is a toso

and there is something that is not an faa standard. how do i find within the store? >> the child restraints available for purchase at this time are ones that are both fmbss 213 approved, which is the automotive approved ones set up by the highway travel safety administration. but there is also an inversion test to ensure that the child in that kind of restraint would be restrained in the event of turbulence in addition to the normal cacrash testing that they do for that standard. aside from -- if the jobless trend passes for that, it also gets a sticker that says approved for use on aircraft. it is in red letters on the side of the restraint system.

many of these restraint systems also are approved for use on aircraft. the tso is a technical standard order put out by the faa that references a sae standards for chalmers resistance. that standard was developed specifically to qualify systems for use only on aircraft, not in automobiles. it is essentially a standard that provides a very high level of safety and ensures that the system would work exactly as designed in fit and operate well in a typical airplane passenger seat. once it passes that standard, then the tso can be granted for it.

eventually, either the airline operators are the general public can buy a these tso-approved devices and bring them on board. >> thank you. it looks like the seats you showed on your testing is the kind of siege to a fine on the airliner. there's a segment of the aviation community where the siege might be different. are you aware of any testing that is done in the compel bellay -- done on the compatibility? >> our research efforts were focused on the transport category of seats. that was the segment of the market that had the most children flying. we wanted to focus our resources

in that direction. in general, some of the conclusions we came to would still be applicable. for instance, the effect of the forward facing child restraint, that would be the same regardless of what type of aircraft that seat had that kind of seat anchor had. the lap belt are usually manually titans. it has to be that way. is the only way it will work with turbulence. the child restraint should interact with the bell system in the same way in general aviation -- with the belt system in the same way in general aviation. the shoulder belt this potential

is something that could get in the way rather than assisting you in holding the child restraint in the aircraft. many general aviation aircraft, the shoulder belt can be removed, detached from the lap belt. that would actually be the thing to do if you're trying to put in a child restraint into a small aircraft. >> thank you. >> you mentioned that the faa has information campaigns on child restraints. have you done any for the general use of aviation aircraft? >> the faa is engaged in education and outreach towards all operating parts. general aviation, under part 91, as well as commercial aviation, so many of the guidance documents that i referenced in my presentation, the advisory circulars, the audience for

those are all operators, all air operators and air carriers, that would include general aviation. specifically to general aviation, the faa has engaged in outreach in the form of a safety brochure that does contain specific information about how to address that unique configuration that they were talking about to appropriately use child restraint in general aircraft. to date, approximately 10,000 contain that safety brochure as well as other information pertinent to general aviation. there have been distributed to aircraft operators and owners. >> -- >> the prohibition against boaster seats and lap-held devices, the language in the regulations that apply to general and commercial aviation

is verbatim. there is a prohibition against those restraints under all operating parts, 91, 121, 125, and 135, which is the gamut of operations you would see out there. >> s.a. and dot has a hot line. do you have -- faa and dot has a hot line. you have a lot of complaints on the helpline related to child restraints? >> i went to our faa safety hotline. i asked them what did they could provide. they were able to look back five years and provided me with data from all the calls that they have received reigniting -- regarding child restraint on aircraft. there were about 35 calls over the last five years. i went through a transcript in the notes from each one of those calls. the most interesting thing that i found was that the number one reason that people called the faa safety hotline about the use

of child restraint is to complain because they are not able to use their faa approved child restraint on foreign carriers. that was interesting to me. the other majority of the calls were seeking general information and also to speak to the point about flight attendant confusion. there were quite a few clause that reflected the need for the faa -- a few calls the reflected the need for the faa to provide better flight attendant education. they are the fault line. for example, when a new and innovative type of restraint that we talked about earlier became approved for use on aircraft, in 2006 and 2007, we received several calls from people who had their approved restraint and were not able to use it to get -- able to use a because the flight attendant was not sure if i could be used on aircraft.

education. it was gratifying to see, when i look at the data from 2009 and early 2010, those calls went down to zero. obviously, the word got out. >> ms. friend, you indicated in your presentation that there was confusion among the cfa members about child restraint. you have any suggestions for solutions -- among the a f a members about child restraint. have you any suggestions or solutions? >> there have been inconsistent training at the operator level. my recommendation would be that the faa do an audit about a kind of training is actually being done. they seem to have a lot of guidance for that training. but i do not believe that it is being implemented. >> thank you.

>> mr. marcus. >> you're talking about the video that was recently produced showing how to install a child restraint in an aircraft street -- aircraft seat. the mentioned it said it does not have the latch attachments. are you aware of any developments from seat manufacturers who may be installing a laugh system in an airline seat to? >> there is quite a bit of research going on in that regard. i know the general aviation manufacturers have looked at what it would take to install those types of latch attachments in their seats. our colleagues down at the civil aviation authority in australia have been doing a lot of research, looking at what it

would take to add those devices for transport category seats. so far, the data has been very promising. by adding the latch attachments to the seats, the child restraint worked very well. they coupled with the seat well and performed very well and were easy to install. it is something that i think certainly should be researched further. it is a promising solution so that parents would be able to of put the child restraint in the seat the same way whether they are in a car or coming on board an airplane. >> is there any talk to other in the latch systems that have been investigated in aircraft seats? >> they have only been looking at the two lower anchorages. there's no place to attach a top

tether. >> ms. claussen, does the faa have approval for inside usage shown in the video? >> the devices that are prohibited for use that i just listed, those are devices and child restraints that are prohibited for use during surface movement, takeoff, and landing. therefore, in flight, there is no prohibition. there's no regulatory prohibition against the use of those types of devices in flight. >> -- >> can an

airline establish policy for that? >> yes, absolutely. there's not a regulation that would prohibit an airline from doing that. there is an airline that has done that because that is something that would work for them. it would not put to the attendant in the position of having children to remove children from unapproved devices before landing. >> our flight attendants allowed to install devices for parents? >> they are allowed to. but the problem comes with whether or not -- if they are not a parent themselves and do not have experience, they have had sufficient training to properly installed it. >> thank you. >> i have one quick question.

at what age is it safe for me to put my child in a lap belt in a commercial aviation flight decks >> -- aviation flight? >> there is the potential for injury in a lap-belt the child -- lap-belted child. there's not is the precise age that we specified. ahl least have the upper torso restraint -- a child needs to have upper torso restraint to minimize the whipping for defect. our recommendation is that children, just like the safety administration recommends, under 4 years old should be in a

proper-sized trout restraint. >> thank you. this completes our questioning. >> thank you very much. member winner will -- member weener will continue. newn the late 1980's, a wave certifying seats for use in aircraft became effective. essentially, seats had to be dynamically tested in much the way we do tests with cars to

show their safety. airplane seats had to undergo a series of dynamic test to ensure that they would both remain structurally attached to the airplane and also prevent injuries to occupants of those seats. the level of safety for aircraft seats raised significantly with out rule changes. in the transport seats, one reason for head injuries to have the seat back to bend forward at a controlled -- at the rate of controlled energy. the seat that will move over fairly easily. sometimes it could be folded completely over quite readily.

with the seat back does, when the occupant behind strikes it, it pushes over at a controlled rate. this reduces the head acceleration and the potential for a head injury. as far as interaction with the lap-belt child grows, the seat back that is upright when they strike it, the adult and the child will still strike the seat back, but the seat that is not designed to necessarily mitigate that impact. it is designed to mitigate the impact of the adult size occupant -- the adult-sized occupant appeared but it is not designed to do anything -- the adult-sized occupant. but it is not designed to do anything for the lap-old child.

-- lap-held child. >> showed the requirements optimize the worthiness for the adults, but did not do anything for the kids? following some discussion on the sioux city united to 32 accident, the ntsb from that accident made a recommendation to the faa to conduct research to determine the accuracy -- the adequacy of child restraints for children too large and provide recommendations. could you describe what they have done to follow that recommendation? >> our research has merely focused on child restraint systems and the automotive child restraint systems themselves. it was limited to the ones that

have internal harness systems. restraining a child that is too large to use one of the systems in an automobile, you usually have the vehicle built that comes and apply to provide the full restraint. in the transport category, aircraft, of course, we do not normally have shoulder belts. there has really been nothing we can -- we have not investigated any thing as far as the shoulder straps. [alarm sounds] >> i'm sorry. let's wait for the alarm to finish.

it is not an emergency. i do not need to evacuate their room. some people look like they might be fire officials in the audience. i know that they were concerned. usually, that is either a car alarm or a door has been breached, a security door has been breached. it should turn off and just a mr. deweese, if you'd like to go ahead, we have some c-span cameras here. it would be fine if you started from the top of your respoe. >> if we looked at restraint for a larger child, i want to clarify a previous answer i made.

at about wages it said to occupy just a lap belt? what it boils down to is, while wages something that we use a lot, it is really more about size and weight. thchild restraint systems are usually marked with the apopriate weight on the side. that way parent knows what size it can be appropriately used for. that is more of a guideline than the age. now as far as restraining larger children, again, our research focus has been on the child restraint systems that accommodate the approximately 40 lbs. and the low-sized child, child restraint systems that have an internal harness. the jogger strength systems, although there are two with

harnesses for larger children, if those passed the requirements in to 13 for aviation use, it would be allowed on aircraft. -- requirements in two hundred 13 -- requirements in 213 for aviation use, it would be allowed on aircraft. in transport aircraft, the delta not available. there is not a whole lot that week -- the belts are not available. there is not a whole lot that we can do. >> thank you. you described to the faa's educational campaign with regard to child restraint systems a talked about the website for that purpose, getting 6700 it's a month. how you dre or evaluate the

effectiveness of this kind of campaign? >> it is very difficult to evaluate why people make certain travel decisions. what we have done is look at how we got the word out, the hits on the website, the tweets and retweets, the amount of materials distributed. that is how we measure how we're getting the word out. >> you mentned in your remarks that the diversion argument says that there are not very many children to be saved, so to speak, in commercial transport. on the other hand, general aviation is almost neglected in the sense that we talk about aviation fatalities and there

are more fatalities in general aviation then transport aviation. you mentioned that there were 10,000 dvd's related to child safety sent out. but there are 600,000 general aviation pilots. so that is one dvd per 60 pilots. is there any campaign that is targeted at the g8 pilots? >> -- in the ga pilots? >> the statistics that the faa uses,e use 1%. for example, in 2009, there were 631 million domestic claimants in commercial aviation. 1% would approximately b six

children under the age of 2. that is our target audience -- that would be approximately six children under the age of 2. that is our target audience. with fatalities in general aviation, the statistics are higher than in commercial aviation. but when you look at general aviation, fully half of the aircraft's are single-lot operations when we look at the accident statistics. we are not aware of the exponentially high numbers of lap-held children. to be more specific to yr point in your question, we had engaged in an outreach and education. our guidance and our publications are not -- they are all-inclusive. we reach out to all types of operators and we do have one

specific brochure geared specifically to general aviation. that is the extent of our educational outreach at this point. >> being un air pilot and a andfather, carrying a child in an airplane, i appreciate the focus. i would like to address a question to ms. friend. you mentioned that only 14% of the flight attendants surveyed had airlines that encouraged asking the child's age.

what is provided for the flight attendants? >> obviously, our overriding concern is their vulnerability during turbulence and during their most likely time of an aircraft jackson, during takeoff and landing. but just for trammell travel, it is a very -- but just for general travel, it is a very uncomfortable situation for the parent and the child. children today are accustomed from infancy to writing in chowders train systems in an automobile. for them to have the ability on the aircraft, it is very comfortable and a natural environment for them and for their parents. when they are tempted to be

restrained in flight by sitting on the parent's lap, there is a lot of resistance to that. there is concern not just for expected turbulence, but the clearing of turbulence that the child is really at risk all the time when they're sitting in a parent's lap because the parent will simply not be sitting there with a tight grip on the child for e entire flight. the child would not tolerate it. >> in a sense, we have done a pretty good job at training children to expect to be restrained. >> i believe we have, yes. >> some of the investigations over the years have identified accidents where children were over two years old. sen is there any way that the faa has to enforce the

rule for children 2 years and under? >> we looked at enfcements that were a results of part 21 and part 135, covering commercial aviation. over the last 15 years, there were 25 enforcements in that database over 15 years. unfortunate, the data that we have is very limited to get an overview of what we've done in the past. information is expunged after several years and you cannot look at the circumstances of each case. what i did do was queried our aviation inspectors. they would typically -- what

were the facts and circumstances of those. there is evidence of six or seven enforcements that were initiated. what is interesting is that a small number -- because the airline was disregarding the age of the child. the larger number of the enforcements were coupled with passenger interference chargers. it was a -- interference charges. it was a flit attendant specifically directing the parent to put the child back into the child restraint for landing. and the parents did not comply for some reason. that was the result of the query. relative to the faa post position on enforcing any regulation that we promulgat,

our position is that we take all of our regulations very seriouy. if we are aware of a violation of a regulation, we will investigate. >> thank you. to wrap this panel up, a challenge for mr. deweese -- how do you summarize the dangers to lap children? >> as you saw in the videos, the potential for a child trapped between the seat in frontnd the adults, they could be crushed. ifhey are ejeed entirely, the opportunities for injury are numerous. essentially, what all this science is doing is pointing out the obvious. for a child or an adult, it is

it to be restrained in the event of a crash than knocked -- than not. >> thank you. >> how many kids are we talking about? just give us a sense of how many kids are flying on laps with major carriers 121, regional 135, forget the general aviation, a day, an annual basis -- how many kids are talking about here? >> the stistics that the faa uses is 1% of domestic flights for children under 2 who have the potential to be a lap held. in 2009, there were 631 domestic claimants. >> we have some questions about

that figure. can you repeat it again? ofwe're talking about 1% domestic and claimants -- domestic enplanements. there were 631 in 2009. so there werepproximately 6 million. >> statistic play, from the it isnes themselves, i possible to know how many are killed under the age of 2. preparing for this form, people in my office told me that, on almost any airlinehat they have gone to the website to purchase tickets, there is no option for purching a ticket for a child restraint system to use for a child under 2.

they have to lie and say they are buying a ticket for a child over to. so the airline statistics would show that as an over 2 child and not under. so we don't have to wait to know what the real number is. >> what percent of that 1% is restrained verses unrestrained? >> i'm afraid that i do not have that information. >> has that ever been collected? >> not that i know of. >> i noted you said that it is not age, but size and weight that makes the difference. was any scientific basis for the age as the cut off? >> ittarted out in the beginning as an age selected

because there were no child restraint systems back when it was selected. >> i think your answer is no, there is no scientific basis. >> correct. >> i know, in the beginning of aviation, i know that, when this exemption was put forward, there were not a child restraint systems. when aviation started, there were no restraint at all. now we have restraint for all of the individuals on an aircraft. can you explain to me the different types of restraints for individuals on the airplane, like career restraints, passenger restraints, flight attendant restraints?

are they all 2-point restraints, the lack of delta? >> the progression in terms of the number of restraints and the amount to restraints of 44 passengers and that they are familiar -- restraints for passengers that they're familiar with our lap restraint. policy systems and systems in general aviation -- pilot systems and systems and general aviation have a lap belt and crossed straps. general aviation aircraft have a single diagonal-ty shoulder strap that operates very much like in a car. all of these restraint systems afford a of different level of restraint as far as how well they protect you.

>> we have even seen some in general aviation. i have seen them in some bulkhead rose with air bags- held-type restaurants as well. >> yes. the inflatable restraint systems. the most common installations right now are engine or aviation aircraft. most come standard with its inflatable restraint systems on board. >> i think the point of this is that there is a lot of this technology, a lot of effort, and a lot of investment in restrained use. there are varying levels of restraint and they are getting better and i think that the five-point restraint that the pilots use with the shoulder straps and the crossed straps, that is actually what a child seat very much looks like.

the more points of protection that you have, the better likelihood that you will be restrained. i think it just seems to me that we're leaving behind the most loanable of all of our passengers when we make all of these advances and improvements in restraints and continue to exempt them. i will leave that there. on the issue of diversion, i have not really heard the issue ed in other arguments about aviation diversion. can you recall the diversion argument used, besides child seats? >> no. that is an excellent point. there are many variables in aviation price variables, some of variables that you are

talking about. but the reason that the faa has not really apply to the diversion argument for a thoughtful consideration for the outcomes of those other variables is that, typically when there is a variable in aviation, it affects the broad population. it affects all passengers. as an airline raises or lowers the price war as a chartered changes something, it will affect passengers in the aggregate. the unique difference that sort of separate us child restrnt issue from all the other ones -- separate the child restraint issue from all the other ones is that it is a target popution that will feel the full impact of that sensitivity. so we get back to price matters, economic sensitivity matters. in the case of a family, a statistical family of 3.2, if

they are required to purchase another seat for their child to use a restraint, it will increase the cost of their travel. about 45%. unlike other varbles in aviation where cost is passed on to a family, this is one that is felt by just such a small targeted population so it becomes more acute. that is why we focused on it >> it is interesting that we're using price as the only variable. i noted interest over is thanksgiving holiday where there was quite a fuehrer from people -- quite a furor overhe security measures. many passengers are switching to automobiles and not airplanes.

are we not putting more people at risk and there, too? do we not use the diversion argument for those additional diversions? >> the faa certainly agrees with you. anyone who diverts from air travel to the highways will experience an increased level of risk. statistically, it is a more dangerous way to travel. relative to what we focused on in developing our child restraint arguments, we focused on those. i'm not prepared to speak to the other analyses that you're talking about. although, i certainly recognize and respect that this is very complex, very complicated. it is unfortunate reality. it is challenging. it is challenging as a safety regulator. but we have focused on child

restraint diversion issue, not the other issues that you have raised recently. >> ok. is there any way to try to address the cost issue? let's say we have 50% of parents voluntary purchasing tickets. does that make the universal cost go down? >> unfortunately, the faa does not have the statutory authority to go into those areas in terms of cost, pricing, coordinating with airlines on thosissu. that is not an approach that we have taken. we have taken -- we have done a lot of initiatives to encourage the use of child restraint on aircraft. but that is not one avenue that we are not able to go down because of our authority. >> one last question for you. if you could recommend one thing to us -- we have talked about the culture shift in automobile deals that has taken place over

a generation where we were not boleyn, most of us come in child seats. but now all our children are. all 50 states and the district of columbia have mandatory requirements for children to be buckled in under the age of four inappropriate devices. what do we need to do so that my grandchildren will have one pundit -- will have 100% restraint used in aviation? whether the one thing or two things that you think is the most important to shift that? >> what you are doing today, education, outreach, informing parents so that parents can make informed and smart choices. >> do you think education is enough? >> yes, i do. >> i think it would be good if we could continue to work on ways to make installing child ats in aircraft simpler and

make sure there are effective when they are installed. that way, we would hopefully remove some of the tradition parents might have about how big hassle this will be if i bring it on board. if we can seem -- if we can make that easier, at our encouragement will wo better if they know that the child >> the exemption for children under two shoulbe eliminated. after 20 years of this effort, i do not have much faith that this will happen. i will say that what is really important now is make it easier for parents to actually utilize the systems if they want

to and do that through better training of the cabin crew. a simple thing like if the parent goes to a website to buy a ticket, and give them the option of buying a seat in using a child restraint for a child under the age of two. >> thank you very much. thank you for your excellent presentions. they were very informative. we hope it will get the word out to parents to do a better job. we would like to see this change in a generation. we are going to take a break. we will be back.

their side of the equation. that remains the case today. we are very pleased to see that the public acceptance of child safety seats in cars as the wrong. the market has expanded. manufacturers are coming up with new and innovative designs all the time that are intended to

please the parents that are looking for different products. right now we are at a point where if we had speculated in the mid-'80s where we would be in 2010, nobody would have guessed that we had come as far as we have. it is important to understand how these devices have come to be readily identified as appropriate for use aboard aircraft. the earlier panel did not share the labeling, but if you take a look, you'll see that it is very difficult to miss this label. it clearly indicates that the seat is appropriate for use aboard an aircraft as well as for an automobile. the majority of seats manufactured today are marked appropriately. that is what consumers are buying. we expect that trend to continue. we know that the seats work.

they had been certified. they are an effective set of devices. they are far better than where we were a decade or so ago. it is important for parents to understand all of this. all of us are engaged in efforts to get that information out there. the market is responding for children who are, perhaps, largely -- larger than the safety seats at this point. it is interesting to note that it is also prominently marked. in this case, it is marked that it is not appropriate for use in a motor vehicle. the market is responding. we are finding new products. we're finding different ways to accommodate what parents are looking for in the marketplace. it is equally important, we think, that parents be educated about the kind of devices that are not appropriate for use on

an aircraft. i refer back to the earlier panel. i do not think there is a reason to go back do this in detail. we have a number of points we make to our members and we suggest they make to their customers. a bit of planning can go a long way when it comes to using a child restraint device aboard an aircraft. make sure the devices label. the labels are clear. i think the public believes they are clear. there is always room for more education. we are in a different place than we were five years ago. it is important to make sure the crs is appropriate to the size and weight of your child. it is important to check with the airline's web site. information is well will to customers -- of a from --

information is available to all customers. if your device is not appropriate, it will be -- you'll be reseeded. we advise people to make sure the label is legible. the seas can be used by two, three, or four children. the label may have worn off. we encourage people to get information from the manufacturer. the bottom line is that securing children in child safety seats aboard an aircraft is a smart way to keep kids safe. it is the right thing to do. i do not think we could find anybody would disagree with this at that point. we will continue to make progress. we are happy to continue to work with the faa. we have had some discussions

recently about convening a form ourselves involving the seat manufacturers and some of the device manufacturers to make sure they are communicating as closely as possible. on that i will stop and be happy to answer questions later. >> thank you. our next presenter is the vice president of education and operations for the air safety institute, which is a division of the aircraft and pilots association. please begin your presentation. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to address you today for the general aviation profession. i represent the air safety institute which is a nonprofit association. we provide safety information and promote safety in general aviation.

we work very closely with the aircraft and pilots association. i will be addressing what they do with their membership of 410,000 members. the air safety institute provide safety education to all pilots. it is not limited to aopa members. forequarter one of 2011 we are doing research for a publication that will be available on our web site and by print on demand. we will address various systems including shoulder harnesses, aircraft seat belts, and child restraint systems. we are looking into addressing child safety restraint options such as how to choose what is correct for your child's age and size and for the aircraft to fly. also, backseat verses front seat -- our database indicates that

the back seat increases your chances of safety. other issues with front seat versus back seat in general aviation, beyond the survivability, it is distracted to -- it is distracting to have a child in the front seat. a full range of motion is an issue. i would not want my children in the front seat. we have an accident data base of a general aviation accidents involving aircraft. this dates back to 1983. it includes 1983 to the present.

a review of the narratives -- the accident near it is in the database showed seven accidents where a child seat, child restraint, was at a key word in the narrative. a problem we run into is the age of the passenger and whether night -- and whether or not a child safety seat was used are not in the database. we have seen accidents, for example, in which the only survivor was a child in a safety seat. we have seen an accident in which it was an older aircraft that did not have shoulder harnesses and was not retrofitted for shoulder harnesses. the pilot did not install booster seats. the children were fatally injured. that is what we will provide in our education for pilots.

aopa has a membership base of 410,000 aircraft owners and pilots. the pilot information center is staffed by pilots who answer questions on a variety of aviation topics. on the subject of flying with children, we receive questions about once per week. the questions generally involve what is allowed, and whether or not it differs from regulations for the airlines. we refer them to the far and also provide on-line articles and a subject report on flying with family. that's the report is a compilation of articles, websites, and regulations that would be of interest for a pack -- for a pilot traveling with their family.

it includes information about seat belt use and studies that have shown that parents cannot wherea child on their lap as aircraft restraints are generally rated to 10 gs. a pair may survive wall and understand child may not. we have all my articles to give more information about legalities and also problems with installing child seats and how to address that. we have four rooms that are available to our membership to communicate with each other that are monitored by the pilot information center. we can see from the numbers what kind of problems and concerns they have with this type of issue. some of the problems we have seen our 4-point harnasses.

older aircraft not and outfitted for shoulder harnesses or retrofitted for shoulder harnesses and would not properly accommodate a booster seat. also, the lack of a latched anchor. it takes a little more time and maneuvering to install a car seat in an aircraft. what we have heard from our membership is that children do better in the back with a booster seat. they are more comfortable because they are in their own car seat. they are restrained and are less of a distraction and less of a detriment for safety. thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you. our last aviation presenter is

the cabin safety manager at virgin-atlantic airways. she will update us on a virgin- elected experiences with providing child restraint systems for passengers who purchased a seat for their children. please begin your presentation and welcome back. >> good morning, chairman. first i would like to thank the national transportation safety board for convening this forum and allowing the to provide an update on my 1999 presentation on child restraint policy. we are the first commercial airline to offer a child seat. so as not to repeat my previous presentation which is still available on our website, i will give a brief review of the u.k.

and a huge job restraint reservations since 1984 -- a brief review of the u.k. and the e.u. restraint regulations since 1984. this provides research on our operational experience with child safety. i am sorry about that. this slide in the next one provides a brief chronology on how the regulation evolved in the u.k. and europe. between 1984 and 1992 child restraint regulations required the use of a loop-belt for a

child just two years old. in 1991, the age limit for use of car-type seats changed. it changed to between 0-2 years, to 6 months to less than 3 years. the care chair is the child restraint seats that virgin originally commissioned. we introduced the care-chair in march, 1992, and have put them 330's. 747's and a

they are replaced by our current and fat child seat. they offer options to ensure that all infants and children are secured with a child restraint devices. children over three-years old can't use the harness. each person on a u.k. registered aircraft must be secured in and accepted or approved device. as the uk and e.u. regulations dealt with children cease, burgeon-atlantic issued a new seat that was commissioned in 2006. it was designed and manufactured by experts. it could be positioned both ford

depending on the age of the child. we continue to help treat child seats -- we continue to have the frree child seats. we require that an infant in a child's seat be required -- be reserved at the time of booking. the fares are 50% to 75% of the adult fare depending on the ferrotype war rout. -- depending on the fare-type or route.

if the infant child see is not bought, it can still be offered check'in. the car seat will be tagged and carried as a baggage at no additional cost. the crew can use their own discretion to offer the child seat without charge. in engineering, the procedures have been implemented to ensure that the infant and child seats remained air worthy and hygienic. they are deep claimed every eight weeks unless it is sold on a particular flight.

further engineering procedures require that if virgin-it lactate changes the seats, -- this also helps to ensure that we can retain the ability for the cabin crew to fit the infancy wherever needed. -- fit the infant seat wherever needed. our data indicates that infant child sees are most frequently blot on our two flights to florida and the double-sector

flight to and from london and hong kong. i need you to consider whether this is because it makes the cell see a more comfortable experience for -- it makes the car seat more comfortable. we carry almost 6 million passengers each year. 1% were infants. over the same time, the number of and that child seats has a varied with a large increase in 2009 following the 2008 introduction of the new infant child seat. this trend continues into 2010.

to ensure we comply with the u.k. regulation that everyone must be secured, we also provide lip-bill and the burnett body support for travel chair for disabled children. finally, our experiences with dealing with restraining children, our cabin crews having those problems during turbulence when parents refuse to see the need to secure their infants, especially if they are asleep. to further ensure the safety of these infants, all of our a340- 600s are fitted with infant

cradle's which are certified for use during turbulence. this reduces the number of confrontational situations between cannon crew and parents. our new aircraft will also have this fited. thank you ladies and gentlemen for listening. i will be available for answer ing your questions during the discussion. >> all like to begin are questioning with mr. marcus. >> are you aware of any programs of your member airlines to encourage the use of child restraints in the sense that parents who want to book a flight -- the airlines will find out that i have a two year old.

well they suggest that i've booked a seat for the child? >> a number of our carriers make a recommendation to their customers that if they buy it -- that they book a flight for children under two. others make the information available to parents without making that recommendation. in terms of identifying people carrying children under two, i am not aware of anyone who reaches out to them and says, we can do this for you or we can do that. people are generally aware and i think they are becoming more aware all the time that booking a seat and bringing a child restraint devices is inappropriate way to go. it is more comfortable for the child and the parents. it is something all the airlines would think was a good idea. they have all taken slightly different approaches on a passing those ideas. >> are you aware of any

statistics on how many children under two-years old use child restraints? >> i am not aware of anyone he retains that data. the flight manifest recourse that data, but that data is not cap on a long-term basis. no one i know of is tracking the number specifically. >> if i am a parent and i am going to fly with a lap belt child, does he need a boarding pass? >> it varies from carrier to carrier. the advanced passenger review system -- every passenger has to be identified and the date of birth has to be indicated.

that information is collected by the government. it is out there. how it is used by the gsa i cannot tell you -- how it is used by the tsa i cannot tell you. date of birth is required at this stage for full identification. >> thank you. you mentioned at the accident database that you have. do you have any cases that you know of where a child restraint was used and showed good performance? >> i am aware of one in which the only survivor was a small child in an approved, properly

installed child restraint. i am also aware of one in canada in which 80 the a-year old child was the only survivor in a child's seat that was properly installed. >> you mentioned you have a public information service to provide assistance to members and non-members who have questions about child restraints. do you have any information on how frequently you are contacted with questions about child restraints? >> about one per week. that does increase around the holidays at we might expect. it is a pretty regularly occurring question, about once a week. >> you mentioned there were a lot of questions about the interface of the harness with the child restraint. are there any other issues that

seem to be a problem for pilots with children? >> one of the most popular questions is what is required. what are the regulations? we provide what they must do with children under two, but also recommendations that are provided to our articles online about g-forces. >> i am curious. does a virgin-atlantic use the availability of the child restraint system as a marketing tool? >> not really. there is a section on children

on the website. it is included in there, but there is no marketing strategy, unfortunately. we are waiting until we get as old as the car industry and advertise safety the way cars are sold. >> so, the parents who ought to purchase the seat and used the device basically found out about it by using the website? how did they know this is available? andf they call to book that there is an infant on a reservation, the agent will ask if they want to book a child seat and explained that that would require an additional fare.

some ticket up and some do not. -- some pick it up and some do not. >> a passenger who may have traveled to the u.k. on a u.s. carrier and brought their child restraint with them, if they were to fly on virgin daschle atlantic, with baby at -- virgin-atlantic, would they be able to use their child restraint? >> no. we would package it up and let them carry it as free baggage. we would replace it with our own seat. >> you mentioned that it would be appropriate or why is at the time of booking a flight to ensure that the child seat would fit in the plane that they are going to be traveling on. what number what i call or who

would i contact to determine if my seat will fit? do i just provide the information on the seat itself? >> if you recall the general reservation number for the carrier you are booking online and explain that you are planning to travel with a child and the kind of device you are using. they will be able to tell you what seats are available. >> they tell me what measurement pc would be? -- what measurement of the seat would be? >> i do not know that they would be able to give you the specific measurements, but they are aware of what cities or appropriate with use of standard child restraint devices. >> they could probably give me information on that we're facing an four facing, but they would not know if my seat with specifically fit in the seat that i booked.

>> our experience is the vast majority of pcs do fit of the vast majority of seats on an aircraft. if that is not the case, the passenger is relocated. >> i think you had mentioned that there was some difficulties fastening child restraint systems in general aviation aircraft. i was not quite sure if i heard you correctly, but i thought you mentioned that child restraint systems were not compatible with 4-point restraint systems. we had a similar question. what i had heard was that you could restraint the child restraint system if you had a4- point restraint by tightening the lap belt and letting the shoulder harness ride along.

it would essentially be using the lap portion of the belt only. does that sound reasonable to you? >> the 4-point in this is something we have heard about. i cannot speak from personal experience. i can see how installing with just the lap belt would work with some infant carriers. i am not sure it would work with a booster seat. it goes back to what kind of seat are using, what kind of aircraft, and what is the configuration. >> there are some restraint systems that are significantly different than what parents have encountered in the automotive debarment. it is confusing. thank you. >> have you had any flights where you have had more children who wanted to use the seat then you have seats available?

>> it is very rare. reservations manage the number of seats that are reserved knowing the numbers that we carry. it has happened a couple of times. unfortunately it was -- fortunately we could steal from one aircraft to the other. it is very rare. >> madam chairman, we have completed our questioning. >> thank you very much. return the questions to the board. >> thank you, madam chairman. i suspect it would be accurate to say that airline travel is a highly price sensitive.

economists think that if we change the price of $3 that revenue will increase or decrease by x dollars. it is a highly elastic demand. is that true? >> it is true, but it is an affordable way to travel at this point. to is we are selling today -- and -- it is quite an affordable way of traveling. >> if airlines started charging for children under two to have a passenger seats, would that do to the total revenue picture? >> it would depend on the price of their seats. let me lay it out for you. what was the load factor for the air carriers over the last 12 months? >> 85% to 87%.

>> that is a good load factor. it also means that 13% to 15% of seats on average are not occupied. >> that is also correct. >> therefore, they are available seats. once that airplane parts, the value of that seat is $0. if you could charge for their seats, you could increase your revenue. roughly around 6 million children under two the travel in a year. let's say the price for an adult is $350, but the airline said for $100 if you are traveling with a child under two, we will charge you one other dollars for that seat.

potentially, it is a $600 million revenue stream for the airlines. does this argument makes sense to you? >> it makes sense on one level. it is also safe to say that those seats are not on every airplane that is out there. the reason we have gotten to the 85% load factor is because of sophisticated pricing models that the carriers used to maximize the revenues they are taking in. if the carrier felt they could benefit from selling seats at a discounted price, they certainly would do that. that is what they do today. the fact is, where we are right now is about as reasonable a way to approach affordable pricing sees as you are going to find. different carriers may take a different approach, but in general, it has to be a carrier by carrier decision. there cannot be discussions between carriers about how they approach any pricing system.

>> i understand. ata represents how many passenger carriers? >> none 5% to 96%. -- 95% to 96%. >> the ata encourages parents to first of all flight. we know is the safest way to travel. you encourage your carriers -- your carriers encourage passengers to properly restrain their children. i know from sitting on this board -- and you said you want them to comply with the regulations. we note that with the regulations, we want people to go above and beyond that regulatory floor.

i want to give you an example. i realize there are potential anti-trust concerns. we cannot have airlines collude on prices. after an accident going into columbia, the ata member carriers voluntarily said they would equip their aircraft with a warning systems. they made that decision before regulation came. that regulation did not go into effect until 2005. without getting into collusion, what is there to prevent the air carriers from saying, "we are going to make this decision. the regulatory floor is too low. we want our member carriers to offer the safest method for our passengers whether it is an 18- month-old child or a granma.

>> certainly the carriers to do that. the fact is that the government regulations in place permit a parent to carry a child in their lap if they choose to. i think a number of carriers would prefer to see that child in a seat, prefer to sell the seed to the parent, but the reality is that is what the regulations permit at this point. it is unlikely you'll see the carriers unilaterally supplant the government decision making and substitute their own. i think the carriers are always looking for ways to be as aggressive on improving safety as they possibly can be. that is why we rely on data analysis and looking at the projections of data to determine how fast to improve safety performance. it isn't -- it is an emotional issue, quite frankly.

>> it seems paradoxical to say that the air carriers want to transport passengers in the safest fashion and yet, your carriers are relying on the faa to set the minimum floor. >> we are regulated industry. the faa says the standards. we train to the standards. that is the regulated environment in which we exist. >> if you do not exceed the standards of the faa? >> all of the operations of the carriers are designed to comply with the requirements of the federal government when it comes to administering safety. the fact is, there are parents out there who would say to you that the federal government allows me to hold a child under two in my lap. that is what the government decided was an appropriate standard.

i do not think you'll see carriers taking it upon themselves. we suggested to the government that that would be a good decision to make. they concluded that was not the way to go. that is up to the government to decide. t >> >> the federal requirements or an absolute floor. we know that parents turn to the law for guidance. here is a case where the government has made the case that if you are going to fly, we are not going to require it because we're worried about the diversion. people are not going to start to drive from here to los angeles. they are going to fly where they are not going to travel. the ata could, if they wanted to, they could say they are going to voluntarily raised -- >> i do not know that is true.

the airlines i do not think can collude upon themselves. that is effectively what they would be doing. i think your question is on one that i am sure we would have lawyers looking at. >> i am sure the were the antitrust implications there. i would hope the organization that represents the passenger carriers in this country would have the attitude that we are not just going to comply with the minimum regulatory requirements, we want to exceed those. >> i think our safety record stands for itself. >> i will go to someone else. i have noted over the years that the air safety institute has

done it many, many safety products, including many obvious. i have learned from those educational models myself. in 1993, the ntsb issued a safety recommendation to inform its membership of the dangers associated with using a seat belt design for one occupied to restrain to the zero persons and the benefit of using child restraint benefits on aircraft. that was a recommendation. this morning i looked and saw response was.'s most of the thai people reply to us and say they are going to do it or they cannot do it. i was surprised to see in this particular situation the aota

never responded to our recommendation. can you explain how an organization that typically has a great safety products when not even respond to the national transportation safety board on a recommendation like this? >> i am not aware of that and i cannot respond, but i can say from the safety standpoint that currently we are doing some outreach and doing some research so we can educate pilots about that. unfortunately i do not have the information from 1993. >> could you check on that a reply to the ntsb? >> i would be happy to. >> thank you. virgin-atlantic, do they operate any flights at all within the u.k. or are they strictly you take off and go to another country? >> it is strictly -- all,

international. >> if you do not have much of a diversion argument. people are not going to drive from london to johannesburg. >> no. [laughter] >> okay. this is such a great service that you have made available. to make sure i have it right, you charge for the extra seat. >> yes, we do. >> it sounds like a good way to do it to me. what is the relationship between version-atlantic and birds in-america? -- virgin-atlantic and virgin- america?

>> i am not sure i can answer that. virgin is a franchise. >> there cannot be x% of foreign ownership. if this concept is so good for virgin-atlantic, i wonder why virgin-america cannot do the same? >> i can get the answer. >> what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. i would think it is that great of a concept then all virgin affiliate carriers should be doing that. madam chairman, i have no further questions.

>> i have a couple of questions for the panelists. given the comments about what was available on the internet, but all it would be worth it to do some checking myself. i have three children, but my children are 5, 8, and gen. it is been a while since i had a lap-held child. parents look to the airlines to tell them what is acceptable. i have to confess that i do travel with a lap-held child. i came to the board and one of the very first activities that i had to participate in was the 2004 decision in response to the diversion argument. it made a complete believer out of me. i tell all my friends or anyone to ask me what the right way to channel is.

i think it is so important. parents have to have the expectations. education is not enough. education is not going to reach everyone. there has to be requirements, walls, were specific standards to help them make the right decisions. i looked at the website of major carriers to do business in the u.s. one says there is an option not -- there is an option for adults, seniors, and children two-11. there is nothing for a child under two. you do not have the ability to track an option to get a ticket. if you want to get them a seat on the airplane with you, you have to say they are at least two or older. another carrier did not have a section initially to say if it was a child or not, but it did have a link to and fat and child

travel guidelines and restrictions. even though i think we have heard that all carriers encourage people to transport their children properly restrained, the first website did not have anything like that and the second website, the guidance about infant and children information talks about child fares and ticketing. it talks about you can trouble with your child less than two years old. it does not recommend the safest way to travel with them. in a section for tips for traveling with children it says to allow yourself or extra time for bathroom breaks and things like that. it does not tell you the best way to transport them. then i went to the version- america website to see what they ca websitergin-amerixc

to see what they have. i was surprised because you actually do better than your slide show advertises, which is not usually the case. there was a fare from london to new york. the adult fare was $649 and the child's fare was $136 -- the fare for the infant. that was better than 50%. i could absolutely see why i would make that choice to buy that seat for my child. that is a huge incentive for me to go ahead and purchase that seat for them at that reduced fare. when people get on airplanes ,virgin-atlantic does provide a seat, but we do it -- but what

do we provide additional equipment such as seat belt extenders'? to anyone who feels like they can answer the question? we are talking for passengers who might be a heavy and the seat belt does not fit them properly. >> they are required by the faa. >> the faa requires the seat belt extender. >> it does require that passengers over two-years old be restrained by an appropriate restraint device. if a passenger cannot be accommodated within a regular seat belt they have to be accommodated. >> on the last panel we were asking them at what point is a child able to sit in a lap-only belt. the information we got backdoor -- we got back is that the 2-

year-old is not large enough to sit in a lap-only belts. do we provide anything for them to make sure they have the appropriate seat fit and they are restrained properly? >> the faa requires that if a child under two is not traveling in an appropriate restraint device, you put them in a seat belt. it is not an age issue, it is a size issue that determines the effectiveness of those devices. there is a lot of information out there that may be appropriate for further analysis by the government to take a look at all of these things. but that is the reality at this point. >> children over two have to be restrained, but what i think i am hearing your site is there is no corollary requirement as with the seat belt extender for the airline to require anything to

make the seat belt fit for a two to four year-old. >> we strongly encourage passengers to travel with the restraint devices they use in their automobiles. as a result of the activity going on over the last 15 years, they are virtually interchangeable. the parents are more comfortable with them. the children are more comfortable with them. the vast majority of people use them. the federal government has seen that the exemption for children under two is appropriate to leave in place. we accommodate that. there are a number of carriers that recommend that parents provide them. if you look at different websites, i am sure you will find different terminology to get the information out there. it is completely impossible.

as for the issue of children being under two, i expected that is an anomaly that has come about because of the exemption. there is certainly no reason a parent cannot purchase eight seat for a child under two. that is something we can raise with our carriers and make sure they are aware of that. it is not intended to preclude a parent to buy a seat for a child under two-years old. class why not have information that would come up that certifies the faa guidance recommends the safest way to transport your child -- >> it is an interesting idea. i am sure you can appreciate the programming that went into just

collecting the information. it was a formidable undertaking. adapting the website to somehow use that information is something that people will be looking at, but i expect it will be some time before people have the ability to do that. >> children do not have identification cards. it is a conundrum to put all this information in. the value is supposed to be for security, but they do not have the government issued identification card. it might be good if we can do something with this data that is being entered. he said he did not think it was appropriate for airlines to collude on pricing, but there are some carriers that provide discounts for certain classes of passengers, white seniors.

why would you offer a discount if you are talking about the elasticity and load factors? why offer discounts for seniors and not for a lap belt child? is it a different calculation? >> carriers make their decisions based on their own analysis of the market and what they think will sell tickets. i don't think they distinguish between one group of passengers. they're looking at the universe of people who are traveling and trying to price their product in a way that encourages the most people to buy that product. what i said specifically, if the question was why don't carriers get together and effectively eliminate the under 2 exemption, i think that would probably be illegal. that unfortunately, except for southwest, they also decided to charge for baggage. as soon as one or two did it,

they all did it. that was something that happen fairly quickly, and in the market, were they all quickly moved to that position. >> that is correct. >> can you explain why we have to pay to check our baggage, but if we are trying to maximize, they almost universally check booster seats and child safety seats for free. isn't that a perverse incentive to discourage people from using them? they make it cheaper to check their seat. >> we do not get into how airlines decide to price their products, including issues like charging for baggage or not charging for certain items. >> all right. any other questions? any questions from the staff panel?

>> none from here. >> thank you all very much for your participation. i know that you probably felt like you drew the short straw on the team, so hopefully they will take you out for lunch or something before you go back. >> we appreciate being here. >> we very much thank you for your participation. we know it is a difficult position to be in personally. obviously, our interest is to push a little bit to change the paradigm, and i think hopefully through some of this discussion today there may be some changes that could be made, just through education and carriers being aware of some of the issues that may be of concern to the flying public. >> we appreciate it and we will be bringing messages back to all of the carriers. >> thank you very much for your pet suspicion on this panel.

>> just in time for the holiday season, "the supreme court" is being offered at a very special price, $5 plus shipping and handling. it is the first book to tell the story of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices themselves. 10 original c-span interviews

with several justices including sandra day o'connor and sonya society myer. a handsome addition to the book shelve of any reader. to order it, go to c-span.org/books and click on books. use the promotion code c-span on checkout. >> in a few moments, a panel of scholars and former federal officials examine the administration's plans to expand exports and swourge live at 7:00 eastern with segments on expanding trade and also the european debt situation. >> a couple of live events to

tell you about today. author alan meltzer and former fed chairman paul volcker. live on c-span 3 at 9:00 a.m. eastern. here on c-span, hillary clinton and the izz really a raili prime minister speak on israel relations. >> israeli prime minister speak on israel relations. watch the entire process including the house impeachment and the senate trial online at the c-span video library. search, watch and share any time. all free, washington your way. >> as you work on your documents for crmp span's student cam competition, here are a few tips from our judges.

>> one of the things i look for in watching your videos is you the student. i want to see you and your personality. that helps make your video stand out from all the rest. >> what i want to see most in student cam entrys is the investment and care in the topics that you'll be telling us about. be sure to be interested in what you're telling us. if you're not interested in what you will be telling chances are we won't be anymore. >> i'm looking for videos where people have looked at the crmp span content and said what elements of c-span video make the most sense for telling the compelling story i'm trying to tell. >> for all the rules, including deadlines, go to studentcam.org. >> president obama has announced new rules that could ease the export controls for certain technologies and since the u.s. is on track to double exports over the next five years.

next a panel of scholars and former federal officials discuss the new policy recommendations. this is an hour and a half. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the panel undoubtbly will decide whether that is possible or not but i think in terms of what we will be discussing over the next hour or so, much more from an economist point of view, what are the levers and mechanisms of what we can achieve and not achieve. we talked about the f.d.a. and free trade agreement.

what is the trathe trade policy in increasing u.s. exports. is it a large lever, exrared for instance to domestic macroeconomics or microeconomic policy? is it something beyond trade that will govern us one way or the other, or finally is it to some-degree out ofest hands? opposed to whatever we do or do not hear here at home. that is the kind of things i think our panel will be looking at. the other thing that occurred to me. what would be the effect or what would be the impact or the result. the president announced he wanted to double u.s. exports over the next five years if he wanted to double imports over the next five years. would the american people be better off? there is another side of this,

at least to some degree. i would like to see that maybe not in the terms that i put it, discussed. i'm going introduce our national the order that they will speak. -- panel in the order they will speak. i'm going introduce them with their titles as of now. we'll start with barry bozz worth to have brookings institute. second will be grant aldonas. third, gary hufbauer and last but not least, my colleague here at a.e.i., resident scholar. barry? >> thank you very much. >> i think it will work.

it quog back to the con sungs -- cannot go back to the con sungs and at the same time we lost about 2% of g.d.p. in investments in housing and other forms of real estate investments. so i think it is very clear that the united states has to find way to shift its resources out of this con assumption. it also seems to me that the

president's goal is relatively modest actually and achievable. why is it modest? year 2009, the collapse -- we get to start from the decline, what percent of exports, just recovery from that crisis. second, there has been and probably will continue to be a significant decline in the value of the american dollar. in that way, simply duplicate the experience -- we saw the growth in exports that would be come pat wble the president's goal of doubling growth over the next five years. i think in some respects this is an achievable goal that the president hopes to achieve. this is just to show you exports and imports.

u.s. g.d.p. what i take out of that, when you talk about a trade deficit in the united states, it is a lousy performance on the export side. it is rather amazing over most of the recent tasks. what was supposed to be an increasingly open global economy. part of the trouble is a peak period when oil prices went up a lot. but the u.s. has been in large global imbalances now for decades. it increased rapidly after the financial crisis in asia in the late 1990's. currently, just before the crisis, it was up around 5% of u.s. g.d.p.. then the collapse of global trade in the financial recession, that actually helped the united states. although trade went down globally, more countries lost

on the basis of it. because we had such a big import deficit, actually the u.s. economy strengthened as a result of the collapse of global trade. the deficit of the united states are largely matched by surpluses in emerging asia and to -- on a cyclical basis maybe in opec-based countries. go back to situation where trade is more balanced on both sides and more regions, it is basically an issue between united states. it is broader than china but it is a u.s.-asia discrepencies and most of the issues there, countries like europe are largely balanced and have been balanced for many decades, many areas like latin america, the

same thing. some -- wus underway prior to the crisis because the dollar is down 25% between its peak in 2002 and the outbreak of the financial crisis. u.s. exports growing more rapidly than imports for a period of time. recently, though, i think the bad news has been that trade deficit is decreasing again in the united states. this year, in fact, if you tabulate the data, the growing trade imbalance has knocked off about half of the growth that the united states was able to achieve through the first three quarters of the year in g.d.p. growth. the other way i like to think about this is you really have to have two perspectives when you talk about trying to improve u.s. trade performance. one is an external side. people toned focus on, which is true, how competitive are american exports in the world market, and that to me, is the

crucial question there, is what is the price. i think that the united states cannot sell -- unless we find a way to sell good cheaper. the key to doing better on the export side for the united states, i think internationally is the declean of the value of the -- decline the value of the dollar. some of that has already occurred but most of the calculations will have to go further. the consumption side of it is it is another balance that always has to be on the internal side. that is that savings, domesticically generated, minus domestic investment is an identity to -- i think one of the big problems that the u.s. has is trying to generate that sort of a savings purr plus that we can use. but let me focus first on the

external side. -- surplus. why is the trade imbalance so consistent over time? the incoming elasticity for americans to import is much higher than of other countries. the u.s. has an imbalance -- a growing imbalance on the trade side. and there were arguments that our exports were insensitive to growing prices. this is one that i simply wanted to point to that i did with a colleague a couple of years ago, which we cooled -- pooled all the world trade together. going out to the rest of the

world, with what is called a gravity equation. the performance on trade was compared to that of japan and the european union. there is nothing at all unusual about u.s. imports. we import about the same propensity to do so as does japan. and as does europe. u.s. imports are typical. however, on the export side, we persistently do work over the last 25 years. than does europe or does japan. we just don't seem to do very well as an export and that's an issue i hope to return to this a minute.

this also shows another problem that the u.s. has had. if you look at the relationship between the trade balance and the real exchange rate of the united states, you see a very strong ins verse relationship. it does tell you -- inverse relationship. it does tell you when the dollar declined in value in the last half of the 1980's, the u.s. trade balance improved significantly. there is a strong effect on trade performance. but that relationship has also been deteriorating for some unknown reason over the last couple of decades. a shift in the 1990's to a worsening of the tradeoff between the exchange rate and the trade balance. here i would like to illustrate another one, when i said that the u.s. performance has been improving in terms of the real

exchange rate, note here, the trade rate is measured of the u.s. exchange rate showed a substantial evaluation from 2002 to 2008 and if you look at the trade performance, the u.s. is consistently doing better during those years. then the financial crisis hit and everybody rushed to treasury securities. safe assets and they drove up the value of the dollar and large portions of the evaluations that had occurred. the dollar is still much lower than it was at its peak in 2002. the other thing that is interesting, everybody wants to yell about china but the chinese exchange rate because of higher rates and inflation in china compared to that in the rest of the world, china has had a real appreciation of its exchange rate and adjusted for inflation. they do not really track each other very much anymore.

the other one i think is more important and more interesting is our real competitor is not china. we don't produce the things that china produces. we are a high-skilled, high-technology exporter. they are a labor-intensive low-cost exporter. we compete more with the e.u. when we look at what's happening to our exchange rate versus our trading partners, the news is relatively good. the euro has strengthened quite a bit compared to where it was at the beginning of the decade. it has gone back the other way. the euro is still considerably above that of the dollar when weights against other currencies with whom we compete. japan had a substantial devaluation or depreciation of the yen for many years.

now many want to take their money back home. they are taking the money out of the world market and taking it back. this is the last test. i think the external news is pretty good, that the dollar is more competitive than it used to be. if you're going to have an improvement in your trade balance, you have to be able to generate a surplus of domestic savings. here in the united states, if you look at this chart, you see we're still going the opposite direction. we're the only country in the world that has negative national savings that i've been able to find. you have a decline in savings. but negative? we're not investing very much anyway. but having negative savings

does not necessarily translate to a large deficit but it is very disappointing. the prives savings rate has turned up in recent years, particularly after the crisis but it is more than offset. a lot of people that lead the country are going to do anything, looks pretty slim to me at any time in the future. if that is true, i don't see how we can finance a big recovery of exports in the united states. we're going to find that our trade is -- the government budget deficit is going to continue to be financed by a deficit with the rest of the world. from that point of view, i don't see that we have made the rebalancing that we need to do,

the shift from the domestic sector toward trade. i think that is quite pessimistic in terms of the applications that it could do. the last point that i would like to just mention, that i find interesting, when i look at the data, what strikes me is that the giants, so consistently is such a bad exporter. why is it we can't do better exporting? it seems to me that one of the reasons we don't export much is that american companies haven't had to export much and haven't had to for 30 years. we have been a fully employed economy for 30 years up until the financial crisis. if we wanted to export more, we would have had to -- something in the domestic markets. that doesn't seem attractive to most firms who find it easier to selling their projects

domesticically. in the united states, -- firms that want to sell more abroad, that is the situation, have to live abroad because that is where the resources are. a lot of them just move abroad if there is an interest in it. another thing that encourages american firms to focus on locating their facilities overseas both for sales and production historically has been local rules, it has been very hard historically if you were an american firm, i go back to the days of the 1950's and 1960's if we sold automobiles in europe, that was fine as long as g.m. and ford produced them. they were happy to do.

g.m. and ford did very well in europe. produced them in europe and sold them in europe. that's the way most business firms want to operates. i like the german firm that has a strong fronchese produce in germany and sell outside germany. that doesn't seem to be typical of american firms. a third part of it, the cold war, i think for a long time american negotiators were happy to trade away access to the american markets in return for some favor in the context over the soviet union. once the cold war went away we got much more in economic conflicts. the last one i would mention, if it didn't get stressed enough in the discussion, another reason is that the united states has become a very high-cost place to produce

because the corporate tax rate is so much higher than in other countries. it used to be we were in the middle of the pack but after ireland started moving the whole discussion to a lower tax to attract corporate business, other countries responded and lowered their tax rates. capital has become increasingly mobile. so more and more firms feel in a position to do this. i think the example that you mind the the united states, they just stand out, apple computer does its development in the united states because it gets to deduct development expenses against a very high corporate tax rate, so the federal government pays for about half of their r & d costs, but when it comes time to produce the product, apple produces nothing in the united states. it doesn't have a single production facility the in the united states. it does it overseas, largely in asia. similarly microsoft developed

windows in the united states. it sells windows domesticically in the united states but windows to the rest of the world, there are no exports out of the united states. microsoft, they go out of ireland because ireland is the low tax -- but you transfer property to a low-tax country and use that as the basis for production. for years, that's what american companies have done, relocating production facilities. there are none the united states, they are either in puerto rico, ireland or singapore. why? they develop the patents in the united states and shift the property to some other low cost, low tax state and produce there. i think in that respect, our tax policy needs to become a significant barrier to encourage american firms to produce in the united states. american multinational firms are highly successful. they earn great rates of return

if you look at how they perform. they just don't produce in the united states. they are content to operate abroad. that is the model that they develop. they are successful at it. but it doesn't create jobs for american workers. i think that has become the complaint after 20 years of not caring about exports or imports, all of a sudden americans are very interested and were interested because we're short of jobs. >> there is a lot of meat there and a lot of questions but i'm going to hold off. i was going to interrupt for a minute but i'm going to go straight on to grant. >> i want to start with a story to illuminate your last -- i was in a drugstore and bumped into somebody who used to work for me. she had the startling news that

president obama has created the present -- to your point where we have started worrying about exports. she worked on his export council for 20 years at that point. i'm curious to say that we haven't been interested in exports. i'm also struck by the fact that the goal that the president is -- must be facetious. it was a lengthy list that makes that goal impractical. we're looking at 1/8 of a $14 trillion economy and to double that in four to five years, with we have to see not only extraordinary growth, higher rebalancing, as you were pointing out of the underlying structure of economic activity in the global economy. we are going to be facing huge

judgment calls as we try to make the transition toward rebalancing. slower growth works against idea, the ability to expand our exports. i think that is where i find myself both skeptical about how we get there and this really echoes some of the points barry made. when you think about the exchange rate, we are in a position where trying drive it down but the truth is that the chinese will actually change their currency when they can no longer sterilize the influence. which means if we're going to do this in five years, double up the exports, i'm not sure we'll see the real exchange rate with china. the irony in this is that as

goes that relationship with china, so does much of our exchange rate policy with much of asia. it might be to our detriment. i have a hard time envisioning the circumstances where we could see the situation grow that would allow for a doubling of exports, going to your point earlier about whether we can accomplish this objective. another thing that struck me when i was getting ready for this is how much the microeconomics of trade has changed over the 30 years, now 40 years and that we used to live in a world where the transaction costs reinforced the idea of vertical integration in a single geographical location. the classic import-export and much of the way is stay implicitly on that model of what trade exists.

it doesn't have to be the mod ofle of trade that exists today. it takes place within corporations and a much broader share. in that context, you have to question how we are going to promote exports when it is not based on trade fears, the new commercial gatekeepers are -- bringing on suppliers. when we talk about the classic things we always do on the trade, contest the markets and things like that, we're talking about a different -- this was brought to me by a guy named jim in grand rapids, michigan. we were doing a report and got to talk to a lot of exporters. i asked jim who was head of the auto parts group in the united states why i haven't heard any complaints from the auto parts guys? he said i am never going to

export parts to japan. what he said was i export to a country called toyota land. right? he had qualified as a supplier for toyota. they were taking the company global. he was participating in the global economy and it was an interesting way of rethinking how our trade is structured and whether the way you think about promoting exports would actually contribute to the results that we talked about. the other thing, one of the points barry made that i want to explore further is as of 2005, the developing countries represent more than 50% of world g.d.p. and considerably more than 50% of world g.d.p. growth, and the real question is whether or not our companies and some advantages are

actually profiled to explore the opportunities for specializeation in an expanding market or whether or not they have to be nimble enough on the ground in places like china and india to actually go where there is market demand. if you think of all the income growth being in asia and developing countries, how will we take anything other than agricultural good and caterpillar tractors? there is a lot of microeconomics that is an obstacle in some respects to achieving the president's objective. thinking about policy, i certainly didn't find anything to disagree with jim mcnerney. the ability of our exporters to shape the growth abroad. also, frankly, in a world where the competition is as much

about capital talent and ideas rather than pure market share, the ability to be the system's integrator of the supply chain. we try find a niche in a globally competitive market, trying to find capital rather than forcing capital offshore seems to be the thing to do. the sad thing is for anybody who is a c.f.o. or tax manage, if you asked them, they would not incorporate the united states if they were launching a business, they would incorporate elsewhere and take advantage of the fact that only their i can in the united states would be taxed at a corporate rate rather than worldwide income. the whole system is designed in a way that is a very powerful lever like barry was describing.

the financial grounding of that particular transaction means that the -- acquirer is likely to be foreign rather than the united states. trade policy, i really applaud the president for moving on korea. the tax policy that was designed to deny growth. in one sense, we're saving something where the commitment to the goal is positive but many actions that we were hoping would undermine the ability to achieve that. i would very much like to point out the point that jim and barry made, what it would take. if you think of globalization, what it has done, create a broad plan, that innovation and

technology can play out. creating the opportunity for specializeation. factors that have become important are those that allow you to exploit -- oftentimes that means channeling ideas. you think of immigration policies and whether or not we're encouraging people to come here and be a part of those opportunities. i was actually thinking of our trade in those terms and whether it lines up with those opportunities for specializeation. our trade policy, actually helps us along those lines in terms of taking care of our airports. they are no longer the channels

that americans face in a global economy. just to make a point, first thing you have to do is understand that trade promotions in this context is very different than what the commerce department, for example, is designed to do. we have a lot of wonderful people who work very, very hard around the world in 88 offices and an equal number actually in the united states. their job is to reduce transaction costs and yet the things a really add up to diminished trade unless you take care of it and yet it is an imperfect model of trying to do this. the irony is we would be better investing in broad band infrastructure than -- and the interesting thing about money is that we do have an organization called the tcpp, the trade promotion

coordinating committee, which i was the executive secretary of and it is useless to be honest. you know, we used to get together once a month and it was a good time over coffee and to see old friends but beyond that -- but the reality was that all the money in the trade promotion budget, if you look across the department of agriculture, i cannot see in the constraints we face that we're somehow going to pop up the other side of the ledger. if we actually thought it was relevant to have the commerce department more deeply engaged in promoting our exports, it is hard to see given other challenges we face fiscally. the other interesting thing about it is we never actually could focus the energy of all of these agencies where youkt

exploit an opportunity. it is very hard to get a government-wide strategy behind a free trade geament, for example, where you would think there were opportunities to export. there are very different attitudes toward their role. it did focus in a way we couldn't get many agencies to do, absolutely the best step we have taken to try to accomplish this is