8. equal protection does not allow the state to enact a measure based on a view that some people are on were the. thank you. >> thank you. mr. cooper? >> thank you, your honor. just a few moments if you will, please indulge me. mr. alden -- mr. olsen spoke of the levin case. we know that if mr. levin had desired to marry mr. jeter that it would not have come at the same way. baker v nelson rejected that claim on the heels of loving on the gay couple who brought that claim relied on loving very heavily.

we also think that mr. olson is simply wrong when he suggests that the baker case did not involve a claim to classification based upon sexual orientation, just gender. here is what the plaintiffs in baker said. this is the route the jurisdictional statement. >> there is no discrimination and the law against homosexuals. appellant of being denied a numerous right, they have been denied numerous rights order to assemble -- others similarly situated. this was clearly a case where they charge the classification is one based on sexual orientation as well as one based on gender. the levin case would have been the, on all fours, would have

-- the baker case would have been on all fours with loving it same-sex sexual relations produced childrenhe same as opposite sex sexual relations do. en mr. olson would have a laydowcase. there were be no basis on which to draw a distinction to identify a distinguishing characteristic withespect to any interest the state has the authority to implement. there would be no difference. the question is, does the society have no interest in that distinct characteristic? we submit to you -- >> is there a state that suggests that? or do you have a good argument? -- is there a case that suggests

that? >> i think it is both, your honor. >> than i would like the case. >> in the case i am referring to is the garrett case which sets forward the standard i quoted. it, in turn, is quitting the cleburne case -- quoting the cleburne case. it upheld distinctions were they were drawn on distinguishing characteristics. i would also offer to the court as well the johnson against robison case. inclusion of one group promotes or dresses a state interest and the addition of others would not. then the state is justified in acting upon those differences in drawing that classification. i like to also were firm to the

court very quickly here -- >> nothing is done very quickly here. [laughter] >> when you are in the red, and does not mean you have that much time remaining. [laughter] >> there enough. if the court would give me 30 seconds, because this is a point that is clearly very much on the mind of the court. that is the romer case. "amendment two does more to repeal or defend these positions. it prohibits all legislative and judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the name to class, because we shall refer to as "homosexual persons." and then in two was unprecedented. it was extraordinary.

-- amendment two was unprecedented. standing in its own shoes with regards to the history behind it, it was unconstitutional. and would have been unconstitutional if it would have singled out and made a stranger to the lot in the class of persons. again, your honor, thank you for your indulgence. >> thank you to all of you for a fascinating argument. the court will stand journed. >> all rise. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite rp. 2010]

>> tomorrow on "washington journal", robert nickels, president and ceo of the financial services forum, talks about the democrat's opposition to the textile. devon chaffee talks about efforts to in our funding it to bring gitmo prisoners. john gannon gives a state by state review of literacy. >> middle and high school

students, as you work on your documentary, here are a few tips from our judges. >> one of the things i look for one watching your videos is you, the student. i want to see your personality, and that helps make your video stand out from all the rest. >> what i like to see most in the entries are a real investment and care and the topic you will be telling us about. be sure to be interested in what you are telling us. if you're not interested in what you are presenting, chances are we will not be. >> one tiebreaker and for me last year was the c-span video. i am looking for videos where people are looking at c-span video and ask, what make the most sense for telling the story i want to tell us? >> for all the information, go to studentcam.org. >> on thursday, the national transportation safety board held

a daylong conference on child passenger safety. a federal agency called for parents to buckle their children into child safety seats on airplanes. the faa has recently recommended that parents flying with children strap their children in it during the holiday season, though it is not required. they discuss the best possible way to keep children safe while flying. ntsb chairman deborah hersman opened the event. this is just under two hours. >> this morning, we convened a form on child passenger safety in the air and in automobiles. this kicks off a yearlong effort at the safety board to promote child safety across all modes of transportation.

before beginning, i would like to recognize the accident survivors and family members who might be watching via webcast. many of you have been directly involved in accidents where children were killed or injured. you have been some of the strongest advocates for improved transportation safety for our yen this passengers, and we are grateful for your continuous support. also, in our audience today, is mr. martin sperber who has been a leading advocate for the use of child restraints in europe. he attended r four on child restraints and aviation and 1999 and we welcome him back. if you would like to stand up? thank you. as many of you know, the safety board investigates the causes of major transportation accidents and issues recommendations to

make travel safer. but we also examine safety issues by bringing together leading experts to identify safety risks and solve problems even when they are not tied to a specific accident. we gather today at a time when our skies and our roads are safer for all travelrersers, including our smallest passengers. 35 years ago when i was a child, nearly 1400 children aged 12 and younger died as car occupants. last year, as my children are growing up, 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 or round of child protection has changed. we can all recall an environment that looked very different. i remember riding and my families station wagon a generation ago were my little sister's favorite spot was perched on the armrest in the front seat here she was not secured by a car seat or a seat belt, but she could see better for worship was sitting. today, parents install their first car seat before the child is even born. in children are often the ones for mining adults to buckle up. -- reminding audltdults to bucke up. these anecdotal examples of highway safety are reflected in its several concrete policy changes as well. every state has a law that

requires children under the age 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 child seats during see checks at fire stations and a baby superstores. and education campaigns are successfully reaching most parents and caregivers. 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% or not using a child seat or seat belt. so 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 addressing child passenger safety and 12 of those recommendations have bent on our most wanted list of transportation safety improvements. the board has seen the benefits of child seats in its accident investigations as recently as march when the 15 passenger van was hit by a tractor-trailer in kentucky. although the van experienced a very severe crash forces and with significant intrusion into the passenger compartment, the only two survivors were children in safety seats, who sustained 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 and notes that a child younger than two is safer in a restraint system than on an adult's lap, this information, unfortunately, is only a suggestion and not a requirement. and yet, we see it when we travel -- parents putting their children in child safety seats when they try to the airport and checking the car seat like their luggage and holding their child on their lap during the flight, even when everyone else on the plane is required to be buckled in. once at their destination, they pick up their seat at baggage claim, and they secure their child again on a car trip from

the airport. the laws of physics to not change, whether you are on an airplane or in an automobile. and we know that no parent would intentionally place their child in a less safe position than they would put themselves in. if we are so careful to strap our children into car seats when we try to the airport -- we drive to the airport, then why are we not as diligent and requirement -- requiring them to be secured on an airplane? how many times have you seen car seats on the baggage carousels? our recommendation to the faa regarding restraint use the dates back to the 1970's. our purpose today is not to engage in a statistical still made about the version. -- about diversion. we are here to inform and educate those that 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 are -- whether we are flying in a 7373 interstate.on the the main focus of our form is closing at education? so that securing our children and proper restraints is what we do each and every time. as part of that education, we have some displays and exhibits showing dot-approved devices and how to problem restrain a child. i encourage you to visit this place during breaks. we think the organizations and the companies you are here today. -- who are here today.t' .

today you will hear from experts on four panels per this morning we will to focus on the safety of children --. this morning we will focus on the safety of children in aviation. we will then conclude the form with positive steps moving for. a few housekeeping reminders. safety is our priority, so in case of an emergency, please note the nearest emergency exit in the board room. there are three exits here -- the rear doors that you used to enter the conference center and two emergency doors on the side here in the front. if you have not done so, please silenced or electronic devices. the board room is wi-fi equipped. if you have a laptop, you can connect today's information is available in the atrium and posted on the ntsb's website.

presentations provided by our speakers will be posted to our website in the next several days. a video archive of the form can also be accessed through the website to the next several months. and for those of you that are attending in person, and our child passenger safety technicians, and you may earn ceu's by attending the forum. make sure you sign in on the sign of chiefs of fun. at this point, i would turn your attention to the monitors as we did you a video on the importance of the appropriate restraint used for children. video on the buta importance of proper restraint fochildren. >> 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 turlence. 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 t 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, youever 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 cldren 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. -- pase 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 plic. for several years, the faaas 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 encoures 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. -- significt 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 attachedo 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 ings -- 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 provi 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

the-year old test dummy used in this test are at risk for head injuries. they can easily stre 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. carrrs 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 th 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 se 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 lotion 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 proem that parents can sometimes face is that the larger child restraints do n 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 anyircraft. 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 metimes interfere with the child restraint shell. in general, with a little practice and patience, most child restraints can be successful 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 faaorketo 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, ty 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. th shares that at the upper torso restraints to the lap bt has been approved using this procede. 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 attding 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. inhe 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 en 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 rulemakingo 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 a 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 opons 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. the 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 fest 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 a 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, resear, 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 safetand security ofll 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 pper 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, butay 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 wle 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 agreedith 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 apparen 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 wod 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 indendent 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 thatnrealistically 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 crossemand

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 thetsb 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 indicatiothe 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 saty for our smallest travelers, we must develop a strong regulation and couple it with adequate monitoring and enforcement. thank you for your attenon 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 rnd 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 thats not an faa standard -- there is a toso and there is something that is not an faa standard. how do i fd within the store? >> the child restraints available for purchase at this time are ones tt 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 tt 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, en 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 testi 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 w in general aviation. the shoulder belt this potential is something thacould 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 outrch 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 tha 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 throh a transcript in the notes from each one of those calls. the st interesting thing that i found was that the number one reason tha 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. we responded with outreach and 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 abo 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 autrity 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 mement, 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. >> cannon airline established policy for that? >> yes, absolutely -- >> 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 posion of having children to remove children from unapproved devices before landing. >> our flight attendants allowed to install deves 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. >> tnk you. >> i have one quick question. at what age is it safe for me to put my chi 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, sts had to be dynamically tested in much the way we do tests with cars to sh their safety. airplane seats had to undergo a series of dynamic test to ensure that they would both remain structurally attached to t 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 t 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 automote 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' 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 securitymr. dewees'o

go ahead, we have some c-span cameras here. it would be fine if you started from the top of your response. >> 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. the child restraint systems are usually marked with the

appropriate 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 and talked about the website for that purpose, getting 6700 it's a month. how you dress 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 mentioned 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, we 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-pilot 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 your 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

grandfather, 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 the 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 enforcements 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 flight 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 promulgate, our position is that we take all of our regulations very seriously. 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 front and the adults, they could be crushed. if they are ejected 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 statistics 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 were approximately 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 airline that they have gone to the website to purchase tickets, there is no option for purchasing 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? >> it started 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-type 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 used 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 restraint issue from all the other ones -- separates the child restraint issue from all the other ones is that it is a target population 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 variables 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 this thanksgiving holiday where there was quite a fuehrer from people -- quite a furor over the 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 those issues. 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 seats 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 work better if they know that the child

>> the exemption for children under two should be 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 to 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 presentations. 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.

>> we will now resume our panel on child aviation safety. for our next session, we will hear the perspective from the airlines angers street -- from the airline industry. >> our next presenter is the executive vice president and chief operating officer of the air transport association. he is responsible for all aspects of ata operation with a focus on technical safety, security, economic and legal policy issues impacting the airline industry. please begin your presentation. >> there we go. sorry about that.

we will try again. i greatly appreciate the opportunity to be here to speak on behalf of the ata member of carriers. this is an issue that is particularly important to me. it is something i have been personally involved in since my first tenure there when i was a much younger lawyer in the '80s and early-'90s. i thought it might be useful to get to some history of all of this. the current air regulations we are talking about dates back much further than this. 1953 -- and fans were excluded from the seat belt requirement. if you go back, you'll find it seems to go back to the daysf sailing ships. it applies to all modes of transportation. it was sort of ingrained in the

culture. it is still there and is something we are all working with today. if things went forward, obviously as you have observed, madam chairman, child seats were a rarity when we were younger. they became more prevalent. they came to dominate. everybody now uses a child safety seatn their car. the same thing is moving in that direction with aircraft. over time the standards have been adjusted. the ata petitioned the faa in 1990 to eliminate the child- safety exemption. that petition and drove the risk analysis the fda did. we have no reason to disagree with the government. we said we just wantedo make sure we were doing the rig thing. we believe that responding to government regulation is the right way t go.

we encourage the use of these deces. this is the way the government has chosen to handle the issue. we are deregulated party. we will proceed on that basis. one of the things we have dessert -- at one of the things we have observed, back in the mid-nineties when we withdrew the pition, there was a lot of confusion out there as to the appropriate devices and whether some were less safe in aircraft than they were in automobiles. there was little information in terms of confirmation. the government has to work out 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 informationrom 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 clely 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 prome 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 t 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 t 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 tha 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 concern 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 puhased 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 childeat. 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 theegulation 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 fachild 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 thetime 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, itan 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 implementeto 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 neede -- 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 theumber 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 questioningith 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 carrier 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 th 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 u 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 y 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 weet 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 baage. 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 beble 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 expience 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 cple 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. roughl 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 facr is because of sophisticated pricing models thathe carriers used to maximize the revenues they are taking in. if the carrier felt they could benefit from selling seats at a discountedrice, 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 wa 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 ce. that regulation did n go into effect until 2005. without getting into collusion, what is there to prevent the air carriers from saying, "we are going toake 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 tir 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. >> iseems 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 theperations of the carriers areesigned 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 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 goingo 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 likthis? >> i am not aware of tt and i cannot respond, but i can say from the safety standpoi that currently we are doing some outreachnd doing some research so we can educate pilots about that. unfortunately i do not have the information from 93. >> 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-atlaic 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 adul,eniors, 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 prorly 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 transpo them. then i went to the version- amica 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 pvide 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 t 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 wh 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 tm. the childn 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. the 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

certifieshe 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 undtaking. 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 different calculation? >> carriers make their decisions based on their own analysis of the market and what they think will sell tickets. i d't think they distinguish between one group of passengers. they're looking at theniverse of people whare 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 discourage peoplerom 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 estions from the staff panel? >> none from here. >> thank you all very much for your partipation. i know that you probably felt like you drew the short straw on the team, so hopefullyhey 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. >> in london, student critics didn't ride over high tuition, and politicians debate the depths of england's debt crisis. "q&a" expands to two hours. today, this weekend at 8:00, on c-span. this week on "prime minister's

questions" support for school sports programs. david cameron talks about -- tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> one month after general motors shares returned to the york stock exchange, the companies ceo discusses how his company is faring. the federal government about $50 billion into the automaker to prevent it from slipping into bankruptcy. this event is just over an hour. >> over the last two years, as i have served as president, we have had a lot of very distinguished speakers. i tried to be as dispassionate

in introducing him as possible, even though some of them were my friends. i probably will not be as dispassionate this morning because dan was my business partner for seven years and a very good friend. i probably will be less passionate than i normally am. then joined carlisle in 2003 and rose up to be the head of our global buyout business, which is our most important business. he was a member of our management committee and provided enormous value to carlyle and helped it grow to where it is today. when dan told me that he was going to be the ceo of general motors, i was not happy, honestly. i said, do you know how much money you are leaving on the table? he said he did. i said there is your wife know how much money you are leaving on the table? [laughter] maybe she does, but do your children know how much money you are leaving on the table?

i think dan did this out of a sense of patriotism. i doubt there are many people that i am aware of who have made as big a financial sacrifice as dan did to help serve his country. we have never disclosed the extraordinary amount of money that dan just basically walked away from. it was a lot of money. [laughter] everything, but then began life in minnesota. he went to the naval academy and graduated in 1970. he subsequently served in the navy for five years, and when he left the navy, he went to work in the petroleum industry in england, and there he got a master's degree at the london school of economics. he returned to the united states

for five years to work for at&t and then he joined a little .ompany called mcr i i recruited this eeo to join carlisle in 1987, and dan replaced bill and move to washington and rose up to be the president and chief operating officer of mci. he was recruited to new york and shortly thereafter became the ceo of a portfolio company, replacing donald rumsfeld s ceo. he did that for a number of years and was successful, and then became the ceo of nextel. he then became the ceo of xo and

it was the fourth company he had run as the ceo. he then left that and joined carlisle in 2003. he left to become the ceo of general motors. i need it was a daunting task, and he did a great job from the time he took over. he was elected to the ceo position on august 11 of this year and they completed the largest ipo in history. i doubt there is anybody that i am aware of who single-handedly has put as much money in the coffers of the u.s. government in as short a time as ban did. -- short a time as dan did. i refer to him as our $23 billion man. in the short time that he has read he has shown his

extraordinary skills as an executive and a ceo. the ipo could not have been done in such a short time and less than had been there. he has shown extraordinary skill that i saw at carlisle, and we are very pleased that he is here today. as a taxpayer, we are very pleased that he is now the ceo of general motors. dan ackerson. [applause] >> i had a lot while david was speaking. i want you to remember this. when i meet my ultimate reward, invite david to the funeral. [laughter] this is really a pleasure and honor to be here today. it is hard to be unemotional

about today. there a it is hard to be unemotional about this. the mci, which was the fountainhead of many of the changes that you see in the technology worldwide trade my friends from nextel. i was on the board at time warner, for many years. and the carlyle group, which is great. to the gentleman i have known for 20 years, and my college roommates is here. he is a dear friend. he knew me when i had hair.

which even my wife cannot say. to my room together for 3.5 years at the united states naval academy. and of course, my wife, who i could not have embarked on this adventure without her. how many veterans are there in the group? would you raise your hands? thank you for your service. [applause] thank you, david, for the kind introduction. it is great to be here. i flew in last night and yes, i did fly commercial. [laughter] i am not that dumb. i did the whole airport saying. i actually chose the enhanced pat-down of the entire body. take your best shot, big guy.

i have been through its trade the road show was an experience on many different levels. but it was worth it. 18 month ago, a general motors was pretty much flat on its back. in june 2009, we filed for bankruptcy protection. that is old news now. just think about a for a moment. general motors, the icon of american -- american manufacturing, one time the holder of 50% othe u.s. vehicle market. its standard bearer of what was termed the modern corporation. it would bankrupt. it was unimaginable until iraq -- until it actually happened great 39 days later, this is to help from the u.s. taxpayer and others, general motors was relaunched. critics davis very little chance

of success. many thought we would remain in on the public dole for decades. others simply left us for dead. 16 months later, after emerging from bankruptcy, this new gm was relaunched and one of the most successful initial public offerings ever. i spent many decades in business, most recently in private equity. it was my job to assess companies, their jobs, their prospects, up their management, and make bets on their futures. i can promise you that two years ago, there was precious few in this country that gave gm a chance to were willing to bet on its future. three weeks ago, people by the hundreds of thousands, did just

that. they bet on general motors. they saw a company with a new business model focused on three things. designing, building, and selling the world's best vehicles. they saw a new company with a competitive cost structure, improved capacity utilization, leaner invenries, improved brand equity, and customers willing to pay higher prices for great vehicles. all of which resulted in improved earnings and great cash flow. they saw and automotive company competing in a gwth business. hard to imagine not too many years ago, one that wasetter positioned than any other company in the world in the emerging markets of india, china, and brazil. they sell a new company with a strong balance sheet and plans

to make it even stronger. they saw a new company position to break even at the bottom of the markets. to a dozen non was a 50-year low for the automotive industry in this country. we actually made money. the company would only make money at the high end of the cycle. if we achieved a mid cycle correction in the next year, gm is very we positioned to move forward. the new investors assault a company being managedy a mix of new talents that was intent on the change and a team of highly skilled insiders who are running key operations around the world. most importantly, they saw a great new products in the

marketplace, like the cadillac srx. it took nine market share points in one year. buick lacrosse. buick is the fastest selling brands in america and the last 12 months after its the gm to rein -- 12 months. it is the first really strong ego subcompacts that we have produced in this country. they also sell a company that is lling more than it did a year ago with a brands. finally, they saw a lot of people beginning to believe in the new gm. a company that has learned from its past and is committed and determined not to make the mistakes of the past. at gm, we're building a culture

that values speed, agility, and competitiveness. it will continually adapt its business model to the rapidly changing world. it puts the customer first. this may not seem revolutionary you, but trust me, it is. [laughter] what does this mean? it means that we are working hard to set the pace with a new car is like -- it was recently named 2001 urban part of the year by decisive media. it is a segment leader. it features things that we will starto differentiate on. we have on star. we intend to make on start in every car on the road. you will see dramatic changes in

the internet application to automotive and automotive safety. it means we are bringing customers the newest design and technology like a bolt. -- volt. it is like no other car on the road today. there will be four of them of stairs for you all to see. it is only $25 for a trip around the block. we are trying to raise more revenue every opportunity. [laughter] this car will go 50 miles on a single charge. then it converts to a generator, at 86orsepower engine and it will go another 300 miles. you can literally drive this car from washington, d.c. to los angeles. not to say that we will develop other cars, those are battery

electric cars. we think they have a place in the marketplace, but they'll be more of a metro car. fr the start, it was designed to change the way that we think about the automobile. we have made a strong statement in that area. just in 2011, the accolades have been many and wide. car of the year award by automobile magazine. motor trend. we were also named the truck of the year. that is very rare for an automotive company to have both car and truck of the year by motor trend. it was also named car of the year by green carded journal. we are confident that it will be one of the most important cars

that gm has ever produced. in fact, when i think back over many people's lives in this room, the iconic car might of been described as the 1964-1965 mustang. i held my children will reflect back to that the volt was the iconic car of their generation. one of bill launched cars -- launch markets will be washington, d.c.. there are seven great we intend to start shipping next week for commercial purposes -- purchases. it is a statement that we are thinking globally as well as acting in what we believe to be society's best interest. last month, we announce that chevrolet will invest $40 million over the next few years for various clean energy projects throughout america. why $40 million? these projects are designed to

reduce about 8 million and ted metric -- 8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the united states. that is the carbon footprints admitted from all chevrolet's that will be sold between now and the end of 2011. we wanted to make a strong statement that we're just not out r a fast buck. we want to be a responsible member of our society. this is a big and important goal and one we are committed to achieve. we tnk it is the right thing to do for our customers, our company, and for the communities that we live in. it is part of gm's commitment to the environmt and to a clean energy future. to be fair, this is not the result of me. i am a member of the team. many of these projects were started well before the bankruptcy.

i think we have to give due credit and gratitude to the people that had the foresight at general motors to develop these great cars and trucks of darnell winning so many awards. i think it is testimony to the tenacity and the persistence and the focus of the gm employees to look for the dark days of the bankruptcy, at the days leading up to the bankruptcy, and kept focused to deliver great products. there was a lot of turmoil around the industry. it was most impressive and it is the source of inspiration to me personally and a privilege to leave such a great team of people who are so committed to doing what is right for their company and for their country. in many ways, what it comes down to in the future, to give people like you -- we he to rebuild

the tru in the general motors product line. it took many years of lilly not listening to our customer base -- of really not listening to our customer base and poor quality to destroy what was once a great damage. i will tell you today better quality is second to none. there is no foreign transplant or foreign competitors that produces cars any better than we do. these are world class cars. that has been verified by external metrics. i am proud to be a team leader of a great company with great products. i hope he will reconsider or consider your next purchase, four of which will be upstairs following the meeting. gm is a company and as we went through the ipo and we knew we were going to have a special

offering, everything from the press release, we survived a near-death experience. we deeply appreciate the support we got from the american people on a state and federal level and we will not forget that. for the first time in a generation, and i'm not kidding, this was a company that had many structural problems, post-retirement health -- the list goes on and on. that has all been rectified. for the first time, we have a level playing field. as the 71 of our earlier lines, made the best car win. if that is the magic by which we are measured, i am confident of our future.

we look forward to returni the public's trust and respect every day. we look forward to a bright future. with that, david, i would like to turn it back to you. i know you want to ask me a lot of questions. [applause] >> i understand you drove over in a volt today. what was it like? >> ecstasy. [laughter] i've only had my life threatened twice so far. i have security now which is something new for me. i felt secure with you, david.

he drove the car. usually, i drive in an suv. i wanted to drive the car here. he was impressed. this guy drives professionally. it is not the propulsion system. we commonly referred to the geek-mobile as the prius. i would not be caught dead in a prius. we have used 1.2 gallons of gas. 80% of the people in america drive 40 miles or less per day. you should be able to drive the average -- we should be able to drive -- it is going to be for

sale as of two weeks from now. >> we have to under thousand orders. -- 200,000 orders. we liquid cooled the battery pack. it weighs 400 pounds. many of the battery electric vehicles will be air cooled. we are forefront in the technology. we spent $7 billion for research and development. we put another $7 billion in engineering. the air cooled battery pack is estimated to last three-five years. pack for a years or 100,000 miles. we know the residuals will be

good at the end of three years. when we come out with a battery electric, that could be a problem to residuals. >> when you are here, what car are you driving? >> wld until you see the new camaro coming out. i know this sounds like an advertisement. [laughter] the new camaro convertible, you're going to love that car, too. it has been a great seller. >> what exactly did you walk away from a lot of money? [laughter] that would have helped your children and grandchildren. what was the motivation? >> i was asked that question last week.

i doubt if they show this on television. he was quoting you. i think he said this, he mentioned a specific number. i know you told larry summers. [laughter] >> he was staggered when i told to him. >> are your recruiting him? >> today is his last on-the-job. >> i know. there is more to life than money. i was not put on this earth to just make money. i cannot tell you, in my lifetime, there it's been icoc events. when i got married, my children, my grandchildren. when i walk on the trading floor once the deal was done,

there were 400 people and they stood up and clapped. one of the traders on the floor told me, when they have -- when they had to delist general motors, he cried. when i went back detroit -- when i went back to detroit, there was an employee meeting of 2000 people. there was a man my age and he cried. he said, 18 months ago, i thought this company was gone. it is hard to describe -- and those experiences, no offense to carlisle, it is a wonderful place. it is a wonderful, great people. i know that i made the right decision. this company, quite frankly, that is too important to fail. the american industrial infrastructure is too important to let it go down.

the implications here had general motors -- had general motors gone down,e spent $80 billion a year in our supply chain ford was not in that good a shape two years ago. if our supply chain had gone down, i think it would have caused huge disruptions for everybody. i doot know what the cost would have been. it would have been a lot more than a lot of people have projected, in my opinion. sometimes you have to do what has to be done. i am not that special, but someone had to stand in. >> a when you did the i.p.o. nt 1 around the world, will work -- and he went around the world, what were the impressions that you got? what do you think made the stock sells so well?

you were going to originally prices in the mid-20s. it priced at $33. obviously, their work -- there was great demand. what were the main factors that propelled the interest? >> the fact that we have a grt contract with the union and the substance and form have a competitive cost structure here in north america. what really intrigued and surprised me when i went on the board in 2009, it was the market position. we will produce almost as many cars in china this year as able the united states. -- as we wl in the united states. we are continually gaining market share. we have the most enviabl position in china. but we talked about our plans -- we all live here and believe

me, if you think about this, when i was at mci, we would not run the same a in a birmingham, alabama, as we did in brooklyn. there are different regions. california is kind of a culture of its own. so is alabama. so is minnesota. so is china. we'll look at china in four different ways. the big cities, shanghai, hong kong. and then we looked -- if you looked out in the western provinces, it would not sell in any industrial markets because we have to sell it for down in the $5,000 range. it does not have electric windows. that would free all of us out.

-- phreak all of us out. it might hurt my wrist. we not only sell pulp market, but we will slow down market. -- up market, but we will sell down market. we have a new chevrolethat is coming out. it looks like a bmw. we stock all t cars in that sector up against the chevrolet and we are right in the middle from a price point. we asked people to take those same cars and they drove them all. they put that car here and bmw here. it will write down the line. there are new cars coming, new models that will stand us in very good status. >> you will pay a total of

about $32 billion to the federal government. how much money does the government have to get back to break even? what stock price would they have to sell the remaining shares in order to break even? >> they own 61% of the company before. they own 27%. i just happen to know these numbers. [laughter] they own a third of the company. $33 a share is what they need. that will mean that somewhere in the high forties or low 50s. the previous break even w about $42 a share. we sold for $33. >> do you give any advice to the government about when they should sell the remaining shares? >> no.

it is a very clear and bright line. the adnistration has been great about this. they do not involve themselves in the boardroom or the management or the operation of the company. we had a shareholder meeting this summer. there were four people there. the u.s. government, the canadian government's, the help trust for the union, and boaters liquidation corp. representing the bondlders. it is not our business. if your financial advisor said you wanted to sell, you would not want these guys are saying, i will tell you when you are going to sell. it is not our role to tell the federal government anything. they determined how much they wanted to sell. >> they still can determine

salaries and so forth. is that still appropriate? >> that is still true. [laughter] >> should go on to the ne question? [laughter] >> i am visiting with the special paymaster this afternoon. not about me. we have to be competitive. we have to be able to attract and retain great people. we have been able to do that. but it is largely out of a commitment. we have been able to attract pretty damn good people. we're starting to lose them in now. that is an issue for our shareholders. in their best interest, we should get some relaxation in. >> when you were asked to join the board, do remember the board

before you became the ceo? did the government know that you're a republican? did they care? what impressions to take away from the company when you joined the board? what was the biggest shock? >> did you plant this, david? i would describe myself as a: paul republican. -- colin powell republican. >> there are not many of them left, i guess. [laughter] >> there are at least two and it sounds like there are more. i know john mccain. he went to the naval academy. i consider him friend, so i

supported him, yes. i have sported democrats as well. >> when you joined the board, what was your biggest impression that she had not been on the board before. what was the biggest surprise for shock that you had? >> too often, too many things were done intuitively. i thought insightful and probing analysis was necessary. there was one report where a couple of us were upset when they ask fort. we do $10 billion to $12 billion in sales per month.

our capital budgets are huge. the development of a new ego engine -- ito-enne -- eco- engine was on its way. how many of you drive bmw's? that great engineering. you would be glad to know that gm makes your transmission. that german engineering is made in detroit. [laughter] but do you have to make everything? that was the an f nine in gm culture. it washe gm way -- it was the anathema in gm culture. it was the gm way. >> when you produce a car now,

your labor costs are still roughly the same? >> yes. they are the same. >> some of your premises jurors, have you talked with them about -- some of your predecessors, have you talked with them about mistakes made? >> yes. in some respects, i thi a fresh perspective and someone who has been in other industries and seen other issues -- as you know, we still look at a lot of turnaround's and recapitalization. i am not sure that i was totally with less -- totally

witless. i still meet with a subset of the prior management. i want to know whether this thing. i do not have to necessarily accepted, but i need to know what outside informed auto executives think about what we're doing, tendered auto executives. some is very insightful for me the more points of view i get, the better i am able to make better decisions. yes, i have gone to their homes. i have played to be with them on occasion -- not literally, but from an auto perspective. >> what would you say you're a two or three biggest judges are? would you stay up at night worrying about the most? >> i tell everybody that i worry about everything. when i was on the floor of the

-- we just ran like dogs for weeks. one of these reporters told me i looked like hell. thank you. that was just before the camera went on. [laughter] then i saw him in detroit when we rolled up the volvo. he said, "you look better, but you do not look great." [laughter] i worry about the culture. i worry about our cost position going forward. i think management has to have integrity. i do not mean that we do not have integrity. but i just put out a memo to all of our people that there will not be in salary increase this year. if the sushi it -- if we see issues where we are not compatible, we can address it. the structural cost of a 2% or 3% increase in a cpany that is

in a cyclical industry -- it is unbelievable how predictably cyclical this industry is over the last 100 years. up, down come u down. before the great recession, we actually intellectualized and said by more incentives in industries that will be impacted, but not as severely. in an up market, you look for cyclical companies. this is a cyclical company and i deny the deputy to be a manager anymore. -- and i do not get to be a portfolio manager anymore. we want to invest without counseling and ratcheting in our capital programs. we had20 billion in debt before the bankruptcy. we have less than $4 billion in debt today.

the pension liability is $10 billion today. we had $28 billion in cash on our balance sheet and we're looking at the pension liability now. we have to have a robust balance sheet. people look at me like i am from mars now, coming from a private equity firm where we bought predictable cash flows against unpredictable cash flows and had a debt and we would pay the debt down. this is a different game. we're playing football, not rugby. it is kind of the same thing, but different. you have to ship the business model and intellectualize the problem much more than it was done before. if you look across this cost structure -- i want incentive pay. when i meet with the union every

four weeks to six weeks, that may sound strange to some of my former friends. the head of the uaw and the gm vice president, i have invited them to board dinners and to the employee meeting that i referenced before. i have them introduced. they are our business partners. i do not want a contentious relationship with the spirit -- with them. you have heard a lot of noise in the public forum about -- you guys going to go hard back at management? their prosperity is tied to this company's prosperity. they happen to have their representative between me and the average employee. but i have tried to breach that.

i go to a plant a month. i tell you, it is so invigorating and affirming to walk through the plant and people are yelli at you. "hey, dan!" you cann be trusted without giving trust. and you cannot have credibility. the immediate response is that i want you to think about this. and they say, "i have seen that from ceos and management does not get a p increase." they will not get a base pay increase this year. i do nothing that we can do that if we do not lead by example. it is about me. it i about the management team. it is about the relationship with the union. can we be trusted? i think we have to invest -- when i talk about product, will we have the right products?

what do we want to be remembered for? i am probably a little thin skin having worked in private equity. i am not as tough as i used to be. [laughter] it was importanthat we have credibility in what we do. it extends into our products. what do we want to be remembered as? for example, when i look back to the dumb things that management did coming out of post world war ii, we had an oligopoly. people bitch about the complaint about government involvement in general motors. in 1960, they said that they h too much market share and we should break them up. were they involved in the

?ompany didn'then of course they were. how do we want the company remembered? if you look back at 1960 and they were giving away posted- retirement health care which was corrosive to the cost structure. they give these job bank in perpetuity. it was such a burden on the company that it made us not competitive. and you say, who did that? they did it because there was no competition after the war out of europe because it was bombed out. so was asia. we were roaming the globe on a trade perspective. and these guys just wanted a piece. before they agree with the labor contract that gm or chrysler negotiated as long as thedid not get competitive advantage. they -- i have had people come

to me and say, "well, what about the labor agreement from 2000 to 2025? -- two dozen 25 --025?" i do not want to leave my predecessors -- and no one to leave my successors with that question. if somebody looks back to 2015 and 2010 and i passed opportunity to not only have leading market share and a dynamic position in china, but i also tied up with the number one manufacturer in china from an economic point of view -- i have been to china and have met with the senior management at shanghai auto. that is a great partnership. and we went in 50/50 in india -- one in three people on the

earth live in two countries -- india and china. we would be fools to pass this up. instead of committing the company to a bad strategy -- they put half a billion dollars into it. i know that sounds like a lot of money, but it is not that much in the grand scheme of things. i want that time it into china and into asia. in such -- in some respects, we can be considered global motors and not general motors. >> how much stock is held by people outside the united states? >> 8%. >> your market share in the u.s. is roughly what? >> last year at this time, we were 17.5%. we are now up to 19%. >> and your market share in china is what? >> almost 30% or 40%. >> but that is -- almost 13% or 14% . >> but that is almost what you're selling in the united

states. >> yes. >> has anybodyn the government called to thank you for getting $23 billion back in the coffers of the treasury? >> not all of it went to the government. the canadiens got a little bit. they own a very small amount. bu yes. [laughter] >> were they fuses or just --? [laughter] polite? >> i thought you were more effusive here today. i suppose, when i am gone, there will be. but they are not now. i have a job to do. >> let me ask you one last question before we have a couple from the audience. what was the best advice that somebody gave you when you became the ceo? was it a business college or somebody -- to give you the best advice? -- who ge you the best advice?

>> probably not to take myself too seriously. this job -- if i had shown of leicester, you would have filled that table. it is overwhelming the publi exposure that you get in this position. i was surprised at that. so i think it was due not take yourself too seriously. >> we have time for some questions. speak up if you do not have a microphone. just speak up loudly. >> it used to be a status symbol to drive a gm car, not a german car. listening to you, i hope that those days will come back again and driving a gm car will make us all proud outside the u.s. but my question for you -- about six months ago, the ceo of ford

talked about the sink and how they are introducing all this new technology to help the driver in the car. do you think that is a different jeter -- a differentiatorr is it something to do with the cost structure? >> it is the basic value proposition -- good car, a great quality, and is durable. that is why we have made huge progress. the average residual -- what is the car worth up to three years to five years? gm has increased anywhere from 500 basis points to 900 basis points in the last year. we're comfortable with their competition.

-- we are comfortable with our competition. you cannot be good one year or two years. you have to do it over five years or 10 years or 15 years. on star, when i got there, it had not morphed yet. i had one of the senior nextel people go into one star. it was safety and security. the people were crushed and i was like -- this is "i have fallen and i cannot get up" automotive equivalent. believe it or not, if you are driving a gm car with all-star -- with on star on it, i can tell you what your will pressures, your transmission food, the air in your car or your tires. -- your transmission fluid, the

air in your car and your tires. i had a mercedes before this job. i kept having flat tire and there would not tell me which tired was. by the wayis it not warm in here? [laughter] i got up this morning and it was 32 degrees. [laughter] what we will do with on store -- you saw social media. we just loaded it into it. we do not want to create bad habits with distracted driving. i met with the secretary of transportation must make. you will be able to digitize and download -- for each gm car, you have a unique phone number. i did not know that before when to gm. if someone is running errands and you want to get ahold of her if she never turns on her cell phone in the car, i can call the

car and it would texture. it would verbalize to her. hurt texting and we would formalize five basic questions that she could answer yes or no or "i cannot talk now ." we are working on focus groups so that we can bring it without distracting. for example, we were driving out to annapolis. what restaurant do go to? as you know, we have gps. while the car is moving, you cannot punch it in for six reasons. all we have to do is turn on on store and say that you want to go to the same restaurant in annapolis. she was sick, i will download for you. -- she will say, i will download it to you. i think people will look at our

cars are all five-star rating from six perspectives. quality, in terms of the way we do supply chain all-around the world, we have gonto global architectures and global platforms. so the cars that we build in china or germany or the united states are basically the same. we test like no one has done before. the quality of the car has risen dramatically. so how do we differentiate? styling. i take an interest in all of our commercials. i look at every one of them. i want to look at every design of every car. there are certain things that a co should do and there are certain things that they should -- that a ceo should do and there are certain things that they should stay out of. >> in advertising, you mentioned that your predecessor was on tv all the time with ads. we we see you on tv with any ads

or are you not sure yet? >> no, you will never see me on television. going to something i said before, i want to have a hand in them. i do not know how many saw the ads over thanksgiving -- we all fall down? [applause] that was a big risk for us. it reinforced the bankruptcy. but you know evebody has troubles in their life. we had trouble as a company, as a family. to say we've made mistakes -- we failed. we appreciated it and we wanted to say thank you. i got letters and the mills that said, "-- and e-mails the said, "your humble." but you said thank you. why do the banks not say thank you? why did a id, who got $100

billion, not -- why did aig, who got $10 billion, not say thank you? i am very am bald and very inrested. >> time for another question. -- i am very involved and very interested. >> time for another question. >> the culture for gm for years was the gm way. inouye for a long time that you had more brands than you could sustain -- you knew for a long time that you had more brands then you could sustain. >> i talked to all the employees. the news was that we were in bankruptcy in 39 days. i do not think that we did irreparable dage to the brand.

there is a segment of the population that use it as a bad storm that past. so we have to change. for example, we went from four models to eight models. i keep the front page, the cover of "fortune magazine" from the mid-1980's. and they had oldsmobile, pontiac, chevrolet, and buick. there were exactly the same. i want brand identity. i want brand attributes. i want brand equity. now we have what i call swindlg. when your car's look exactly the same -- my dad always said gm cars. when we were not doing so well, we had pontiacs and then you got an oldsmobile and then you to view it. what was the difference with the

gm car? gm is not a brand. it is a holding company. chevrolet is a brand. buick is a brand. now these lines are broad enough so that we can tal about grand avenues associated with styling and reliable value. that is the understated elegance of the buick. before, with it -- before, there were too closely bunched. we needed to intellectualize the marketing. to get your pnt, you say, well, how many engine types to we have? we have 18 engine types. maybe i am not a car guy, but i was an engineer once. what is the difference between a 1.4 liter engine and 1.5 liter engine. it is one-tenth of a leader. [laughter] i know, but why do we have a team dedicated to 1.4 and

another to 1.5? then there is variants, whether it is terrible, gas, diesel -- whether it is turbo, gas, diesel. we have made it too complex. now we are going from 18 down to eight or nine. i know there are reporters in the crowd. what do we do if oil goes to two hundredbarrel or dollars per barrel? last time, we were largely suv- crossover-driven. now we have what we call a t three have -- a three -- a t300. you have the volt and

that is impressive over the next couple of years. -- and the lineup is impressive over the next couple of years. so what do we do if it is $120 next year? that is the question before the executive committee. i have a strong point of view on that and i do not want to influence it. i do think we have a plan that is not in final form, but is giving prefer on how to reposition -- but is getting pretty firm, on how to reposition the company. it will boil down to not so much design and style, the top half of the car, but how do we drive the propulsion system?

propulsion is the key to understanding billions of dollars. we have hydrogen cars that are really cool. if it is that clean, let me put my face down by the muffler, by the exhaust, and i did. and you could look at the guy thinking, oh, god. [laughter] its water. it is just water coming out. but the car costs $500,000. [laughter] in the chemistry of the engine, you have a lot of platinum. platinum is more expensive than gold. the actual chemistry has to be worked out before we can develop these new propulsion systems. but electrification of the car is critical. we have the public -- we have the plug in-hybrid vehicle. we want them in every one of our models. we do not want the cadillac to be left. for example, the view across,

which i think is the finest automobile for its money -- for la crosse, i buick bluecros think it is the finest automobile for its money. the government is looking at 60 plus miles per gallon for 2025. how do we achieve that across the portfolio? bill mcgowan, the founder of mci, was a big man in my life and a great mentor for me. when he made me president, he said, do not try to look into the future. imagine yourself by five years and where you want your company to be and how to get there. this company takes so much investment and development to extend into three years or four

years or five ars increments -- you have to say, what will you do in 200025? -- in 2025? i do not think that they did in 1960 the things to seal the fate of mpredecessors. there were good guys. there were victims of structural cost -- they were good guys. they were victims of structural cost. >> i hope it was water coming out of the exhaust pipe. [laughter] i want to thank you on behalf of the economic club of washington. [applause] le me give you a gift. hold on. >> thank you.

>> it is a map of the district of columbia. thank you all very much for coming out. [applause] 2 >> monday, and look at recent efforts to regulate financial more cuts. it will cover the consumer financial protection bureau, focusing on international groups like the g-20 and other groups in the financial-services industry. live on c-span 2, monday at 12:30. secretary of state hillary clinton and the israeli deputy

prime minister discussed the way forward in the middle east peace process. the remarks friday came just days after u.s. persuaded israel to bring you a freeze on west bank settlement construction to return to the peace talks. this forum is hosted by the brookings institute center for middle east policy. it is 55 minutes. >> tonight we have a real honor of hearing from two distinguished guests. secretary of state hillary rodham clinton and minister of defense and who balk -- ehrud barak.

let me introduce someone who is an inspiration to people in the u.s., israel, and around the world. the other rate, you have read -- you have led efforts to improve children's health. as the secretary of state you have crossed the world multiple times dealing with issues of the utmost importance. you have given courage to so many women that lived in fear. now you turn your head to least peacemaking. that is the most difficult task of all, which is an understatement. i am sure that i speak for everyone tonight when i say we are all thankful that you are secretary of state. personally i wonder when you have time to grieve.

be god's help you will soon a grandmother. i can tell you that it is a life changer and a game changer for the better. madam secretary, this is the first time, and for everything that you do for the country in the world, thank you. join me in giving a warm welcome to a very special lady, hillary rodham clinton. [applause] >> thank you ver >> thank you very much. and i appreciate the introduction. but nothing is imminent so far

as i know. it is a great pleasure for me to be back here. part did this very important forum. i appreciate your introduction. i appreciate the french ship they you and cheryl had given to me and to my family. you have been friends for many years. he is unparalleled as a champion for peace. he represents the best qualities of israel and america. he is absolutely unstoppable. he is dedicated his energy and support to many important causes

and help so many people. he has no deeper passion than the one we are here discussing tonight, a strange thing u.s. /israeli relations and securing a just and lasting peace in the middle east but th. i think pam big bear -- i think pam. -- him. in particular, i thank you for bringing the crucial issues surrounding the middle east. i want to acknowledge all the colleagues from israel who are here. certainly coming you will hear from defense minister barak. there are other members of the issue of the government here. i am delighted that prime

minister fayad is here. he has accomplished a great amount in the short amount of time. yet brought strong leadership to the palestinian authority. >> you do not have to precede cables to know we are meeting during a difficult time in the pursuit of peace in the middle thet but them i under staind

frustrations of many feof your across the world. i want to focus tonight on the way forward. and have a resolution that since the conflict once and for all and what it will take to finally realize that the illicit but essential. i want to offer the deepest condolences of the american people for the lives lost in the recent fires in northern in israel. israelis are always among the first to lend a hand to an emergency strikes anywhere in the world. when burns, said the offer help. it was remarkable to watch. turkey sent planes.

egypt and jordan donated chemicals and equipment. the palestinian authority despite firefighters. the night his state was also part of the effort, deploying expert firefighters and thousands of gallons of chemicals and suppressants. it was testament to the deep and enduring bonds that unite our two countries and the partnership between our governments and people. the night is states will be there when israel is threatened. to israel'smmitment security and its future is rock- solid and unwavering. that will not change. from our first days in office, the obama administration has

reaffirmed his commitment for me and press -- commitment. for me and president obama, it is a deeply held personal conviction. over the last two years under president obama's leadership, united states has expanded our cooperation with israel we have focused in particular on helping israel meet the most consequential threats to its future. our security relationship has grown broader. we have not just work to maintain the military and, we have increased it to new advances like the iron dome, a short range brought the defense system that will help protect

israeli homes and cities. there are exchanges and joint exercises. for israel and for the region, there may be no greater strategic threat and the prospects of a nuclear arms in rahm. you just heard my husband speaking to that. let me restate the united states is determined to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. from our partners, we have implemented sanctions this fight is being felt in tehran. they have faced the tough choices as the theme for this forum for them.

we get stepped up efforts to block the transfer of dangerous weapons and financing. i ran and the proxy's are not the only threat to regional stability or to israel's long- term security. the conflict between israel and the palestinians and between israel and arab neighbors is a source of tension and an obstacle to prosperity and opportunity for all the people of the region. it denies the legitimate aspirations of the palestinian people. it poses a threat to israel's future security prevent it is at odds with the interest of the united states.

they have convinced some that this conflict can be waited out were largely ignored. this view is wrong and dangerous. the trends that results are in danger in the decision of a jewish and democratic state in the historic homeland. israel they should not have to choose between preserving both elements of their dream, that that day is approaching. at the same time, the evolving technology of war, especially the exchanging reach, means that adobe is increasingly difficult city guaranteed the security throughout the country without implementing peace agreements that in these threat.

there is growing support for violence ideology. it undermines the prosperity of the middle east. the united states look at these trends. we conclude that ending this conflict once and for all and achieving a comprehensive regional peace is important for safeguarding israelis future. we also look at our friends the palestinians. we remembered the painful history of the people who never

had the state of their own. we are renewed in our determination to help them finally realize there a legitimate aspiration. the lack of peace, the occupation that began in 1967, continue to deprive the people of dignity and self determination. did this is unacceptable. ultimately, it is unsustainable for bo. for all the people of the reading, it is in their interest to end this conflict and bring a lasting comprehensive peace to the middle east based on to state or to people. for two years, yet heard me emphasize that negotiations between the parties is the only path that will succeed in

securing their respective aspirations for them this remains true today. there is no alternative other than reaching mutual agreement. the stakes are too high comedy pain too deep, and the issues too complex for any other approach them. they had a long way to go and they have not yet made the difficult decisions that peace requires. like many of you, i regret that we have not gotten far their -- farther faster. yesterday, i met with negotiator

ourd underscored support. it is time to grapple with the core issues of the conflict. starting with my meetings this week, and this is exactly what we are dealing. we will also deepen our strong commitment supporting the state building at work with the palestinian authority and urged the state of the region to develop the content of the arab peace initiative and to work toward implementing his decision. over recent months, prime minister netanyahu and abbas have met face to face several times prepare a i have been privileged to be present during their meetings.

i am also had the chance to talk to each leader privately. these were meaningful talks that build new clarity about the gap that must be bridged. both sides decided to get there to pursue a framework agreement that would establish the compromises on of permanent status' issues and pave the way for a final peace treaty. reaching this goal one not be easy. the sides are real and persistent. the way to get there is by engaging in good faith with the full complexities of the core issues and by working to narrow the gaps between the two sides. by doing this, the parties can begin to rebuild confidence, it demonstrates their seriousness, and hopefully find enough common

ground on which to eventually launch direct nicosia asians and achieve that framework. the parties have indicated they want the united states can continue -- to continue our efforts. the united states cannot be a passive participant. we will force them to lay out there is used without delay with a real specificity. we will work to narrow the gap, asking the tough questions and expecting substantive answers. in the context of our private conversations, we will offer our own ideas in a bridging proposals were inappropriate. we entered this with clear

expectations of both parties. , me say a few words about some of the important aspect of these issues. on borders and security -- the land between the jordan river and the mediterranean is finance. -- finite and each side might know which parts belong to each. the messy love -- they must agree on a single line. the palestinian leaders must be able to show their people of that the occupation will be over. israeli leaders must offer their

people to recognize the borders that protect israel's security. they must be able to demonstrate that the compromises needed to make peace when not meet israel will merkel. -- vulnerable. it must deal effectively with new and a. emerging threat families and on both sides must go confident and live free from fear. on refugees, this is a difficult and emotional issue. there must be a just and permanent solution that meets thing means of both sides. on settlements, and this is an issue that must be dealt with by the parties along with the other final status issues. the position of the united states has not changed and will

not change. like every american administration for decades, we do not except the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. we believe the action is corrosive not only to peace efforts, but to israel's future itself. finally on jerusalem which is important for jews, muslims, and christians. there will be no peace without an agreement on this, the most sensitive of all the issues. the religious interested people of all faiths around the world must be respected and protected . we believe their good faith, the party sinn mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations for both parties for

jerusalem and safeguard its taxes for people around the world. these issues are woven to get there. considering a larger strategic picture makes it easier to lay the compromises that must be made on both sides. we are not moving forward in a backing. from day one, the obama administration has recognized the importance of making progress initially reenforcing tracks. negotiations between the parties in institutions as they prepare own state.ern their it is caught in some negotiators and helps create a climate for progress. even as we engage both sides with an eye toward eventually restarting direct negotiations, legality and our support for the

efforts. we recognize that a palestinian state achieved through negotiations is inevitable. i want to commend them for their leadership in this effort. under the palestinian authority, security has improved dramatically. services are being delivered. the economy is growing. it is true that much work remains. -- to reverse a long history of corruption and mismanagement. palestinians are crowded the progress they have a sheet. the world bank concluded that if they maintain the momentum in building institutions and delivering public services, it is a "well-positioned for the

establishment of a state at any point in the near future. the night did states is continuing our efforts to support this important work along with other international partners including the government of israel. to bring together key players to focus on solving challenges, we have launched an initiative, partners for a new beginning chaired by madeleine albright and walter isaacson. we are working with the authorities on a range of issues. i was pleased to announce the transfer of 1 senger $50 million in direct assistance to authorities. this began drilling new and much needed wells.

with recent israeli approval, we soon will begin several water in protection projects in gaza. these and other efforts to expand water treatment have already helped well about the palestinian families gain access to clean water the united states is working with the authority, israel and international partners to ease the situation in gaza and increase the flow of commercial goods. we are pleased with israel's recent decision to allow more exports from gaza. it will foster legitimate economic growth and there. this is an important and overdue step. we look forward to seeing it implemented.

we look forward to working with israel and the authority on further improvements while maintaining pressure on hamas. we recognize israel and renouncing violence and the fighting by past agreements. this is the only path to achieve palestinian dreams of independence. security forces did what bogart. where, and play with new security that contributes to the economic position as they continue to be more professional and capable, even to israel to facilitate the efforts.

we hope to see a curtailment of intrusions. four of the progress on the grounds, a stubborn truth remains. well economic and progress is important and necessary, it is not a substitute for political resolution. the aspirations of the palestinian people will never be satisfied. israel will never enjoy a recognized borders until there is a two-stage solution that ensures dignity and justice for all. this outcome is in the interest of israel's neighbors. the arab states have a pivotal role to play in ending the conflict. egypt and jordan have been viable partners for peace.

we will also continue our diplomacy across the region and with our partners. senator mitchell will be this week and ford jerusalem and then will visit another -- a lot of capitals. the arab states have an interest in a stable and secure region. they should take steps that show israelis, palestinians, and their own people that peace is possible and that there will be in tangible benefits if it is succeed. in make it easier for the palestinians to pursue a final agreement. their cooperation is necessary for any future peace between israel and syria. we continue to support the vision of the arab peace initiative, a vision of a better future for all the people. this proposal rests on the basic bargain that peace between

israel and her neighbors will bring normalization from all the arab states. it is time to advance this vision with actions and words. israel said -- should seize the opportunity while it is available. know how much the united states and other nations around the world work to see a resolution to this conflict, although the parties themselves will be able to achieve it. sometimes, i think both parties seem to think we can prepa. we cannot. even if we could, we would not because it is only a negotiated agreement between the parties that will be sustainable predella the parties themselves have to wanted. the people of the region must

have to decide to move beyond the path that cannot change and embrace the future they can shape to get their the -- they can shape. they have not been ready to take the necessary steps. going forward, they must take responsibility and make the difficult decisions that peace requires. this begins with a sincere effort to see the world from the other side eyes, to try to understand their perspective and position. palestinians must appreciate israel's legitimate concerns. israelis must accept the lead tenant territorial aspirations

of the palestinian people. ignoring the other side needs is self-defeating. to have a credible negotiating partner, each side must give the other the room to build a constituency for progress. part of this is recognizing that its trade the and palestinian leaders each have their own domestic considerations that neither side can afford to ignore. it takes two sides to agree on a deal and to size to implement a deal. both need credibility and standing with their own people to pull it off. this is also about how the leaders prepare their own people for compromise. demonizing the other side will only make it harder to bring each public around to an eventual agreement. by the same token, both sides need to give the other credit

when they take a hard step. as we grapple with the core issues, in each side will have to make difficult decisions. do they deserve credit when they do so. it is not just be the united states that acknowledges news that are made. to demonstrate their commitment to peace, prime minister netanyahu and prime minister -- president abbas should take the steps and focus on the four questions even in a time when we are not talking directly. to demonstrate their commitment to pace, leaders should stop trying to assign blame for the next failure in focus instead on what they need to do to make succeed preventts

unilateral efforts are not helpful and undermine trasust. the united states will not shy away from saying so. america is serious about peace. we know the road forward will not be easy. we are convinced that peace is necessary and possible we will be persistent and press forward. we will push the parties to grapple with the core issues. we will work with them to continue laying the foundation for a future palestinian state. we will redouble our diplomacy. when one way is lost, we will seek another. we've won not lose hope.

peace is worth the struggle. it is worth these setbacks and the heartache. a just and lasting peace will transform the region. israelis will be able to live in security and have confidence in their future. across the middle east, an advocate of peace and coexistence will be strengthened while old arguments will be drained of their venom and their extremists will be exposed and marginalized. we must keep our eyes trained on future and recognize it. this is what makes the compromises worth it for both sides. we are now in the holiday

season, a time for reflection and fellowship. the national christmas tree is lighting up the sky . jewish families have just completed the eight days of hanukkah. the festival of lights of every- even when the future but the market, there is light and hope to be found through perseverance and faith the bill might -- and thefaith. abraham is the father of all the faces of the holy land. he is a reminder that despite our differences, our history, and our futures are deeply

intertwined. today we should remember these stories. sometimes you'll be asked to watch difficult roads together. sometimes the roads will be lined with naysayers, second- guess sears and rejections. the with faith in our common mission, we can and will come through the darkness to get there. that is the only way toward peace. that is what i hope we will keep in mind as we make this journey, this difficult journey toward a destination that awaits. thank you. may god bless you. [applause]

thank you madam secretary for your very inspiring words. my wife and the secretary or kissing so i will shut up. [laughter] i am proud to act reduce a former prime minister. for the past three years he has served as the deputy prime

minister and minister of defence. he has also served as chief of staff and is one of israel's most decorated soldiers. he fought in the battlefields and courageously has been fighting for peace, working very closely with this administration to move the peace process forward. process for thinking you -- thank you for giving us the opportunity. [applause] >> secretary clinton, the guests, and friends, good evening. last week, members of the jewish people of the world came

together in their homes to mark the holy day. candles were lit and the lights in the house were lit with the glow of hope. each year the candles of hanukkah signify struggle for the mutual freedom, celebrating the time of the spirit and of the idea of this hope. the world of the maccabees changed history. they built an independent, so bring jewish state. the victory brought hope to our people after years of exile.

we are fortunate to live in a generation that witnesses the miracle of israel's survival. isael's existed in it that strong and vibrant, the balding and striving towards the horizon. bearing in mind our painful history old as well as recent, we have an obligation to ensure our safety and strength. the united states is israel's leading strategic partner, strongest ally, and best friend. the u.s. is committed to preserving israel's character and jewish state. a sophisticated and fall full america believes the middle east should be is essential, but not

enough. america will demonstrate its determination to stand up to enemies of israel and the bar moderate neighbors. former prime minister understood and recognized the great importance of nurturing a strategic relationship with a major power. this, if you will, is one of the foundations of our nation's security doctrine. founders of this movement were people of both vision and stature. they left behind the old order with a single goal, to create a modern society in the historic land of their forefathers. they strove to create an open society that would be a grisettes it society -- would be

a progressive society. it would be jewish and democratic in the spirit of the declaration of independence up 18 -- of 1948. there would be a society where where young's -- israelis would be proud to associate. it would be a country that leads in science, technology, education, and culture. equality for all, human dignity, and quality of life. we can all be proud of the achievements the state of israel has accomplished until now. day by day, israelis are pushing the foothills and turning the impossible into the possible.

from construction of solar energy -- the start that nature is erupting. as 2011 approaches, we find ourselves at a critical juncture. we have a dialogue towards a political agreement with our neighbors. we cannot ignore the new realities of the world. wikileaks will deeply affect international dialogue. in iran where the few threaten

to destabilize its main elements of the current world order, nuclear proliferation -- faith in these new realities will require fall planning and combined action all leading members of the world community. i hope this cooperation will materialize. the center, the better. for the last 2000 years, three times each day jews have prayed and raised their eyes towards have been saying, "may heat make peace and bring peace on us." it is something that is not just talk about. it is prayed for. this is not a religion, but a means to realize a vision. there is a note back to him in the region.

without peace and without -- without peace, both israelis and palestinians will continue to perpetuate the cycle of violence and bloodshed. the alternatives are far worse. nature dictates the need for tough decisions. all of these alternatives is the immediate and clear danger of israel's right of self-defense. our security is undermined by a loss at hezbollah.

we must secure israel's safety and future in a tough environment. when we accomplish this, thanks to the military might of the idf and the unity of jewish people throughout jerusalem. we also need political wisdom. the world is changing in front of our eyes. it is no longer willing to accept even temporarily our continued war between two people. what is to be done? it is essential that israel will have a comprehensive strategy in which we take the initiative to advance israel's goals. i recount them one by one. number one, first and foremost,

maintaining our spatial relationship with the united states of america in order to strengthen our defense and ensure our qualitative means as well as protecting our posture in the world. number two, increasing cooperation and deepen common interest with the moderate leadership. creating a political horizon by continuing to isolate hamas. number four, established the foundation to beef up security. this will encompass all the coalition's, finalize all claimants, and bring an end to the conflict as a whole. number five, pro-active attempts to peacefully remove soldiers.

number six, building eight multi-layer interception system against rockets. this can significantly reduced the damage from future attacks and deter future aggression. number seven, last but not least, an event in nuclear iran. iran has become the world's alternate terror, arming, training, and financing. they are determined to reach nuclear weapons and determined to antagonize the jewish world. diplomacy should remain the first tool of choice. it remains essential not to

remove any options from the table. i would be happy to hear that president clinton shares with us and with president obama at the white house. what guides us in the peace process? the nature of the challenge is sharp, painful, and simple. 43 years ago in a world thrust upon us, we took over land and territories with great emotional significance for the jewish people. but another people was there. one that numbers 1 million and has its own plight. this requires decisions and answers. 11 million people live between the jordan and the mediterranean. 7.5 million israelis and the

rest are palestinians. there is only one political entity called israel controlling all this area, it will become inevitable either among a jewish state or a democratic one, it this palestinian bloc would vote it is a democratic state. if they will not vote, it is not a democratic state. sit by securing peace and security, we are not doing the palestinians a favor. we are simply working towards ensuring the future identity and success of israel. we are shaped by assets, not by sound bites and slogans.

a, at the dead of states for two people. -- two states for two people. see, holding the majors ultimate loss under israeli sovereignty and bring the isolating supplements back home. d, solving the refugee problem within the palestinian state. e, we will discuss with reference to western jews and the jewish suburbs which are not heavily populated. agreed upon solutions in the holy basin. f, signing a new agreement that

declares an end to the conflict and fidelity of future claims. g, this must be based on strict security arrangements. it is a tough neighborhood. it is not for the week. -- it is not for the weak. the palestinians must knowledge that they have no chance of defeating or weakening israel. our experience dictates the security arrangements must include compelling elements. preventing rockets and missiles from entering the west bank. providing effective operational answers for future potential unconventional attacks from our

narrow eastern border. having spent most of my adult life fighting for israel in uniform, i allowed myself to state loud and clear that there is no contradiction professional or otherwise between the two state solution and the security of israel. on the contrary, the two states for two people is the key condition for enabling israel to continue developing the tools for a modern society. the pessimists fills difficulty in every opportunity. the optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty. i am aware of the difficulty, but i am also optimistic and believe it can be done.

this critical hour may also be the finest hour for the people on both sides. despite good faith efforts, together with demonstrations, we were unable to launch the second moratorium in 90 days. that should not keep us from losing sight of what needs to be done. we must find a way to renew negotiations with the palestinian leadership headed by president abbas and prime minister fayed. we need to overcome suspicions on all sides. in israel, we have to go beyond egos, expand the government if needed, and brace ourselves for the immediate task of moving decisively forward. i believe that the coming few weeks can enable us to find a

way to make it better. millions of eyes in the middle east and around the world are looking at us, expecting us to do just this. i acknowledge thisati am doing everything in my power to ensure that this opportunity will not be missed. we must leave up to -- we must live up to our responsibilities to provide leadership and not lose touch with reality. paraphrasing president kennedy, [unintelligible] it is the one most consistent with our character and courage. i pledge to you that we will continue to struggle for israel's security by working determinedly to achieve peace.

the lord will give its people strength. amen. thank you very much. shabot and shalom. [applause] >> in london, politicians debate the england debt crisis. tonight, a former member of parliament who writes for the times of london. "q & a" this weekend at 8:00

p.m. on c-span. the former british prime minister talks about a first to force utilities to return profits to customers. prime minister's questions tonight on c-span. on tuesday, the florida senator gave his farewell speech on the senate floor. he was appointed by governor charlie crist. his remarks are about 15 minutes. quorum call be rescind. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lemieux: i rise to speak to the body i have been a privileged of. representing floridians has been the privilege of a lifetime. now that privilege is coming to eangdz.

standing here on the floor of the united states senate to address my colleagues just one last time, i am both hum balinged and grateful. humbled by this tremendous institution, by its work, and by the statesmen i have had the opportunity to serve with, whom i know only from afar but now grateful that i can call those same men and women my colleagues. nothing ever worth doing -- my time here is no exception. the past 16 months i have asked the folks that work with plea to try to get six years of service out of that time. they have worked tirelessly to do that. my chief of staff, my deputy chief of staff vivian martinez, state director carlos robello, ben moncrief, maureen jaeger, brian walsh, frank walker,

spencer wayne, victor sarvino, taylor booth and many, many other have made our time here worthwhile and i thank all of them. i especially thank vivian and maureen who left their families and gave up precious time with their children to come to washington to support me in these efforts. i'm also thankful to the people who work in our state office. time and time again when i travel around florida, i am encountered by people who have received such a warm reception from the men and women who serve us in florida and help people deal with problems with the federal government. i am grateful for their work. senator mcconnell has provided me with opportunities beyond my expectations. he is a great leader, and i am grateful to him. senators alexander, burr, cornyn, kyl, mccain, corker, many others have taken me under their wing and mentored me, and

i am appreciative of them. chairman rockefeller and levin, i thank for the work in your committees. senators whitehouse, baucus, we have worked together in a commonsense way to pass legislation that's good for the american people, and i am appreciative of your efforts. senator mel martinez ably held the seat before me. he has been generous in his advice and counsel. senator nelson and his wife grace have been warm and welcoming mikey and i to washington. i am thankful for your courtesy. i want to thank governor crist. he has afforded me tremendous opportunities for public srvetion and i am grateful. i want to say a special thank you to my parents. my father, my grandfather, rather, in 1951 drove his 1949 pontiac from waterbury,

connecticut to fort lauderdale, florida, with his wife and five kids piled in the back. he didn't know anybody. he didn't have a jofnlt but he went there to make a better life for his family. he worked in the trades and construction. he built houses. he taught my father the same thing. as my father worked in the hot florida sun, he had one ambition for his son, that i would get to work in the air conditioning. i have achieved so much for because of their sacrifice. they sent me to college and to law school and i will forever be grateful for what they have done for me. my most heartfelt appreciation go to my wife mikey. when i learned of this appointment, i met her at the door of our home in tallahassee and she was crying. she was not just crying because she was happy. she was crying because she was worried. we at the time had three small

sons, max, taylor and chase, 6, 4, and 2 at tevment and she andi knew something that others didn't know, which is that we were going to have another baby. that baby was born here in washington, our daughter, baby madeleine. throughout all of my travels, she has been an unfailing support for me, and i love her dearly. i am appreciative to her. it has been the privilege of my life to serve here, but i would not be filling my charge in my final speech if i didn't tell you what weighs on my mind and lays upon my heart about the direction of this country. so what i say to you now is with all due respect, but it is with the candor that it deserves. the single-greatest threat to the future of our republic and the prosperity of our people is this congress's failure to control its spending. in my maiden speerchg i lamented a world where my children would

one day come to me and say that they were going to find an opportunity in another country instead of staying here in america because those opportunities were better there. in one year's time, that lament has proven to be too optimistic because the challenge that confronts us will not wait until my children grow up. when i came to congress just 15 months ago, our national debt was $11.7 trillion. today it stands at $13.7 trillion. it has gone up $2 trillion in 15 months. it took this country 200 years to go $1 trillion in debt. our interest payment on our debt service is nearly $200 billion now. at the end of the decade, when our debt will be nearly $26 trillion, that interest payment

will be $900 billion. when that interest payment is $900 billion, this government will fail. and long before that time, the world markets will anticipate that, and our markets will crash. this is not hyperbole. it is the truth. not since world war ii has this country faced a greater threat. not since the civil war has this threat come from within. how has congress arrived at this moment? for the past 40 years it's spent more than it could take. it has borrowed from social security and foreign governments, failing to make the honest choices and prioritizing what it should spend. budgeting in washington seems to be nothing more than adding to last year's budget. we are funding the priorities of the 1-9d60's, 1970's, 1980's,

1990's without any real evaluation as to whether or not those are still good priorities and certainly not as to whether they're being done efficiently and effectively. it would be as if a teenage child received not only all the gifts on their christmas lits list this year but the gifts on all of their christmas gifts going back to when they were three. it is clear congress is capable of solving this problem with business as usual. what is needed is across-the-board spending cap to right the ship. an across-the-board spend cap will necessitate oversight and require prioritization. congress will finally have to do what businesses and families do all across this country: make tough choices. make ends meet. i have proposed such a cap. i have proposed going back to 2007-level spending across the board. was our spending in 2007 so

austere that we could not live with it just three years later? if we did, we would balance the budget in 12013, and we would cut the not debt in half by 2020. and you would save america. unlike most problems that congress addresses, this problem is uniquely solvable by congress. congress can't win wars, only the brave men in our military, who we especially remember on this day, december 7, of all those who've served for our country in all of our wars who keep us safe and free -- only those men and women can win a war. congress cannot lead us out of recession. only job creators or businesses can create jobs. but this problem is solely of congress's making, and uniquely

solvable by this body. what congress should do is strengthen its oversight. the lack of oversight in washington is breathtaking. evaluate all federal programs, keep what works, fix what you should, get rid of the rest, return the money to the people, and use the rest to pay down this cataclysmic debt. the recent work of the debt commission is a good start, and i commend my senate colleagues who voted for this measure. it was courageous for them to do so. but out-of-control spending is not just a threat because it is unsustained. it is also changing who we are as americans. remember our founders told us that the powers delegated to the federal government were few panned defined. -- were few and defined.

the powers to the states numerous, indefinite, extending to the causes that concern the lives, liberties and property of the people. the size of the federal government is corrosive to the american spirit. the good intentions of members of congress to solve every real or perceived problem with a new federal program and the false light of praise that attaches to giving away of the people's money is endangering our republic. every new program chips away at what it means to be an american, harms our spirit and replaces our self-reliance with dependency, supplants an opportunity ethic with an entitlement culture. it is at its face un-american. it is not the government's role to deliver happiness. rather, it's the role to stand clear of that path to allow our people to pursue that god-given

right. what has created our prosperity, after all, is not our government. it is our free-market system of capitalism. it is through the healthy cut and thrust of the marketplace that new technologies, new jobs and new wealth is created. through that dynamic process, some win and some lose. but it allows all of our people, regardless of their race, gender, creed, color or background the opportunity to succeed or fail. and it ensures for us that unique expression, "only in america" is not just a refrain from the past but an anthem for the future. can you imagine the tragedy if the downfall of the american experiment was caused by a failure of this congress to control its spending? the challenge of this generation is before you and it is not

beyond your grasp. there is nothing that we as americans cannot do. we have fought imperial japan and nazi germany at the same time and beaten both. we have put a man on the moon. we have mapped the human genome. and in the spare bedrooms and garages and dorm rooms of our people, our citizens have created the greatest inventions and the greatest businesses that the world has ever known which have employed millions of people and allowed them to pursue their dreams all in the freest and most open society in the history of man. we are that shining city on the hill. we are that beacon of freedom. we are that last best hope for mankind upon which god has shed his grace. president theodore roosevelt said that one of the greatest gifts that life