she is one of the most sought after conservative personalities on the college speaker circuit. whether on college campuses or national television, pt the liberal full two things she can take her on. ladies and gentlemen, thank god she is my friend is all i can say, ann coulter. [applause] >> thank you. i have a bittersweet award tonight. it is the "road to keith olbermann -- ode to keith olbermann." i keep trying to what rachel, but just sit back and say keith would have been so much crazier. you are probably wondering why

i am giving this award tonight. there are a number of reasons. first, but keith and i are girls. [laughter] we also but went to college in new york. i went to the ivy league cornell school of arts and sciences and keith went to the old macdonald's cornell school of agriculture. i would not mention it, but keith is compulsively telling people that he went to the ivy league cornell, desperate to have people think of him as a major egg ahead. of course, never ever reading anything from a left-wing bloc, is not a way to make people think of you as a heavy duty intellectual. i am and early keith watcher. i know a lot of you johnny-come- latelies are said he is gone now. by the time msnbc fired keith, about 80% of his audience were

right wingers. to laugh at him. i saw the promise in that man. [laughter] i am hoping that someday our descendants should form a group like the forty-niners. the daughters of the american revolution. descendants of the early keith watchers. if i had to choose -- if you tell me to choose one at the tip to decide -- to describe keith olbermann, i could not do it. but if i had three adjectives, i would say he is prissy, pompous, and hysterical . that is a dynamite combo platter. >> shut the hell up. >> sadly, even msnbc finally

realized that not been popular in high school is not a good enough reason to have a tv show. [laughter] we are sorry for what the popular football players did to you, but you cannot speak for them just by renting for one hour on tv every night. throughout his troubled career at msnbc, keith brought to bear all the vast knowledge of the large by being a second-tier sports shows on a cable tv show. this is keep in his prime offering his objective assessments of a candidate for u.s. senate in massachusetts. >> we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, t bagging supporter for balance against women. at any other time in our history this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives.

>> with an endorsement like that, scott brown became the first republican senator from massachusetts in 38 years. [applause] >> shot the hell up. [laughter] >> it was quite an accomplishment considering he was replacing a senator who drove off a bridge and drilled a girl. keith's degree came in handy when he announced his fascinating theory that rush limbaugh was responsible for timothy megabyte -- timothy mcveigh bombing the federal building in oklahoma city. >> what was the cause of the obama city bombing talk radio or bill clinton and janet reno's hands-on management of the waco compound? obviously, the answer is talk radio, specifically rush

limbaugh's hate radio. frankly, you have blood on your hands now and you have had it for 15 years. >> ironically, chief is going to have a blood removing hands cleanser as sponsor for his sure to be a hit run away tv show. asking me to to pick a favorite, keith olbermann's hissy fit is like asking a african mother to pick her favorite child. moore to pick his favorite dessert. out of all this cries for help, this is one of my favorites. >> everything you said about iraq yesterday and everything you will say is a deception except for this brutal bolt -- perpetuating this war indefinitely. war today, war tomorrow, war forever.

a man with any self-respect having revealed such an evil secret would resign and flee the country. even the remaining credibility about iraq. mr. bush, our presence in iraq must end even if it means your resignation, even if it means your impeachment, even if it means a different republican to serve out your term. >> he would at all as you at bush, but he throws like a girl. -- he would have thrown a shoe having been in -- giving consideration to these nominations, our judges have a verdict. the winner is, the rush limbaugh clip. ♪

like the corner of my mind >> you have blood on your hands now. you have had that for 15 years. >> misty watercolor the memories ♪ >> unfortunately, keith could not be here with us tonight. it is going on a little long. he could not be here with us tonight he is updating his myspace page. joining us in his stead is steve king. [applause] he is on the house judiciary committee. you are a high flying flag.

you are the emblem of the land i love, the home of the free and the brave ♪ >> he is my favorite congressman. [applause] >> thank you. i am here because i drew the short straw. little bit of a math. i am the ranking member. it is a special honor to be here to a except the "ode to olbermann award" who is a special friend of the media research center. is there any other personality alive today who offered more fund-raising fodder than this man? he was like a our personal atm.

i need you. i have a campaign coming up. you have been banished off to a network i'm going to mention and it will be the first time you have heard of it. i accepted the reward in behalf of keith. this 20th-century tocqueville. their losses current tv's game. when you think of a career path, this is an exit ramp to irrelevance. he is -- he has gone from irrelevant to unheard of. only the biodiesel reserve al gore could be happy to have to keep on his payroll today. i made that up on the table.

he is the last person who thinks out gore knows what he is talking about. i suspects he will start savaging us as soon as this show is running. if no one here some scream, does he exist? [laughter] i am glad we have him. i know you are surprised to hear me say that. he is testimony to the brilliance of our bill of rights, our freedom of speech. we as conservatives will be the first in line to defend his right to speak what is on his mind with a knowledge that the more he speaks what is on his mind, the less we realize there is actually stuff in that. i appreciate the opportunity to except this reward. on behalf of -- that's a very much.

-- thank you very much. [applause] >> our final award is the damned those conservatives award. it celebrates the new tone of civility to our daily political conversation. if there's one thing liberals will not abide, it is any sort of language that brings peace into the community. our first nominee is ed schultze. you probably do not know who is it yet not been incarcerated. he is on msnbc. here is his very short -- civil appraisal of health care. >> republicans lie.

they would rather make money off of your dead corpse. they like it when that woman has cancer and they do not have anything for her. >> i think we have an example of why democrats are not good at business. [laughter] how do you make money off of a corpse? it is probably easier than a alive corpse. imagine said it getting his m.b.a. -- i am going to go for a 30 year-old single guy. it will appeal to -- dead corpses. he is calling -- carving out a niche for himself. he is rejecting the trade mart, crazy, and going for stupidity.

our next nominee is -- i am unsure you never heard of him. i thought it was a type of lebanese food. it turns out that when they dumped keith, they had no per hour at 6:00 p.m. they found somebody who was not only developmentally disabled but also physically repulsive. here is his thoughtful analysis of the republican party. >> we start with the party of hate. it has been running on hate for the last 50 years. what black person, immigrant or muslim in their right mind would vote for the republican

party? they might as well say they hate themselves. >> is that one person? the gay black immigrant? if that is the audience, i think he is on its way to a highly rated show. at least he will be the dead corpse guy. [laughter] why does he limit that to the last 50 years? could have to do with the fact he wanted to avoid mentioning the 200 years the democrats spent running on slavery and segregation? [applause] as i point out in my magnificent new book. liberals always wait for the fight to be over. they have been fighting on the wrong side. 100 years later they claim of the credit. abortion will be outlawed and

democrats will be saying they were the pro-life party. our third nomination is another host on ms nbc. most of you know him as -- chris matthews is most famous for being the dumbest person on tv. here is chris matthews who has the right to condescend to no one. he is tendered -- interviewing michele bachman with all the courtesy extended to a woman and a member of the house of representatives. >> give the same answer. as someone put you under a trance? you give me the same answer no matter what question.

>> i think the american people are the ones who are finally speaking tonight. we are coming out of our trans. we are coming out of our nightmare. people are thrilled. the thrill is not so good on you anymore. [applause] >> chris matthews, the finest newsman of his generation. the winner is, of the "damn those conservatives," ed shultz. [o fortuna] >> the republicans live. they want to see you dead. they would rather make money off of your corpse.

♪ >> if he could not be with us tonight. to accept his award, there is a "glee" marathon. excepting on his behalf will be one of the first man to challenge obamacare who got a judge to rule that it is unconstitutional and the man who was going to be our next president if i have anything to say about it. ken. proud to be an american where at least i know i am free i will not forget the man who died who made that -- did the right to me i will stand up next to you and

defend here still today, there ain't no doubt i love this land , god bless the usa ♪ >> after ann coulter. i come to these dinners for the music. as i am sure you can imagine, i get a lot of invitations to speak enjoined people for dinners and deserts and drinks. tonight i was delivered to deliver the keynote address to his fan club. after all six people canceled, i was available to come tonight. i am glad to be with you all. [applause] as i'm sure steve king would agree, mrc is a great ally to

have. accountability is a nice thing. when you get as many reporters and loggers and talk-show hosts trying to sink you as your only goal, truth be damned, you come to appreciate the folks at mrc with their truth telling efforts. [applause] we do not have the manpower to correct every propaganda, i'm sorry, media outlets that is willing to say anything at no matter how distant from the truth to try to discredit the work we're doing to protect the constitution and the law. what a concept. [applause] the reason ed is not here is

because he does not like to be in front of large crowds. it is good he is on msnbc. that is helpful. i am truly honored to accept the "damn those conservatives award." ed, one thing i want you to get straight, my suit is not about health care. it is about liberty. we will see what the supreme court. god bless all of you. [applause] >> thank you, vice president. [applause]

it has a ring to it. you have to admit it. i cannot thank everyone. i do have to think a few people. the production work in the back. i want to thank all the young ladies who were so involved in so many aspects. melissa lopez, our beautiful trophy lady, rhiannon. jessica, all of our staff. the people -- david, larry, that whole staff. brent banker with the news and analysis division. they are all heroes. now we come to the clip of the year. you have seen the finalists. we are going to give awards

without using meathead's name. i want to invite back up to the stage the three presenters and the five except yours. please give them a round of applause. andrew, ann coulter, eric, mark, phillips, steve king, -- do we have everybody? this is how it works. these are my judges. you are going to hear the finalists in the four categories. you're not going to say anything. do not say anything.

run it out afterwards. at that point, when i tell you, that is when you make noise. you make all the noise you like. the know -- more boy's bed -- noise the better. then the judge will decide who the loudest mouth of the mall is. we will give the award. first we will run the winner of the obamagasm. >> he is standing above the world. >> second, no noise. the winner of the tea party from hell. tavis smiley. forhey're being arrested calling people a niggaer,

spitting on people. >> think it over. >> the winner of the zero burman award. -- olbermann award. >> finally the winner of the -- ed schultz. >> republicans lie. see you dead. they want to make money off your course. >> are we ready? can i hear you? here we go. number one, thomas. [applause] #2, tavis smiley.

[applause] number 3, kieth olbermann. [applause] number 4, ed shultz. [applause] [whistling]

are you ready? the think it was close? the first announcement is that as we tabulated the result, it was clear that you are all races. -- racist. it was unanimous after a bit of debate. the winner is ed schultz. [applause]

can we play at one more time? can we do it one more time? no, ok. there is one more question. >> they would rather make money off of your dead corpse. >> there you go. one more question for the night, the bars are open in the back. >> i present to you the coolest man in the history of the universe, the outlaw. [applause]

>> next, the oral argument on arizona's immigration law. after that, a house hearing on sales tax. tim pawlenty talks about ways to reduce the deficit. on newsmakers, tom coburn. he was a member of the gang of six. he has been working on a deficit plan. he talks about the nation's debt situation, the work of the gain of six, and his involvement with the nevada senator.

>> he was forced to resign. the ethics committee report has, you name it, stop the affair. it discusses whether you are an inch -- intermediary of how to get mr. hampton out. >> that is totally inaccurate. i got a phone call wednesday from hampton asking me to communicating a message to john. i said i did not know. i called john and left a message. the story you hear is not accurate. >> this group known as crew has filed an ethics complaint. have you been contacted? >> i have testified before the committee. i have no worries. i would do what i did again.

we put to families back together with multiple children. those marriages are stable right now. i am proud of what i did and the way i did it. >> you can see the entire interview with the senator on the "newsmakers." 10:00 a.m. on c-span. it is also available online at c-span.org. on thursday, the supreme court ruled 5-3 that arizona and other states can revoke the business licence of the companies that hire illegal immigrants. the decision upholds the legal arizona workers act of 2007 and gives more authority to states to act against illegal immigrants. the decision is a defeat for the chamber of commerce and the obama mid -- administration that argued it is a federal matter. justice kagen recuse yourself.

>> this provides a comprehensive scheme for dealing with those issues. that characterization is obviously out because congress provided for and exhausted a bedroom at that of bringing to the attention of federal authorities problems and worker authorization. the method by which they should be adjudicated. it is under control of federal

activity and judicial review. it goes to the federal courts of appeals. sanctioning provisions are explicit and balanced. for a good reason. we have to realize that if you over in force in one direction, if he tried to deter the hiring of unauthorized workers, you run a risk of causing employers to bear on the side of not hiring others who are pauperize the may have been falling -- fall into protected class is. congress calibrated the penalties on both sides of the employer would play it straight down the middle and hire the best people for the job while complying with federal requirements. >> why is that a problem if the federal statute requires you have to show an intent to hire

an unauthorized worker? isn't that what the state to do -- statutes required? >> there are two components to it. one is intent. >> why is that a problem? so long as he doesn't intentionally hire an opera -- unauthorized worker? >> part of the problem is that it is never 100% clear who is not an authorized worker. will congress said was, but they're not going to deal with this problem in the kind of way you are looking at it. in each of the individual employment decisions. you're going to look at the generality and realize that if you, on one side of the scale, what arizona has done which is to say you can give the death penalty to the business. eliminate their right to exist. on the other side, a $250 fine.

it would be remarkable to say, i'm going to hide behind the requirements and avoid the risk of sanctions being imposed. >> we would like to know the option the government left us. we might have used reticulated penalties or enforce the federal law ourself, but they do allow us to enforce the laws through licensing. it all comes down to the licensing issue. >> it does come down to licensing. the fundamental problem with arizona at is that this is not a licensing law. this is a worker authorization sanctioning law. >> when i looked at this case, i thought that licensing.

that is a defined term. but it really isn't. your brief indicates he started with dictionaries. but i see no limitation on what the state can decide as a license in any jurisprudential principal. >> the better way to try to grapple the meaning of licensing, and why authorities in gage in supplemental enforcement, in order to say what ought to happen is, if you deal with a situation where the federal government has enforced a provision and imposed a penalty through the federal scheme, then, as a supplement, the state has the authority to enact something over and above the federal government.

it is remarkable to think that congress intended it through a pair of it -- parenthetical to allow the states to adopt an enforcement mechanism, completely a state run operation. the sanction is not imposed by any regulating eight -- entity. >> only because nobody would think the federal government would not enforce it. of course no one would have expected that. but what has occurred here is the scheme has not been in force. arizona and other states are in serious trouble financially for other reasons because of unrestrained immigration. they had to take this massive step.

expectations change when the federal government has not been forced to the immigration restrictions. >> i understand the point and the motivation for why arizona did what it did. the statute was enacted in 1986. that is when the standards were put in place. if you look at the root structure of the statute, how should you read licensing, at first, congress said they should be enforced uniformly. there should not be 40,000 localities offering up their view of licensing and the additional 50 states. this part is particularly telling, which is, that under section 1324, congress

specifically outlaws the use of the i-nine form. it would be inconceivable that the state can enforce intentional decision making without having access to the i-9 form. >> is this a licensing lot? it is not an unknown term. states and municipalities to issue all sorts of licenses. here in the district of columbia, every business has to have a business license. >> that is true. >> if we were to pass a new ordinance sang, if he knowingly hire an illegal alien your business license can be forfeited, would that cease to be a licensing law?

>> i think the answer to that is, that is still not a licensing law. it does not tie the grant of the license to the revocation. it means to adopt something more specific than that. >> why is it suddenly not a license because the state imposes additional conditions? >> the question is whether it is a licensing law. the reality is, there is no common definition of licensing. >> actually there is. it sounded a little familiar. whoever wrote broke it copied it out of the administrative procedure. this is awfully close. >> understand that and i agree

with that. the federal law talks about actions with respect to licensing. it talks about licensing laws. >> it might have meant -- meant something different. i read the brief, i thought that was interesting. what do you think congress did mean? what evidence is there? >> debriefed as a nice job of explaining the particularly focus on the workers' protection act. it has significant center -- in terms of daring the state's authority. >> it could have a name that that is all it meant. it could have a name that scheme if that is what it meant. but it did not name it. it is said licensing in general.

how would any of this have anything to do with immigration law? >> what congress had in mind, and what is the most natural reading of the licensing law, is a common situation where someone violates federal law and the state licensing entity find out about it through a conviction of a federal crime and says, wait a second, we do not want people to have licenses under the circumstances. >> i think it is very common to talk about authority to do business within a state as a license. licensed to do business and some many states. that is a common expression. maybe will persuade me otherwise, but i have no doubt that insofar as this law limits

the authority to do business within the state, it is a licensing law. it is harder to extend licensing to a formation of the corporation, but when you wish incorporation charter you do two things -- you create the corporation and limit the liability. secondly, you authorize that creature to do business within your stay. at least half of the corporation law is licensing. >> if you just -- that is not give you the opportunity to see business. it gives you the right to exist. you may very well night -- need to get a separate document. >> you do not need the kind of the document to another state corporation needs. >> that is true. the reality is nobody in common

use of the term thinks of articles of incorporation as licensing. >> could i focus the questioning? we keep talking about whether the type definition of licensing is what is intended or not. congress at least intended that if someone violated the federal law and hired undocumented aliens, the state can revoke their license to do business. >> i do not disagree with that. >> it does not matter if they are revoking their right to do business in the states. they can only revoke the charter if they were filed in

that state. they would not have power. so it is stopping them from doing business. the only conflict you're talking about is not the power to stop them from doing business. you accepted the saving clause to revoke the right to do business. the conflict in the adjudication in the issue. >> and the enforcement. >> how they defined licensing is irrelevant to me. walk me through whether what expressly preempt that right or what is -- that right. that is the center of this question. >> there are three creases of information that respond to what

you're saying. first is in the section 115 of the statutes that say enforcement should be uniform. that suggests that should be at a federal investigation level. the point about the i-9 form -- >> what does that mean that enforcement should be uniform? >> it should be uniform. congress has stated that as an overarching principle. >> what is the assumed situation with respect to all federal laws? >> it depends on the circumstance. we're talking about immigration policy. in general, you would expect that to be uniform. this court had decided there are

some elements that were not -- reinforcing the notion that the enforcement ought to be uniform. >> dozen the exception mean this is not going to be completely uniform? one jurisdiction may take the position that a restaurant that employees illegal aliens may lose its license to operate another one may take a different position. >> i think that is why it is an important to limit -- and it is fully -- meaningful sanctions done by the government on the licensing side rather than a regime. >> there cannot be a uniformity of sanction. to my questionk about adjudication. the right to adjudicate someone

who was hired undocumented aliens. >> correct. the last thing is the conforming amendments to the workers protection act is a situation where the department of labor refused to engage in the adjudication as well. it seems unlikely congress meant to give that authority to the states. >> would not be a federal question if a company claimed that it was deprived of the ability to do business because of a mistake in interpretation of federal law? >> arizona does not purport to enforce federal law. has an independent the law for the actions it takes. >> dozen the state law basis referred to the federal lot?

>> it attracts the but it does not incorporate it. it is the same standard but it is still a matter of state law. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, chief justice. may i please the court. congress brought the swept away sanctions upon those who undocumented workers. >> we have had a discussion about what licensing laws are. we have not talked about those last words, similar laws.

it seems to me whenever ambiguity there may be, congress swept pretty broadly to not just licensing laws but licensing and similar. >> let me tell you we think a licensing law is. we think a licensing law is a traditional licensing law that was in place in 1986. those were largely farm contractor lost. they were aimed to do business. they had a few essential characteristics in those laws. >> businesses had to have licensing across the board. you could not set a an electrical contracting business if you were not licensed to do business or met the requirements for the electrician. it was not just agricultural. >> absolutely. this law looks different from the one you are referring to.

licensing law issues licenses. there but the issuance, not the one in which they were revoked. the one in which the issuance, the criteria, is the same as the criteria for revocation. >> are you saying, i think the petitioner may have been saying as well, if you have a licensing law that permits the revocation of the license, the revocation is not a licensing law. >> suppose i have a law that says if you do this your license will be revoked. >> in general that is not a licensing law. they share a number of characteristics. we can debate whether subtracting one another of this characteristics. >> congress wanted to preserve

the state's traditional power for licensing laws to do business. >> once you're in, you can do whatever you like. you think that is what congress meant? you can pass upon their fitness when you issue the license. then they can do whatever they like. >> the criteria would be the same for issuance and revocation. >> why does it make any difference if the revocation provision is contained in the narrow licensing law or if there is a general state law that says all licenses better issued may be revoked? >> congress was trying to preserve the traditional power to do business. it was not at issue at the particular law. they will let businesses operate. they will license them without any fear as to whether they distort history or violates --

>> arizona should amend its laws to require what they now require when the licence is issued and to say that it can be revoked on the same ground. >> that would solve the problem. >> even if they said you have to renew your license every year. >> that is correct. it is not relevant to whether the licensing, the other hallmarks are -- that it is aimed at qualifications to do business. >> do you disagree that whether they hire illegal workers is related to ability to do business or qualification? >> a state could make that part of its adjudging. here arizona has not done that. the criteria for issuance are

divorced from the criteria of revocation. if arizona believed what you're saying, which is it is relevant to whether they can do business or not. if they allow everyone of these entities to get a license -- >> your argument sounds like, look at the law and see what its purpose is. if the purpose is to regulate undocumented aliens, it is struck down. if it happens to put its revocation in its licensing law, then it is ok. >> i'm not talking about purpose. i'm saying looking at the statue. te. >> only if you hire undocumented aliens. >> that looks like a punishment statute. >> the saving clause as it is

ok. >> this is not a licensing law. congress had to boxes and 99 -- 86. >> if we disagree, could you answer the question i posed to your adversary, which is, what makes the adjudication of status pre-emptive? >> the bedroll adjudication is expressly pre-empted as well as -- for three reasons. the first is that congress, in developing a comprehensive scheme, set out a series of procedures with alj, all sorts of regulations. what arizona does is let 40,000 localities --

>> at the time the statute was passed, there were many laws that adjudicated revocation of licenses. perhaps not many have addressed the issue of hiring undocumented aliens but many state laws existed that independently adjudicate revocation. what is the history that shows congress intended to limit those adjudications? >> it is undoubtedly the case that without the parenthetical saving clause that arizona higle laws would be swept away. the questions is if the phrase stays that. the answer is no. to read the statute that way is to permit the states to have their own laws. it is the case that congress

wanted to sweep away the state statutes that were in place that impose sanctions on employers. >> you are saying that if arizona sank you had to have a license to do business, and then became aware of a problem it did not know before, a lot of employers were imploring child labor and they did not know. they say, we can revoke your license if you're determined to employ child labor. that would not be ok? but it would be ok if it were in the original licensing. >> it depends on what congress was trying to get at. in 1986, with immigration laws, they swept the wind -- a way the laws and said the i-9 provision. those documents cannot be used in any procedure.

>> it seems to me the question is, why isn't that still -- if it has a adjudication, it is swept away by the first part of the statutes which say the provisions of this section preempt any state or local law imposing similar -- >> in the child labor example, why isn't that an addition to a regulatory licensing scheme so that it is a licensing lot? >> if i understand, i may not of understood the hypothetical. one provision refers to the entire statute including procedure protection for the procedures that follow federal law enforcement. >> you tried to talk about the two boxes.

you said something would be pre- empted by the first clause. any sanctions are allowed if they are imposed through licensing. there are not to boxes. the state can do the first parts of not -- so long it does not intrude on similar laws. >> our position is this is not a licensing law. it does not bear on a traditional licensing law. >> is a similar? >> i do not think so. when they tried to sidestep a semantic debate if something were a certificate -- >> thank you. >> mr. chief justice, states

traditionally have the authority to regulate conduct of employers within their jurisdiction do determine what conduct warrants issuance of a state license and determine what conduct -- suspending or revoking a license. though congress pre-empted some of our authority when it enacted in 1986, it preserved state authority through the savings clause that permits a state to impose sanctions to licensing and similar laws. >> what about the anomaly that arizona cannot impose upon but it can revoke someone's license to do business. >> looking at the savings clause, we do not view it as an anomaly. the one established as one the state authority is determined by the nature of the sanction that we choose to impose.

we do not have the authority -- they took away our authority to impose criminal sanctions but preserve our authority to impose sanctions. >> underline her question is why would congress want to do that? >> i think makes sense because, in terms of licensing, it provides accountability.

>> i stood with law enforcement on this issue. they were opposed to legalizing marijuana in minnesota. i opposed it as well. i vetoed one of the bills. we have a difference of opinion on the issue. i deferred to the judgment and experience of law enforcement as it relates to that issue. thank you very much for coming. i appreciate it. [applause]

>> thank you governor tim pawlenty for visiting the institute. >> as president obama wraps up his european trip, vice president by and delivers the weekly address. he talks about the growth of the automobile industry as evidence of recovery. then the republican address by eric cantor. he also focuses on the economy discussing his party post a plan for job creation.

>> this came ahead of schedule. two years after they emerge from bankruptcy. it is a sign what is happening throughout the automobile industry. it is not just chrysler. gm announced that its detroit factory will run three shifts for the first time in its 26- year history. that is 2500 more paying jobs. that is 2500 more paying jobs. in the words of don laforest, it

is mind-boggling that we can go from near extinction to full employment in two years. you did not get to hear my rendition. the tone of his voice. it was full of pride. genuine pride. i can tell you he knows and my dad used to say that a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. it is about dignity. it is about respect. i heard the same feeling when i called the jefferson plant in detroit the day chrysler paid back its debt. i talked to a worker named francis. she said her dad had worked on that line before she is now out of work to a half years before she was hired back on the plant. i have this same manner i went to bonneville and son in new hampshire. 85 employees came out and stood

out with me. 85 people of whom said had chrysler liquidated, they would not have a job. when president obama and i came into office, we faced in ottawa industry on the brink of extinction. at the time, many people thought the president should just let gm and chrysler go under. they didn't think the automobile industry was essential to america's future. the president disagreed and, in addition, he wasn't willing to walk away from the thousands of hardworking uaw members who worked at gm and chrysler and in many cases, not only all their lives, but as second and third generation employees. and he certainly wasn't going to abandon an industry that had meant so much to our economy, and so much to so many for so long. so, he said if gm and chrysler, and their management, and all their shareholders were willing to do the difficult work of making themselves more competitive, we would support giving them another chance. and because of what we did, the

auto industry is rising again. manufacturing is coming back. and our economy is recovering and it's gaining traction. but the thing is this: even for a lot of people with jobs, their wages aren't keeping pace with prices of everything from gas to groceries to health care and college tuition. that's why the president and i remain focused on, not just recovering from this recession. we're focused on making sure that if you work hard, play by the rules, you'll be able to get ahead, put your kids through college, retire with dignity and security. before i sign off, i just want to mention once again memorial day and remember what this holiday's all about. you know we still have thousands of troops deployed in harm's way. in days past, on memorial day, we remembered heroes from former wars but i think it's absolutely essential that we all remember today that thousands of names have been added to those memorials in the

wars that are still continuing. folks, all i ask you to do is, what my wife jill and michelle obama ask, to reach out to those families who have someone deployed, in your community. let them know you know. let them know you know the sacrifice they're making. engage in as my wife would say a single act of kindness. maybe invite them to your barbecue this weekend. mow their lawn. offer to mow their lawn next week. make it known that you appreciate their sacrifice and you're willing to lend a hand. as i said, that's what jill and michelle obama are doing through their joining forces initiative. and that's what i hope all of us will do every day as long as we have a man or woman deployed in harm's way. thank you for listening. into the holiday. >> i am eric cantor from the

seventh district of virginia. i am happy to be with you on this memorial day. we spend time and thoughtful ceremonies to honor those americans who gave their lives in service to our country. it is their sacrifice that has kept america free and strong. but this picture by renewing our resolve to promote a lasting peace and liberty across the globe. as we spend time with family, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of joplin, missouri, and other areas of our country that are facing unthinkable circumstances and terrible tragedy. know that congress stands ready to ensure that the resources are available to help these communities rebuild and recover. americans have a rich history of selling -- standing tall and going the extra mile to go forward. whether was the american

revolution or the internet revolution, we are unique in our ability to apply creativity and leadership to solve any problem now we face new obstacles as this country finds itself at a crossroads. before this is a choice about who we want to be as a country. do we want a future with more taxes and more government? or do we is want to see growth and jobs? we saw the former when washington enacted a nearly trillion dollars stimulus program that drove up our debt until to get people back to work. it took an el to stop president obama and nancy pelosi from giving a large tax increase. now was the summer approaches, to many of our family members, neighbors and friends are still a lot of work.

to be strong to lead and grow and to empower people, here is what we have to do. we have to shift from a government that smothers jobs and business growth to one that nurtures an environment for getting people back to work and back to that -- what americans do best. that is why republicans promised to focus on jobs in our pledge to america and are committed to economic growth. beginning in january, we adopted a to attract strategy we call cut and grow. the first part is obvious. we know that washington has to stop spending money we do not have and manage the money we do have more wisely. families are tightening their belts and sticking to a budget. washington should too. but we also understand that cutting alone isn't enough to address our debt crisis or get people back to work. we must also 'grow.' for too long, washington has

relied on gimmicks or government-knows-best solutions. no more. now, more than ever, our nation needs small businesses and entrepreneurs to get people back to work. that's why this week we continue to build on the pledge to america and our work over the past five months by unveiling our plan to help the nation's job creators grow the economy and start hiring. our plan for america's job creators injects a dose of commonsense, pro-growth economic policies to give our businessmen and women the tools they need to get the for-hire signs back in their windows again. first, we must fix the tax code and remove loopholes and giveaways to special interests. we achieve that by reducing the overall tax rate to no more than 25% for businesses and individuals - including small business owners. this makes the tax code simpler, flatter, and more fair.

we'll increase competitiveness for american manufacturers. the more that businesses export, the more they produce. the more they produce, the more workers they need. this means more available jobs. by enacting agreements with colombia, south korea, and panama, which have been held up by president obama, we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs. there is no excuse for delaying trade agreements that create jobs at home while our foreign competitors are making them. next we will stop and repeal any onerous regulations that are barriers to growth and prosperity . last week in my hometown of richmond, i held a forum with job creators and business owners from all over virginia. they made it clear to me that washington is stopping them from innovating and hiring more workers by pursuing hundreds of onerous and unnecessary regulations. frankly, this administration's regulators have gone on an ideological offensive against businesses that is costing our

country billions of dollars and countless jobs. yet this same administration is telling america's businessmen and women to create more jobs. small business owners and entrepreneurs tell me that they want government to work with them rather than against them. smart regulations are fine, as long as they help steer businesses into the black rather than into a tangle of red tape. of course the summer months bring family travel and no doubt they are feeling the pain at the pump. so are small business owners, who are coping with crippling energy costs. yet america lacks a realistic national energy strategy that will truly meet our country's needs in the 21st century. we cannot wait for this administration or the democrat- led senate to act - they have had ample time and done nothing. so republicans will take immediate action through our american energy initiative by

passing bipartisan legislation to expand energy exploration and maximize domestic production. this will help create american jobs, grow our economy, and enhance our security. all of these elements will help encourage growth and long-term economic stability. by putting in place policies that encourage businesses to expand, innovators to innovate, and allows leaders to lead we will not only begin to put our budget on a path to balance, but we'll get americans working again. this memorial day, we are reminded that the true grit of americans is passed from one generation to the next, so long as government remains limited and opportunity remains unlimited, through free markets and a fair playing field. americans will out-work, out- hustle and, yes, 'out-innovate the rest of the world.' individual initiative in the private sector has been and always will be the source of america's prosperity provided

we don't stifle it. in america, our parents taught us and their parents taught them that, 'no matter who you are, no matter where you come from, everyone's got a fair shot, not guaranteed success but the opportunity to work hard and get ahead.' our history is rich with people who achieved greatness through hard work, thrift and faith without interference from an overbearing, over-burdensome government. let's get washington out of the way. let's give our nation's businessmen and women what they need to succeed. let's make sure that people out of work can find a job. and let's get this great country back on the right track. if you have a spare moment, i'd encourage you to read more about our plan to create jobs at gop.gov/jobs. thank you.

next a senate hearing on air- traffic controllers. at 7:00 a.m., your calls on "washington journal." on "newsmakers," senator coburn was a member of the gain of six that has burned working on it reduction plan. he left on may 17. he talks about the debt situation, the work, and his involvement with the john anson. >> he was forced to resign. the ethics committee report has your name on it, have you tried to to convince the senator to stop the affair and ultimately discusses the question as to whether or not you were an intermediary on how to get him out and whether there would be some --

>> that is an inaccurate characterization. i got a phone call that said, would you communicate a message to john. i said i would call john and ask him. i called and asked and he said yes. the story you hear is not an accurate reflection. >> this group has filed an ethics complaint against you. has the committee contacted you? >> i have testified the beat -- before the committee. i have no worries. we put families back together with multiple -- one idea i'm proud of what i did and the way i did it. >> you can see the entire interview on newsmakers today at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.. it is also available on c-span's website.

>> people often say to me, how much of your time you spend writing and research? a great question. nobody asks how much to spend your time thinking. that is probably the most important part. >> impart to of the q&a interview with david, his writing process and the gray her journey, americans in paris. you can download this and other podcasts. go to c-span.org. >> randolph babbitt, and paul, the head of the air traffic controllers association, testified on the recent -- recent incident of comptroller sleeping. this is an hour and 40 minutes.

>> we are joined by witnesses, randy babbitt, faa administrator, and calvin scovel, the president of the air traffic controllers association. -- research center at washington state university. thank you for being here. today the aviation committee is holding an oversight hearing on

air-traffic control safety. i know my colleague will be here soon but i want to recognize him and his new role as ranking member for the subcommittee. i look forward to working with them. we are going to work on the recent incidents where traffic controllers fell asleep during nine shifts and the increase of operational errors by air- traffic controllers. this year there have been a number of incidents sleeping on duty. i am concerned about these incidences. some are examples of unprofessional behavior on the part of an international -- their actions are unacceptable. they do have a responsibility to come to work arrested. some have used those to try to tarnish the reputation of a dedicated group of men and women

who work to ensure our eight -- aerospace is the safest. they monitor 35,000 flights daily. roughly 2 million air passengers come into direct contact with air traffic control each day. we can talk about how the next technology is going to help us improve the system. but we cannot forget that, at the heart of the system, are only 15,000 air traffic controllers. the incidence serve to highlight the safety issues of air-traffic fatigue. particularly those on the been night shift. there is no escaping the science that shift work has the potential to disrupt the circadian rhythms of the body and leads to fatigue. fatigue can impair the work performance of -- who perform tasks that require consistent concentration.

this raises concerns forsake operations of the system. i applaud the secretary and administrative back before taking quick action. i know these will be helpful and improve some of the situation. hopefully, this improves the spirit the national safety board has done studies on air traffic controller fatigue. it took until 2009 for the faa to get their fatigue work group under way. they have made a dozen recommendations to get air traffic controllers under control. they can allow air traffic controllers to recuperate during their project. historically, the question of allowing air traffic controllers to take a break or knapp has bank political rather than scientific.

there are decades of science on this issue and we look forward to hearing more about it today. thank you for coming all of the way from the west coast from washington state university. we look forward to hearing more about beastly performance -- sleeping performance research center and the sciencesi am concern about a 53% increase in operational errors between fiscal year 2009-2010. operational errors are situations when planes come too close to each other in the air. it increased from 1200 in 2009 to 1900 last year. the errors were of varying degrees. on march 2, the committee asked them to conduct an assessment of the faa's current categorization of errors to understand the impact and

implications of this. in the last decade, they identified the problems with how most facilities south reported operational errors and expressed concern that there was a significant potential for underreporting operational errors. beginning in 2008, the faa made a series of changes. they initiated the confidential reporting system to encourage air-traffic controllers to come forward with these reported errors. they're rolled up an automated reporting with the new software system. the committee is trying to understand if the reason that more errors are being reported is because the faa finally having a more objective and reliable process, or because we are seeing an increase in errors. i thank you all for being here today and for coming up with

answers on how to continue to improve their transportation safety. i would like to call on the chairman of the full committee if he would like to make a statement. >> you said everything i was going to say, so there is no reason to repeat it. >> i look forward to working with you on faa reauthorization which has ben hotlined for the 19th time to be extended. i hope we can come together in the next month.

this is now in conference. this will be a major mission for your subcommittee. your topic today is very timely. i appreciate you all being here. i do think that we have had such a safe aviation safety performance. in general, the air-traffic controllers have done a superb job. we have 790 million people through our system. there are 29,000-30,000 safe flights every day. that is in our favor. in the past months, we have had alarming lapses. not only the air traffic controllers that went to sleep, but apparently one was watching a movie during the time he was on duty.

i think the air traffic control incidence and near misses have cause reason for us to have a hearing. this catches any kind of weakness in the system. you are going to be putting 11,000 new controllers in place by the year 2020. there is the turnover. i hope we will hear that you are going to be looking at the teague factors, training, scheduling, and professionalism as we are going into this transition. madam chairman, i have a 3:00 introduction of a federal judge candidate. i am not going to be able to stay for the whole hearing.

i will look at the record and be interested in the results. >> thank you for your leadership for moving the bill through the process. centre nelson, would you like to make an opening statement? >> and extraordinary number of f -- air-traffic controllers to an exceptional job under extraordinary circumstances. the subject of today's hearing underscores why we need to move to the next generation of air traffic control. we are operating off of a constellation of satellites. there will be in the cockpit updated information for the crew to konw situational awareness at all times in addition to what they're being told from the controllers on the

ground. we keep dithering and not funding the steps that we should towards the next generation. it has happened in a lot of our states. in april, we had a controller asleep in miami. in march, we had two controllers that vectored a southwest airlines to a private aircraft. the next generation of air traffic control what help that situation. in the meantime, we have a problem that we can address. if you can figure out fatigue and sleep on air traffic controllers, and applied to a lot of other professions as well. i look forward to it. >> thank you, senator nelson.

you do have a very unique perspective on this. we look forward to your questions. thank you for being here today and thank you for your testimony. thank you for your leadership during this period of time. >> good afternoon, the ranking members of the subcommittee and ranking member hutchinson. thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss the issues facing the federal aviation administration. i know that today's hearing will focus on the safety of our air traffic control system. i will probably get some tough questions from you about some recent incidents. i welcome the opportunity to ensure you and the traveling public that we remain the safest and most efficient transportation system in the world. we are taking a substantial

number of actions to improve the level of safety. before i address these actions, i would be remiss bank i were to appear before you and not mention the need for multi-year reauthorization. we have a tremendous need to enhance this from the radar based system of the last century to the satellite based system of tomorrow. to accomplish our goals, the faa needs a multi-year authorization with sufficient funding levels. the faa has not had a steady source of funding for over 3.5 years. we relied on 18 short-term extensions of our spending authority. i am pleased that the house and senate have passed reauthorization bills. this is an important step forward. if authorized levels that were in the house bill, they were well below what the president proposed, if the levels were

appropriate, it would downgrade the safe and efficient movement of traffic. if we delayed the infrastructure investments of today, the long term prices will long exceed going forward with the costs of the technology and infrastructure improvements that we need for tomorrow. i would like to turn to the reason for today's hearing. last month, i have the pressure -- pleasure of travelling with the head of the air traffic controller organization to facilities all over the country. we were on this tour for a call to action, promoting safety and a call to action among the controllers. we have a work force that is committed to safety 20 force by seven. the incidence of the employees falling asleep says that we have to make changes and we have.

we have made changes to long time scheduling practices that will reduce the level of fatigue and including establishing a minimum of nine- hours between ships. we have changed management in critical decision -- positions to make sure we have the right people in the right places. we found it was necessary to terminate three controllers that were asleep on the job. this type of behavior is completely unacceptable. we have got together with outside experts to have three recommendations regarding fatigue. i also want to address your concerns today regarding the rise in reported operational errors we have seen over the last few years. i share your concerns. everybody at the faa is committed to the safety of our system.

any upward trend in errors is deeply troubling. we believe this trend largely reflects the changes we have made in recent years that encourage the reporting of errors. we are gathering more information than we ever have previously. that will allow us to make more informed decisions moving forward to enhance the safety of the system. our voluntary reporting program encourages air-traffic controllers to report operational errors in exchange for the agency addressing the errors in a non communicative manner. these reports have given us information about everything from windows fogging up to problems with radar equipment. in albuquerque, they were missing and old short line. it became a solutions instead of an incident.

while the incidents are not counted as operational errors, i believe that this program has helped us create a culture of reporting within the faa. this is ultimately a very positive change. they will enhance safety by enabling us to identify risks and to spot trends. in addition to this cultural transformation, we have rolled out new software that automatically detect errors and reports them to the quality assurance program for analysis. nobody likes to see operational errors, especially me. we are getting the data that we need to improve safety. the american public trusts us to perform our jobs and makes safety the highest priority every day year in and year out. we are committed to making what ever changes necessary and to provide the safest and most efficient air transportation in the world.

that concludes my opening statement and i will be happy to answer questions when that time arises. >> we will look forward to that opportunity. you can press the red button there. >> mr. chairman, madam chairman, thank you for inviting me to this time the hearings on air-traffic control systems. recent incidents including several high-profile operational errors underscore the need for this system. i will discuss longstanding concerns about the process of reporting operational errors and managing the controller work force. over the past decade, we in the office of the inspector general previously raised concerns on the operational general to report errors and operating inaccuracies. our investigative work has shown that some air reports for miss classified as non- events,

while others were intentionally manipulated to cover up their words. we should help reduce these weaknesses. concerns remain about faa's effort to accurately count the number of errors. it is clear how the fate will use another recently implemented to will. it is unclear how they will use the index to assess the risks. without reliable reporting systems and processes, the operational data have little value. operational errors increased substantially in the last year. faa officials say that this is likely to the increase in reporting practices. we have recently initiated two

audits to explore these issues in depth. this makes it difficult to identify the root causes of operational errors. several challenges may contribute to these errors. first, ntsb identify controller fatigue as a contributing factor. faa investigations do not always develop adequate data on controller fatigue. our development on the air traffic control facilities in the chicago area say that it scheduled overtime may contribute to fatigue. in june, 2009, we recommended that the faa determined to the extent that fatigue could be causing operational errors. ntsb and a work group have made recommendations to the book -- to help sleep debt.

the faa faces challenges to return -- replace retiring controllers. in large part because requirements in the training contract were not well defined. the contract costs exceeded the first two years estimates by 35%. because the costs were so far above estimates, the faa was not able to implement programs to increase the timeliness of comptroller programming. they need to make needed adjustments. at our recommendation, the faa established more complete metrics. the control replacement progress does not adequately assessed skills and knowledge when assigning them to the

facilities. as we reported, faa assigns them to facilities based on their choice and vacancies. as a result, faa is assigning new candidates to a some of the most complex air traffic control facilities with little thought about whether they have the skill sets for those facilities. more than 20 facilities where they have been as critical to have a significant number of their controller work force in training. we reported that southern california faced the prospect of having over 100 controllers in training. more than 40% of its work force, potentially overwhelming the facility's training capacity. we found that denver has 43% of its work force in training. laguardia airport has 39% in

trading. we are currently reviewing plans to provide the them with legitimate staffing and hope to report later this year. i want to commend faa for ramping up their efforts to tackle these challenges. we must ensure an alert, confident, and certified work force. this concludes my prepared statement. i would be happy to address any questions that you are members of the subcommittee might have. >> thank you for your testimony. >> thank you. >> is your microphone on? >> chairman rockefeller, members of the committee, the president of the air national traffic controllers organization represents the air traffic controllers within the faa. our controllers are dedicated professionals with the passion

to run the safest, most efficient system in the world. you are safe for on a commercial airline in this country than you are on an escalator. last year, we had over 9 million commercial flights with zero fatalities. that is something that we are very proud of. we can always do better and make the system safer. i would like to address three topics. one would be the professionalism in the air traffic control system. one would be fatigued in the air traffic control environment. i need to be very clear. air traffic controllers are very professional. we worked day in and day out, 365 days a year to run the safest, most efficient system in the world. in an average day, we run 70,000 operations. we save lives. we make emergency situations

look routine. that will never find its way into the press. we are very fortunate not to have these situations that have found its way into the press. we are not satisfied with it or happy with it. we are proud professionals and dedicated to safety of the flying public. i, along with the other half of traveled around the country to address these issues with controllers. to be sure the professionalism as first and foremost and the safety of the flying public is first and foremost and it stays on the safety of every air traffic controller in the system. we started working with the faa to start the joint standards program. this instils that we need to

stay focused on the safety of the flying public. i have heard statements that there is a great interest in the increase in operational errors in the air traffic control system. the vast majority of errors are really not safety risks. we do not believe comparing 2010 numbers to previous years is appropriate. we had a big change in the faa and a change for the better. they brought a just culture of reporting every incident, from the lowest, the deepest procedural issues so that we can address every safety issue in the system so that we can enhance the system every way that we can. fatigue is real in our work environment. we have tried to work with the previous administrator. we have been working with the administrator for the last 12

months to try to put together 12 recommendations along with nasa scientists and the faa to address fatigue. it is a high stress occupation. that is something where perfection is the bottom line. anything less than perfection is completely unacceptable. in closing, this is on the forefront of the improving the safety of the national airspace system. we have pushed for years for this program to voluntarily support situation -- report situations that might be safety problems in the system. we have joint standards with the faa. over the past year, we worked real hard with scientists and the faa to come up with suggestions to improve fatigue in the work environment. we want to implement these as soon as possible. we have to be 100% 100% of the time.

anything less is unacceptable. i cannot stress enough that the men and women of the air traffic controllers association worked the best and safest air traffic control system in the world. i look forward to answering any of your questions. >> thank you for being here. we look forward to your testimony. >> thank you. distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on sleep and fatigue among air traffic controllers. i am a physician by training and a research professor and director of the sleep performance center at washington state university. i joined in 2004. prior to that, i served 24 years for the u.s. army to sustain performance in military

operations. we are continuing this work studying sleep and performance and operational environments in which if the human fails, the system fails. chairman, it is important for the subcommittee with its important role to examine the recent incidents in which air traffic controllers have inadvertently falling asleep or deliberately napped while on shift. is this a moral failing on behalf of a few air traffic controllers? does it indicate a problem in the scheduling of air traffic control operations. i believe is a systemic problem. the well describe sleeping nests that is generally characteristic of all night shift work. air-traffic controllers are the same physiologically as any other night shift workers.

the same principles apply. what can we learn from these incidents of air traffic controllers sleeping on duty? i inadvertently falling asleep, air traffic controllers are pointing to a possible problem. they are identifying shifts that may carry higher but the risks. by sleeping on shift, they not only point to a problem, but a solution as well. the primary mission gaidar of fatigue is sleep. in the early morning of august 27, 2006, a flight crashed on takeoff from lexington, ky killing 49 of the 50 people on board. the crash occurred when the controller on duty was working the last shift of consecutive

ships. there was a eight-nine hour break between the second day shift to the final night shift. the spread fell largely in the early evening during the so- called forbidden zone for sleep. he was only able to sustain sleep for 2-3 hours in the afternoon. it crashed as the captain and first officer failed to detect that they were on the run what -- wrong runway, one that was too short for takeoff. at the time of the crash, the air traffic controller's performance was impaired by restriction and working at a circadian low. an on-shift nap would be the only way to help.

the national transportation safety board to not indicate fatigue as a cause of the crash, i believe it is possible but have the air traffic controller had more sleep, he might have detected this in time to avert the disaster. i expect that one way to sustain operational performance and well-being in air traffic controllers working the night shift is sanctioned, on-shift napping. we can study ought -- the effect on this during the night shift. previous studies have shown that even short, poor quality maps and -- increased alertness and performance. i can describe what the scientific evidence of just as

possible and support ways for more evidence. members of the subcommittee must decide what is feasible and desirable as supported by the evidence. thank you, chairman, for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. that concludes my remarks. i would be happy to answer questions that you might have. >> thank you all for your testimony. doctor, i think i will start with you on this last point you just made about what is the optimal schedule that exists today? is there an optimal schedule to minimizing fatigued? >> yes. it is daytime work and nighttime sleep.

there is no good solution for night shift work. a lot of things have been tried. stimulants, bright lights, melatonin -- >> i am referring to the fact of the 2, 2, 1 schedules. organizations that have a strict night shift work force has a better way of dealing with this. >> the rapid turn is particularly troublesome. there are problems with full- time night shifts, rotating night ships, for were the rotating, back word -- forwardly rotating, backwardly rotating. early starting is almost as bad as working permanent nights. there are partial fixes that make things a little bit better. but no one size fits all

schedule that will work under all circumstances. >> i wanted to clarify that. your testimony talks about what you think some of the remedies are within that framework. i wanted to go back to your testimony. do you have a sense that there has been a significant increase in operational errors since fiscal 2010? i know he does not want us to look at 2010. do you have a sense of this? >> the numbers reported to show an increase in operational errors from 2009-2010. a 53% increase. 1887 in 2010.

the question is why. we do not know and neither does faa at this point. it could be better reporting practices. we think that probably accounts for some of it. we think it could be an increase in the number of operational errors in itself. for better reporting practices, that is captured. what i am referring to and what they spoke to earlier in their oral statements is the air traffic safety action program has encouraged an atmosphere of self reporting minus possible repercussions for comptroller submitting reports. he has reported that reports of operational errors are not included in the scouts. that cannot explain the increase.

what you referred to earlier in your statement may explain part of it. as we slice and dice some of the numbers that we found,an 86% increase in operational errors where this is in place from 2009-2010. that would account for part of it. we are puzzled that at enroute traffic facilities, they increased 39%. they have had a program like tarp in place for some time. we do not know why. in our visits to air traffic control facilities, we have discussed this with managers and online controllers.

some of them believed it is due to the increased numbers of controllers in training. that stands to logic. others have told us that they think it is attributable to controllers at the midpoint of their career who are beyond the training stage where they might be more careful in each and every action and have become more complacent. we just do not know. madam chairman, you have asked our office and we have a request from the house to review the air traffic safety action program as well as the faa lost index, which will attempt to capture all such losses of separation, categorize them, and we hope to gather some data on those so that we can categorize and have the correct corrective measures prescribed.

>> do you have any data as it relates to the loss of separation issues as it relates to the fatigue issue? >> are you referring specifically to the loss in? ? >> on this issue of fatigue, have you found the issues of how those are connected? " in 2009, we examined potential petite factors at the main air traffic control facilities in chicago. we identified at that point scheduled overtime, little time for rest between ships with a counter rotational shift pattern and high demand for on the job training. they reported a degradation in their performance and increased fatigue as a result of that. we did not link those specifically to operational errors.

>> we do not have a link at this point. senator rockefeller. >> i think you said the first time around that it is very important to place people in the right airport. that large and complex ones for those who are just in training may not be a good idea. that makes me want to ask randy how he handles that. how are people assigned? it strikes me as a very smart point that he made. it does not cure a lot of problems, but it creates a baseline, at least an attempt at prioritizing.

>> to answer the question, the placement has been made far more rationally today with the ability under the new agreement with the air traffic controllers, we now provide incentives for air-traffic controllers to move to the more complex facilities. we did not have that under the last agreement. a vacancy would come open in the new most complex of facilities and nobody will fit it. we would have to assign somebody fresh out of training.

that was the only way to fill the vacancy. it was unfair to the controllers involved and it was unfair to the facility. controllers can and will go to the more complex facilities. in any business venture, when you assign people, you pay attention to how they do in their training. we would like to think that everyone who graduates from the academy is suitably qualified to operate anywhere in our system. we try to honor the wishes of somebody who grew up in seattle and wanted to be an air traffic controller in seattle. we would let them go to seattle or new york or wherever they might be. people often bid to work where they grew up. to the extent that we can, we honor that. i want to make one comment. there seems to be some thought that the rate of people in training is rising. it is not. it is falling. we have historically had about a 25% rate with normal turnover in training. that includes people who transition. if i were a controller in the cleveland center and i moved over to denver, i am considered an in-training controller. an in-training controller.