first-time drunk driving offenders. we will hear in our press conference from their representative who is one of the key sponsors of legislation pending in the house right now -- is a teen driving bill that would set minimum standards for every state to have a strong and effective he graduated driver licensing law. it doesn't make sense when we have a body of research showing these laws dramatically save the lives of teen drivers. .

>> the strategy of giving the states to pass the laws, and getting congress to lead the way, will save lives and save taxpayer dollars. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, jackie. next we'll hear from senator john cullerton. he is also a very famous legislator in the united states. there's not much highway safety legislation in illinois that does not have his mark. we're pleased that he is here today to support the roadmap report. >> thank you. today more than 100 people will die on our nation's highways.

it will happen tomorrow, too. just think about this. if there was a plane crash today and 100 people were killed, someone from every state in the nation was on that plane. it would be a phenomenal tragedy. it would be the leading news story throughout the world. the pictures of the people who died would be in every newspaper throughout the united states. how many days do you think it would take uof plane crashes where 100 people were killed before congress and the president would immediately have hearings, a joint session of congress, national addresses, to stop the plane crashes? i would say only a few.

my former colleague, president obama, who served with for eight years in springfield, who co- sponsored seat belts laws with me, this is a top priority with him. he would be leading the nation in passing legislation. people would say -- what can we do to stop these deaths? advocates for highway and auto safety has outlined 15 pieces of legislation that have passed that would stop the fatalities. if it was a plane crash and congress would react so quickly, why can't the states, who are suffering collectively the same 100 deaths every day? it almost seems like it is simple.

i am very proud of the fact that our state is ranked third in the nation. i have sponsored many of those laws that are already on the books and illinois, along with former state senator obama. the rest of the states start their sessions. we go into session tomorrow in illinois. most of the states are dealing with a nominal budget deficits. -- most of the states are dealing with large budget deficits. that will be the top priority. yets, here are laws that will save lives, in addition to saving lots of money. why would it not be the number one priority? one of the greatest things about being in the legislature is not just voting to balance budgets, but also to literally press a button and know that you

will save hundreds of lives in your state each year. that has been my motivation for the now 31 years i've been in the general assembly. we are aware of the fact that our friends in congress know about these laws. they are poised to pass carrot and stick legislation to encourage, or compel, the states to pass these model teen- driving, text messaging laws that need to be passed. i have heard some colleagues say that is unwanted federal injured victim -- unwanted federal intervention. i do not agree with that. if they give you a carrot,

only some pastelok to it in my opinion, we cannot quickly respond to the of pleas of the experts -- if we do not quickly respond, people will suffer. i know some people here have suffered these tragedies. to go to the funeral of a teenager is probably about the saddest thing you can do. these tragedies do not have to take place. the laws are right there. i encourage all my colleagues to please pass these laws. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, senator. susan will fvavala is next. unfortunately what brings her here today is the story of the

loss of her daughter, kim, in a teen-related crash. >> thank you for inviting me to be here today to share my family's story with you. june 12, 1995 was the first day of vacation. the long summer was a head. my daughter was learning to drive. her 16th birthday was two weeks away. it was an exciting time with exams finally over, softball in midseason, and independence on the horizon. that afternoon was spent making plans for a movie of the with two friends, julie and joe. he had turned 16 just days before. they invited kim's younger brother, michael. we said our goodbyes that night. she never came home.

a catastrophic crash occurred five minutes later less than two miles from our house. to lee and michael sustained relatively minor injuries. joe, who was driving, was critically injured. my daughter, so full of life five minutes before, died in the front seat of a mustang because her friend briefly lost control of the car. he fishtailed into the path of a 30-year-old woman, in the opposite direction in her own lane at inappropriate speed, who had no idea that her life would change forever in the blink of an eye. all five were victims of inexperience, failure to recognize that novice drivers blackie still that comes only with time behind the wheel -- novice drivers lack experience

that comes with time behind the wheel. as adults, legislators, and parents, we have failed to protect our children. one year after my daughter's death, i was asked by the state senator if i was interested in working in the delaware proposed law. i was very interested. after tremendous work on the part of others, and hearing the story of kim's death, gdl became law in delaware. it's a work in progress, but it has made a difference. nationally, laws must be updated to reflect changes in technology, road conditions, and driving habits. some parents are eager to turn over their car keys to their children to be relieved of the car pool burden. we sign on for these responsibilities when we become parents, including the

development of safe driving habits and our children. it's too late for kim, but it is not too late for the rest of us. all who share the road with teens. the purpose is to give them time to deal with the distractions and road conditions. it gives parents the power to say no, to allow their children to ride with peers. we must reduce property damage and lives lost. it is my hope that you never get that call or that knock on the door. only those who share this experience new the heartache that never goes away. it shatters your world and destroys your dreams.

it is terrifying and it is random. our personal tragedy has taught us a hard lesson. many others have died and been injured because the old system failed to provide for the most important factor of all, experience. i applaud congressman bishop, van hollen and others who share the vision. since it was implemented in june 1999, the delaware law is one of the strongest in the country, and the most successful tools in reducing crashes and 16-year-old drivers by almost 16 60%. it's my sincere hope that states which have not implemented a strong anprogram will do so. it's time to help all of our children to make better choices based on good judgment that

comes only with experience. thank you for your dedication to making roads in every state safer for all of us. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, susan. next we will hear from dr. joseph wright, who is representing the american academy of pediatrics. he brings the perspective of many years at the center here in washington. he heads the child advocacy institute. we are delighted that you could join us. >> good afternoon, everyone. my name is dr. joseph wright. i'm a pediatric emergency physician and the senior vice president at children's national medical center.

i had to the child health advocacy institute. i practiced in level one trauma centers for more than 20 years. i was direct witness to the fact that motor vehicle crashes continue to be the leading cause of death for 16 to 20-year olds in this country each year. approximately 450,000 teenagers are injured each year. of those killed, approximately 63% of our drivers and 37% are passengers. 2/3 of the passengers who die in car crashes are male. what we have to remember in what we have already heard is that each and every one of these cases represents an individual and family tragedy.

lives end and changed forever. as the father of two young men in the highest risk category, i'm not only professionally concerned, but very personally concerned about this on a daily basis. the american academy of pediatrics has a long record of supporting child safety measures in transportation ranging from car seats to teen driving safety, and every stage in between. we applaud the 2010 roe knapp reports. since it was first published in 2004, this report has highlighted the need for every state to institute a comprehensive auto safety laws, and to protect individuals of all ages. the model safety laws reviewed in the 2010 road map have a direct impact on the number of children and teens injured or

killed in motor vehicle crashes. studies have shown the states with strong primary enforcement seat belts laws, graduated driver's license programs, and required child safety booster seats had lower auto injuries and fatalities than states that did not. nonetheless, today, most aides have not implemented a three d-stage graduated licensing program. the american academy of pediatrics calls upon every state to pass this. the adolescent, as a novice driver, lacks the experience. compared with the experienced drivers, the novice adolescent driver is less proficient in detecting and responding to

hazards in controlling the vehicle. 16 to 19-year-old have a crash rate more than four times more than adults. passing stronger teen driving laws will provide them with practice and support they need to be to be responsible drivers. we can protect teenagers and everyone else on the road. in addition, the report highlights the need for mandating shall brewstebooster s -- mandating child booster seats. this will mean that fewer young people will be in serious and preventable injuries. i really want to stress the fact that these are preventable injuries. when i teach my public tells students at george washington university, we talk about the three e's of prevention.

engineering, education, and enforcement. the industry is doing what they need to do with regard to engineering. in regard to education, the programs are doing what they need to be doing in terms of educating the public. with regard to enforcement, we really need to level the playing field. as was mentioned by senator cullerton, we can level the playing field with the stroke of a pen. it is ludicrous for me to practice in the national capital region, where we serve states that are at the top of the list , and states that are in the worst part of that list is virginia. we need to strengthen that enforcement-arm of this prevented activity. i would like to never see another injury or death resulting from a motor vehicle crash.

as a parent and a physician, i can attest that automobile safety laws benefit children, families, our society, and our system as a whole. let's work together to assure that every state has the highest level of protection for everyone on the road. thank you for your attention this afternoon. [applause] >> thank you very much, dr. wright. next we will hear from another mother who has lived with a terrible loss and a personal injury for many years. marge lee is also a political activist in the state of new york. she has turned her grief into changing laws and making it a better world for other people. i'm very thankful she is here with us today. >> good afternoon. thank you, judy.

my heart goes out to susan. we are both members of an ever- growing group of victims who suffered incomprehensible loss because of preventable runway crashes. in 1990, my family was returning home to new york. we never made it home. we were hit by a drunk driver in new jersey. a 25-year-old stepson was killed 3 my 5-year-old son and my 3-year-old daughter were injured. i sustained multiple life threatening injuries and came close to death. there has been progress in the last 30 years. the war is not yet won. but 2010 high with report card shows that all states have adopted model drunk driving laws -- not all states, including significant penalties for impaired drivers who endangered

child passengers. new york recently enacted a law that holds accountable anybody who puts a child passenger at risk. it is named for an 11-year-old. she got into the car with a friend's mother. that mother was arrested for dwi. under the of law, those convicted of dwi with a child passenger will be charged with a class e felony, and face four years in prison. if the child is killed, they could serve as long as 20 years. we all know that drunk driving has long been a factor in fatal crashes. in 2008, about 1/3 of all highway deaths were higalcohol related. there's another rapidly growing threat to our safety, distracted

driving, including texting while driving. a wide body of evidence shows that the use of cell phones dramatically reduces reaction times, perhaps as much as alcohol. a 2009 study from the virginia tech transportation institute found that text messaging increased the risk of crashes by more than 23%. only 15 states and the district of columbia currently ban text messaging for all drivers as a primary offense. that means a driver can be pulled over for that. even though my state of new york passed a restriction ninth 2009, the law classifies texting while driving only as a secondary offense. it is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. advocates is right to have added the all aged texting ban. texting while driving as a

secondary offense is too weak. the new york senator agrees. there's another representative in washington state with the same type of legislation. like all of us here today appealing for greater diligence and protecting all drivers, is my sincere hope that more state lawmakers will sponsor bills to restrict distracted driving, and the tenacious until they become law. there has been a lot of focus on teens and texting, and rightly so. it is all too often a deadly combination behind the wheel. this is why my organization is in strong support. it has joined the safe road for teenagers coalition to push this legislation through congress.

every state should have tough graduated driver's licensing, including cell phone and texting bans. as a mother who lost a child to impaired driving, a woman who nearly lost her life in the crash, and a committed advocate, i appeal to every governor end every state legislature to make 2010 the year where we will see strong ignition interlock, teen-driving laws, and texting bans for all adults become a reality. there's no doubt it will save lives. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. it's my pleasure to introduce our next speaker, rep chris van hollen. he represents the district eight in montgomery county and maryland. he is a member of the house ways and means committee.

before serving in congress, beginning in 2002, rep chris van hollen was a member of the maryland general assembly, where he was consistently a reliable and effective champion of highway safety laws in maryland. he's now one of the original sponsors of the stand up act standhr-1895. we welcome you and appreciate your leadership. >> thank you. let me commend and applaud advocates for highway and auto safety for compiling the report that is released today. judith lee stone, thank you very much. jackie gillan, thank you. and the delegate who is here -- a friend and one of the leaders in a marylanthe maryland general

assembly. i've had the pleasure of working with him on this important legislation. most especially, i want to think anks the moms for sharing their personal stories, their stories of family tragedy, and for them working so diligently to try to make sure we do not have more family members who have to share those stories of tragedy. we have seen progress in this country on driving safety laws. mothers against drunk driving has made an important impact. others have made an impact. we know from the continuing tragedy is that much more work remains to be done. this is an area where we need to continue to work at the state level and the federal level. this report has a slew of

recommendations with respect to traffic safety and avoiding crashes. i want to focus on the teen crash situation, and like my colleague, dr. wright, i also have two teenage drivers in the family. i think all parents worry, understandably so, when they're teenagers and other young drivers get into the car. whether they are driving themselves were getting into the car with a teenage friend. that is why it is essential that we, at the federal level, provide an impetus to the states to move forward in developing the gdl requirements but i'm proud to have joined with my colleagues, jim bishop and mike castle, who are the chief sponsors and authors of

the stand up legislation, which is a bipartisan legislation, to try to use leverage we have that the federal level to prod states to move in the right direction. there have been states in the past where the federal government has intervened to try to create a uniform set of standards, and standards that we know have worked. if you look at the graduated driver's license programs in places where they have been enacted, you have seen up to a 40% reduction in teen-driver crashes. that is important progress. the toll is significant and continues to be a source of great tragedy in this country. it's important to understand

that behind all these statistics are the kind of stories we have heard. if you look at the overall numbers, they are something that cries out for a response to the state and federal level. 10 teenagers are killed in the united states each day as a result of motor vehicle crashes. in my state of maryland, over the past five years, crashes involving teenagers have claimed 579 lives. over the last decade, you have seen 80,000 deaths in crashes involving teen driving. that is a staggering figure. we invest a lot of resources to fight diseases in this country, as we should. we need to treat this as a public health emergency. these are preventable crashes. we need to rally with the same

kind of urgency as we would if you had a disease taking hold on our children. thank you for working with us to pass this legislation, so that we can make sure our teenagers and all our family members are better protected as they head out on the roadways. nobody is invincible. we want to make sure we take every action we can come as a country, to moved in the right direction. thank you. we are very hopeful we can get this legislation moving. as i said, it has bipartisan co- sponsors of. it is common sense. what we need is for all the people who have gathered in this room and throughout the country to recognize that they have an important stake in the success of this bill, and help us get it

passed. thank you for your efforts. [applause] >> thank you very much, a congressman chris van hollen. thank you. next, dr. stephen hargarten. he has been at the forefront in the state of wisconsin, trying to get good highway safety laws passed, and he is also on my board of directors. dr. hargarten. >> thank you. i am the chair of emergency medicine at the college of wisconsin, and at a level one trauma center. i've been doing this kind of work for over 30 years. i first want to congratulate our congressional leaders who are with us today, and also our state legislatures, who, as

senator cullerton made reference to, by the push of a button, he can save lives. you all will be able to save more lives by the stroke of a policy penn then i can do -- with a policy pen than i can do with surgery. the most difficult thing i have to do as an emergency physician is not to have to go through the critical details of patients clinging to life. it is to tell mom that their daughter has passed away, or suffered lifelong brain injury. that is the hardest thing that i do. that is what i do not want to do.

our partners in public health at the state and federal level make my job easier. over the past several months, we have witnessed a health care reform debate, and have heard the important arguments for reducing health-care costs. over the past decade, tens of thousands of americans have died and hundreds have been injured, requiring costly treatments. costly and permanent injuries, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, extremity injuries with lifelong disabilities. our nation's policy makers, both state and federal, have solutions to health care costs in their respective communities. yet, many of them choose not to act. for those states to have comprehensive gdl primary

enforcement laws, and especially my neighbor to the south, ill. -- we do not typically talked favorably about illinois in wisconsin, but in this case, illinois is a shining example. these states benefit. others outlined in the advocates report, also. for those states who do not choose this pathway, lives are lost, and taxpayers pay more with increase medicaid costs as an example. the evidence based policies -- these state prescriptions for health to prevent death and costly disabilities are available, yet there is inaction. i do not use all the tools at my disposal to save a person's life, i have fallen below

community standards. i and my colleagues cannot do this alone one patient at a time. the state and federal policymakers need to do more. they have the policy tools. they have a road map. they have a road map to safety. i ask them to use them. in act like saving policies. we ask that you do everything you can do to save lives and reduce costly injuries. over the past decade, my colleagues and i in pediatric emergency medicine, emergency nurses, trauma nurses, social workers, and others have treated hundreds of thousands of people damaged, torn, bruised, lacerated, many permanently affected from car and motorcycle crashes. families and friends have seen them die, disfigured, or

disabled. during these historic times for health care reform, let's make sure we use all of our policy tools and save lives. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, steve. we have two more speakers, bill martin of farmers insurance, and joan claybrook. >> good afternoon. i am bill martin with farmers insurance group. hopefully you'll stay for my talk in spite of that. [laughter] it is a very rare person who has not been touched by this public health issue, but even those of us who have not been directly involved might take a moment right now to think about the risk to our lives.

we all understand risk. many of us buy insurance to protect us from those risks. insurance companies can never fully protect from the emotional traumaof an auto accident. farmers insurance and the other members of the advocates board, the other insurance company members, believe that passing effective laws will do our policyholders a favor we cannot do them. i think they would much rather avoid the accident then have us pay for. they would much rather have that date bacy back. without assertive legislative actions, the type of action you see in the 2009 s stand up act, we will all be disposed even more unnecessary risks. i ask you to take a moment and

take a little journey with me. if you close your eyes and think about nighttime on a two-lane road driving the speed limit, 45 miles per hour, and driving in thone direction. another car comes in the other direction. as one author calls this, public trust at that moment. public trust of an idea that person will act responsibly. think about being behind your will and what is happening behind the other wheel. is it somebody who does not have the experience that you have? is it a group of teenagers playing with the radio? maybe the driver is getting a text message and they're looking down to see who it was just for the instant. just for the instant that it takes to cross over the center line, and that it takes you, the responsible driver, to change

your life permanently. statistics show that teens have a far disproportionate number of these accidents happening to them than anybody else. they have not learned with those of us who are getting older. and so we ask for the oversight of the lawmakers to protect us from behavior's that will make our roads less safe. we're all at risk for making bad choices. the insurance industry knows that proven, effective laws, such as graduated driver's license, help teach us about the risks and how to avoid them. our colleagues will continue to join together with safety, consumer, and public health groups to urge that these important laws be passed in the states and in congress. they help us all keep on the right side of the center line, which i think is probably the

best insurance policy for all of us. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, bill. the bill is the insurance co- chair of our board. i want to have the consumer co- chair of our board, and joan claybrook, come to the podium. >> this is the wrap up. as an administrator of the national highway safety transportation in the carter years, i solve the difficulty of changing driver behavior. that laid the groundwork for many successful federal and state programs that we have today. and that we're advocating for tomorrow. it's a great honor to hold that job because of the opportunities to save lives and reduce costly injuries. today i serve as the co-chair of advocates.

i knowç that the insurance industry has been instrumental in helping make the work of advocates possible, and to help reduce highway deaths and injuries. we were just beginning to understand that passing safety laws in combination with public education, would change the way people drive. education alone is totally ineffective. slogans and campaigns without laws and enforcement has never worked, and never will. in 1978, during my tenure, the first child restraint law was passed. with strong support, by the mid- 1980s, every state had a lot requiring this. it was not long before the statistics were out on specific

traffic safety laws, enforcement, and education that make people change their behavior, as well as advances in the design of child safety seats, and in the design of cars. no longer our motor vehicle crashes the number one killer of infants and toddlers. the same success as occurred in reducing drunk driving that resulted when congress and the states passed tough loaws. a similar story is revealed with safety belt usage by 12% during the carter years to 80% today. we know these numbers could be further improved. our nation is in the middle of another raging debate on how to improve universal health care, reduce economic burden on our society.

there may be differences of opinion on how to achieve these goals. there's universal agreement on prevention being the key. passing traffic safety laws is the cornerstone of prevention. we have known for years through peer review research that laws rated in the advocates road map are proven to save lives and reduce the costs to our society. as of today, not one state has enacted all 15 laws in this report. many are missing primary enforcement seat belt use, a motorcycle helmet use, teen driving, drunk driving, and booster seat laws. this report should be the blueprint that congress uses. it could save millions for year. everyone has a stake in advancing these laws and saving

lives. state legislators, governors, executive branch officials, businesses, public health and safety groups, medical personnel, the media, and most of all, the american people, who could avoid a devastating trauma and heartbreak that we've heard about today. it is senseless for our public officials to allow another year to pass and to accept the nearly 40,000 people who die each year, and over two million who are injured. this report is a wake up call for everyone that legislative action is urgently needed. let's make it happen. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you to all the speakers. thank you for being here. it is time to take questions from those of you for in the room. do you have any questions?

if you would ask your question in the microphone, that would be helpful. >> i am from "the washington post." as you lobbied the state legislatures and congress for these laws, can you be specific in telling us who is lobbying in the other direction? who are the specific lobby's pushing against them? >> john cullerton will take that one. >> there's one organization that lobbies against laws against laws. that is the one law the state of illinois has not been able to pass. unfortunately, they're very effective. for the most part, the other statutes are laws where there is no organized opposition.

the health community lobbies for it. there's a perception in certain legislature's mines that their constituents may not like it, that some of the parents of teenagers who will not get their license until they're 16 and a half may be against that. it's a perception that has to be overcome. it can be done. and let's not forget, we have made remarkable progress, as joan has outlined to come over the past 25 years. fatality rates have dropped. why stop? why not continue to save these lives? >> in regards to that, some of the problems that we face has to do with the judiciary.

they felt that the penalty was sufficient. they felt the cost of the interlock was an additional burden. they did not request it be put in. they had the choice, and chose not to. >> is there another question from the press? can you get the microphone back there, please? thank you. >> i work for a public radio station in los angeles. asking about california, which got a green light, there were a few things i did not understand. one was the booster seat. how could that be improved? can you talk about laws about teen driving, and anything else you think we could do better? >> on booster seats, the reason california gets half credit is because they do not cover

children through age 7. we have tried to get that passed in california to raise the age. that is the optimal law. we do give a half credit if you have something, but. not the. on the gdl laws -- the graduated driver's license, in california, on the laws we included in the report, that california needs to have a 16-year-old age for the learner's permit. they still need a night time restriction that does not have secondary enforcement. we do not count the law if it is secondary enforcement. secondary enforcement means they have to be stopped for another reason before they can give eight ticket. -- a ticket. they also need a passenger

restriction, which they have, but it has a secondary provision. we do not count that. there are a couple of others. cellphone restrictions for teens. it only bans texting. those need to change. just make them primary enforcement. all highway safety laws used to be primary enforcement. let's go back to that. also, there are some counties in california that have laws have laws for first-time offenders as a pilot, but we will like that to the statewide. >> i have a question from somebody from the internet. the question is -- i have not

had a chance to read the press kit yet, but how you credit for half a lot when compiling the list? for example, nebraska has 6.5 of 15 model laws. as i explained, if they have some of the law, we give them partial credit. we add up the numbers and that is how we get to a number like 6.5. in the case of nebraska, is that their booster seat law only covers up to age 5, instead of 87. that is why they get half credit for that. do we have any questions? from? -- from reporters? >> our question is for john cullerton. with states that have limited budgets, how do you try to

enforce -- how do you encourage enforcement when there is? >>? they said the state spent an enormous amount of money on medicaid. many of the people in these crashes, if they're not on medicaid when they are first injured, go on medicaid. we save money by passing these laws. in terms of enforcement, i think it's fair to say that a lot of these are still in force. when judy talks about secondary enforcement, that puts in the mind of the driver -- i can get away with not wearing a seatbelt because they will not stop me. that is why we have seen, in the states that have passed primary enforcement, the usage rate goes up by 12%. it is not because there's more police officers. theirself enforcement. it does not cost any money. -- there is self enforcement.

it saves money. now is the time to pass these. >> thank you very much. any other hands? thank you. >> i am with fox 5 news. what efforts are being made, if any, to push virginia to get up to speed, especially because we are so intertwined in this area with people crossing the border so frequently everyday? >> this press conference is one of the efforts. we are trying to highlight that these gaps exist. in the case of virginia, they could raise the status of a lot of their laws to primary enforcement, and it would have not gone into the red area. they have other things they need to do. i think the legislators need to

look at some of the issues that senator cullerton has brought up. this is a cost issue. the money that we spend in this country -- $230 billion that we do not need to spend on motor vehicle crashes. if we -- this translates into a crash tax. it is a lot of money. each state has a number assigned to them on how much money it cost them. this is a ready-made blueprint for them to cut down on those expenses. especially with these preventable statutes that can be passed. i hope that others will be working with us to try to change the status in virginia. we will be working in maryland, also. let's all work together to get that done. yes?

>> as she said, the purpose of this report is to also rates the states and give them a grade. we will also be working with our safety partners. our board of directors is comprised of the major health and safety and insurers. in virginia, strengthening the laws will be tried again. they have tried for years and years to get a primary enforcement seat belt law in virginia. we are hoping this report will give them another tool to go to the legislature and say virginia is a red state. you have dropped from yellow to red. we have gaps in our highway safety laws. virginia does not even have an open container law. many elements of the graduated driver's license are secondary.

we're hoping we will take this collective group, and we will be working in the legislatures to try to help co-sponsors to get these bills through. as senator cullerton said, they are not easy battles. they are effective when you succeed, and they save lives and they say cosve costs, but ther'a lot of resistance. i have worked on many bills where the committee chair has a lot of authority and economy, and for some reason does not want this bill to go through. advocates has worked for years on a primary enforcement seat belt law. we're hopeful that may be 2010 will be the year that we get some of laws. >> we are also in support of federal legislation that would help the states to take such action. there is legislation that has seen some activity in the house.

the transportation bill that will be taken up this year, we hope that will remain in, and that will compel a number of the states to pass these laws. any other questions? yes? >> i am also from abc, representing wls, for senator cullerton. it was mentioned that if you're in the yellow category, it means you are taking steps to advance to the green status. in the area of teen driving, that's the only category that a lot of the states are really in the yellow. i want to know what kind of steps you are taking to advance to the green in regards to teen driving. we have three things that we need to do in illinois. the motorcycle helmet law is

very difficult to pass. i would not predict that could happen soon. the idea of moving back the minimum age to 16 for a learner's permit is a new proposal. i do not know that has been introduced in illinois. i suspect that as a result of this meeting -- i will bring this to the attention of our legislatures and have that introduced. there's only one minor change to and nighttime driving restriction on the weekends. illinois would like to lead the nation. we are close to doing that. it is the work that advocates has done every year two. -- every year to point us in the right direction that has done that. with regard to the motorcycle helmets law, in many ways we are playing defense. comany states are trying to repl

them. dr. wright, do you want to respond? >> the question makes clear that the achilles' heel for many states rests with teen driving protection. the gdl laws is where a lot of the states are falling down. moving the age of permit back in maryland from 15 to 16 as part of the graduated driver's license is where many states can improve their status with regard to this report. >> thank you. we will take two more questions. >> there's a lot of talk of distracted drivers and preventing individuals from using devices. as automakers' move to put internet access in cars and that

sort of thing, what kind of pressure are you putting on that industry? >> good question. i'll take a crack at it. you are right. it has been astounding to see the speed with which some of these devices are being proposed. we're very concerned. we have been concerned for years as some of the devices have been coming in slowly. they seem to be coming in much faster. we have spoken to the federal government on several occasions. in all cases, this is a federal government issue, not a state government issue. i think the national highway safety administration and others need to get on top of this. it will go crazy. it already seems like it is. what was the second part of the question?

what are we doing about it? we do have a petition that we filed on truck-driver distracting electronic devices. the department is considering that. it goes a little lighter than phone use. we expect we will get an answer in 2010 on that issue. >> the virginia legislature just passed a text messaging ban that was utterly toothless because it is secondary. more generally, how would you characterize the will and the intent of state legislatures everywhere in passing secondary enforcement bans on various things that become popular issues? >> i'd characterize it as a mistake. it used to be that primary enforcement was a lot of the

land in all highway safety laws. i think it's a convenient way to compromise and to get bills passed in state legislatures. i think that it may be that we need to do a better job of educating people. .

>> it seems as though it is something that has to stop. >> i was going to add another way we are addressing the issue of secondary enforcement is federal legislation. the legislation that is out there on team driving and requiring states to pass seatbelt laws are all requiring primary enforcement. at the federal level, when we have a safety lock, whether it is on distracted driving martine driving or primary enforcement or ignition interlock, we are asking our sponsors and they have introduced legislation that requires in order for a state to meet the requirement of passing the law, it has to be a primary enforcement law.

>> thank you very much. we have concluded the press conference. thank you. >> there will be individual interviews. >> we're happy to do individual interviews afterward. >> the web address is www.saferoads.org. you can get the electronic press release if you go to that website. >> from this national press club event, we go to remarks from afl-cio president, richard

trumka. he is about to talk about the state of the economy and the impact on families as well as proposed legislation that could impact the labor movement. this is from the national press club and it is just getting under way. >> he joined the labour movement and eventually led the united mine workers union. as president of the umwa, he led the union in one of the most successful strikes in history against the pittston coal co. which tried to avoid paying into an industrywide health and pension fund. the strike resulted in significant advances in employer-employee cooperation and enhanced mineworkers' job security, pensions, and benefits. breaking with decades of tradition, is consistent use of nonviolent civil disobedience led to his receiving the labor responsibility award from the martin luther king jr. center for nonviolent social change in

1990. his accomplishment as president of the mine workers union includes passage of the federal call act, providing guaranteed health care for retired miners and bringing the union back into the afl-cio fold. he served as secretary treasurer for the afl-cio for 14 years before being elected president in september. last year, president obama named him to the economic recovery advisory board. in fact, he will meet with president later today. please join me in welcoming to the national press club, mr. richard trumka. [applause] >> thank you for those very kind and generous words and let you know i am delighted to be here at the national press club.

i also want to thank the officers of the press club for the invitation to be here with you today. especially you and the speaker chairman committee member who arranged this. thank you. 10 days into the decade and one year into the obama administration, our nation remains poised between the failed policies of the past and the hopes for a better future. this is a moment that cries out for political courage and we're not seeing enough of it. i spent the first week of this year traveling on the west coast. in san francisco, i was arrested with low-wage hotel workers fighting to protect their health care and pensions from leveraged buyouts that gone bad.

in san diego, i talked with working americans and was moved to tears by foreclosures and unemployment, by outsourcing and benefit cuts. everywhere i went, people said to me "why do so many of the people we elect seem to only care about wall street? why is helping bankers and matter of urgency but unemployment is something we just have to live with? why don't we make anything in america anymore? why is it so hard to pass a health-care bill that guarantees americans healthy lives instead of guaranteeing insurance companies healthy profits?" as i traveled from city to city, i heard a sense of resignation from middle-class americans. people laid off for the first times in their lives asking

"what did i do wrong?" i came away shaken by the sense that the very things that make america great are now in danger. what makes us unique among nations is this -- in america, working people are the middle- class. we built our middle-class of the 20th-century through hard work, through struggle, and the visionary political leadership. but a generation of destructive, greed-driven economic policy has eroded that process and now threatens our very identity as a nation. today, on every coast and in between, working women and working men are fighting to join the middle class and protect and rebuild it.

we crave political leadership ready to fight for the kind of america that we want to leave to our children. and against the forces of greed that brought us to this very moment. instead, we hear a resurgence of complacency, and political paralysis. too many people in washington seem to think that now that we have bailed out the banks everything will be ok. in 2010, our elected leaders must choose between continuing the policies of the past or striking out on a new economic course for america, a course that will reverse the damaging trend toward greater inequality that is crippling our nation. at this moment, the voices of america's working women and men truly must be heard in washington. not the voices of bankers and

speculators for whom it always seems to be the best of times. but the voices of those for whom the new year brings pinks lips, givebacks, -- pink slips, givebacks, hollowed out health- care, pension freezes -- is the roll-call of an economy that long ago stopped working for most of us. today, i want to talk about the labor movement's vision for our nation. working people want an american economy that works for them. one that creates good jobs, where wealth is shared fairly, and where the economic life of our nation is about solving problems like the threat of climate change rather than creating problems like the foreclosure crisis. we know that growing inequality

undermines our ability to grow as a nation. by squandering the talents and contributions of our people and consigning entire communities to stagnation and failure. if we're going to make our vision real, first we must challenge our political leaders, we must challenge ourselves, and we must challenge our movement. workers formed the labor movement as an expression of our lives, a chain of responsibility and solidarity, making millions of people here in america and around the world into agents of social change. able to accomplish much more together than as isolated individuals. that movement gives voice to the hopes and values and interests

of working people every single day. but despite our best efforts, we have endured a generation of stagnant wages and collapsed benefits. a generation where the labor movement has been much more about defense than offense. where our horizons are shrinking rather than growing. but the future of the labor movement depends on moving forward, on innovating, and changing the way that we work. being open to all working people and giving voice to all workers , even when our laws and employers seek to divide us from one another. that is something we are working on every single day. the afl-cio is building new ways for working people to organize themselves and new models for collective bargaining. we have created a working

americans, a 3 million member community-based union growing in working-class neighborhoods. this is one of the single -- one of the signal accomplishments of my predecessor. i am very proud and honored to have him here with us. please stand up. [applause] we are proud of our alliance with workers' centers movements that links movements to the afl- cio with hundreds of grassroots workers organizations around the country. we are working with community allies to strengthen the voice of low-wage workers in los angeles car washes, some of the worst paid and worst treated workers in this country. next week, the afl-cio executive vice president, who is right

over here, will lead the movement of the command thracian of the 50th anniversary of the lunch counter sit in les -- lunch counter citizens in -- and on behalf of the work she has done with the most vulnerable in our society. we have been working with unemployed african-american day laborers and their workers' centers which are desperately trying to keep alive the dream launched in those very citizens. in san diego, i visited a pre apprenticeship program formed by a local labor movement to create career paths for at riskiest. in los angeles, i saw -- for at risk -- for at risk youths. i saw a movement focused on green jobs. these programs demonstrate

tremendous benefits that are possible when labor and business come together to solve problems jointly. i saw a man who was once homeless and he was 19 days away from becoming a tournament electrician. the young man said to me the union gave him a chance to go from a life to the hope for a middle-class life. it did not just teach him to get a job, it taught him how to be a man. i talked to hotel workers, many of them immigrants on strike to keep hotel jobs from falling back into poverty. two union members with ph these -- a ph.d.s, fighting for the

education of their state's children. i thought of my father on strike in the coal fields when i was a boy. i was reminded of this basic truth -- a job is a good job because workers fight to make a good job. it does not matter if the job is in a coal mine or in a classroom or in a car wash. that, my friends, is why unions are needed today more than ever before. i grew up in a little town in southwestern pennsylvania, surrounded by the legacy of my parents and grandparents. my grandfather and my father and his brothers and their fellow workers went into the mines that are death traps to work for

wages that were not enough to buy food. or clothes for our families. they and the union they build made those jobs in the middle class jobs. when i went into the mind, it was a good job. -- when i went into the mind it was a good job. there are possibilities that my mother made real that took me from penn state, to law school, to this very podium. what is our legacy? what is the legacy of those of us who are helping the world, shaping the world our children and grandchildren will inhabit? is our government laying the foundations that young people need right now? the work places offer hope? do they offer work? are we building a world we will be proud to hand over to our

children? are the voices of the young, of the future, being heard? in september, i was elected president of the afl-cio together with a treasury secretary who is here with me and the executive vice president. she is the youngest principal officer in the afl-cio history. [applause] i have asked her to lead a program for young workers. as part of the effort, the afl- cio conducted a study of young workers between the ages of 18 and 34, comparing their economic standing and attitudes and hopes with those of a similar survey conducted 10 years ago. the findings were shocking. they reveal a lost decade of

young workers in america. lower wages, education deferred, things were so bad that one in three of these 18-34 year old is living at home with their parents because they cannot afford to live at home -- they cannot afford to live alone. the desperation i heard in this survey and the voices of the proud, hard-working americans fills me with a sense of urgency. an urgency that should be shared by every last elected official in washington and across the country. as a country and a movement, our challenge is to build a new economy that can restore working people's expectations and renew their hopes. if you were laid off because of what wall street did to our economy, it is not your fault.

a dead-end job with no benefits is not the best our country can do for its citizens. what went wrong with our economy? you could say it's as simple as we build a low wage, high consumption economy and tried to bridge the contradiction with debt. there is a lot of truth in that simplicity. but if we're going to understand what is wrong in a way that will help us understand how to fix it, i think we need a little more detail. a generation ago, our nation's policy makers embarked on a campaign of radical deregulation and corporate empowerment. one that celebrated private greed over public service. the afl-cio warned of the dangers of that path, trade

policies that reward and accelerated outsourcing, financial deregulation designed to promote speculation, and the dismantling of our pension and health care system. we warned that the middle class could not survive in such an economy, that growing inequality would inevitably shrank the american pie. that we were borrowing from the rest of the world at an unsustainable pace. the bust would follow bubbles and our country would be worse off in the end. these policies culminated in the worst economic decade in living memory. we suffered a net loss of jobs, the housing market collapsed, real wages fell, and more children fell into poverty. the enormous growth of inequality during that decade

yielded mediocre growth overall. this is not a portrait of a cyclical recession, but of a nation with profound, unaddressed, structural economic problems on a long-term downward slide. our structural problems predate the crisis that hit in 2007 and they are not going to go away by themselves in 2010. first, we have under invested in the foundations of our economy. including transportation, communications and the structure of essential in a middle-class society, in a dynamic, competitive, high-wage economy. but the most important foundation of our economy is education and training.

we simply cannot continue to skimp on the quality of education we provide to all our children and expect to lead in the global economy. likewise, we need to provide opportunities for like a lot -- for lifelong skills upgrades for workers for private and public sector. second, we failed over a long time to create enough jobs at home to maintain normal class. we have allowed corporate tax to whittle away at workers' bargaining power to undermine the quality of the remaining jobs. finally, the structural absence of good jobs means a shortage of sustainable demand to drive our economy. we want an entirely different kind of economy. let's talk about what we need to

do. we must directly and immediately take on what is wrong by creating millions of good jobs now, by rebuilding our economic foundations, and giving working people the freedom to form unions again and make all our jobs good jobs. [applause] we must pass genuine health care reform and reregulate our financial economy so that the finance is the servant of the real economy and not its master. [applause] so that we have an independent consumer financial protection agency and so that we never again take the public's money and use it to rescue bank executives and stockholders.

i would like to commend president obama's leadership in insistent -- in insisting on a viable, strong, independent consumer protection agency which is crucial to real financial reform. the afl-cio's five point program will create more than 4 million jobs, extending unemployment benefits, including cobra, expanding federal and the structure and green jobs investment, dramatically increasing federal aid to states and local governments facing financial disaster, direct job creation or feasible, and finally, direct lending of tarp money to small and medium- size businesses that cannot get credit because of the financial crisis. we need to adopt a tax on financial speculation so we can fund the jobs effort as the economy recovers.

some in washington say that when it comes to jobs, go slow. take half steps. those voices are harming millions of unemployed americans and our families, but they're also jeopardize in our economic recovery. -- jeopardize in our economic recovery. it is responsible to have a plan for paying for job creation over time. but it is bad economics and suicidal politics not to aggressively address the job crisis at a time of double-digit unemployment. in fact, budget deficits over the medium and long-term will be worse if we allow the economy to slide into a long job stagnation. unemployed workers don't pay

taxes and they don't go shopping. businesses without customers don't hire workers, don't invest, and they also don't pay taxes. our economy simply does not work without good jobs. so we must take action now to restore workers voices in america. the systemic, systematic silencing of american workers by denying our right to form unions is that part of the disappearance of good jobs in america. we must pass the employee free choice act so that workers can have the chance to turn bad jobs in to good jobs and so we can reduce the inequality which is undermining our prospects of a stable economic growth. [applause] and we have to do that now.

not next year, not even the summer, but right now. each of the initiatives should be routed in a crucial alliance of the middle-class and poor. but today, as i speak to you, something different is happening with health care. on the one hand, we have the house bill which asks the small part of our country that prospered in the last decade, the richest of the rich, to pay a bit more in taxes so that most americans can have health insurance. the house bill rains in the power of health insurers and employers with an employer mandate and a strong public option. but thanks to the senate rules and the appalling irresponsibility of the senate republicans, and the power of

the wealth among some democrats, the senate bill instead drives a wedge between the middle-class and poor. the bill rightfully seeks to ensure that most americans have health insurance, but instead of taxing the rich, the senate bill taxes the middle class by taxing workers health plans. not just union members health care plans, in fact most of the 31 million uninsured or injured employees who will be hit by the excise tax are not union members. the benefits tax in the senate and the senate bill to its working americans who need health care for their families against working americans struggling to keep health

insurance for their family. this is a policy designed to benefit the elites. in this case, insurers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and irresponsible employees -- irresponsible employers at the expense of the proper public. -- the broader public. it is the same tragic events that got us to where we are today. i can assure you the labor movement is fighting everything to get health care reform that is worthy of the support of working men and working women. [applause] these great struggles over health care, jobs, the freedom to organize and financial reforms are the for steps. beyond the short-term jobs crisis, we have to have an agenda for restoring american manufacturing, a combination of

their trade and currency policies, worker training, infrastructure investment, and regional development policies targeted to help economically distressed areas. we cannot be a prosperous middle-class society in a dynamic global economy without a healthy manufacturing sector. we must have an agenda to address the daily challenges that workers face on the job, to ensure safe and healthy workplaces and worker from the rules. -- worker-friendly rules. we also need comprehension -- comprehensive reform of the immigration policy based on fairness and not cheap labor. we must take on the retirement crisis. to many employers have replaced the system of pensions be used have with under-funded savings accounts fully exposed to

everything that is wrong with wall street. today, the median balance of a 401k account is only $27,000. no where near enough to secure retirement. we need to return to a policy of employers sharing responsibility for retirement of employees while bolstering and strengthening social security. president obama campaigned on a platform of boldly taking on these challenges. he has spoken often about the need to found that the economy on doing real things rather than dreaming of financial pots of gold. he asked vice-president joe biden to lead the effort to restore the middle-class. for the first time i can recall, we have an administration that ceased manufacturing, making

things here, as central to america's future and speaks clearly about the positive role for workers and their unions in the future. president obama has laid out an aggressive agenda for structural change and has appointed people like the secretary of labor who believe in that vision. of course, president obama inherited a terrible mess from his predecessor. a journey of stole elections, ruinous tax cuts for the rich, dishonest wars, a financial scandal, government-sponsored torture, flooded cities, and finally economic collapse. president obama's administration began out of necessity and vision with an act of political courage. the enactment of a broad and

substantial economic recovery program. despite republican opposition, the stimulus was big enough to make real, positive impact on our economy. saving were creating more than a million jobs already. -- saving or creating an million jobs already trade but the jobs crisis is escalating, the foreclosure crisis continues, and wall street appears to have returned to its old ways. by the way, this is bonus week on wall street. i urge you to watch how much discipline they show which all the nation watching this week. watch and be amazed. now, more than ever, we need the boldness and clarity that we saw in our president during the campaign in 2008 when he outlined the scope of the economic problems facing our nation unencumbered by the

political crosscurrents waiting us down today. when you're into the obama administration, and one year in to a congress with strong democratic majorities, we need leadership action that matches the urgency that is felt so deeply by working people in this country. [applause] too often, washington falls into the grip of ambivalence about the fundamental purpose of government. is it to protect wealthy elites and gently encourage them to be more charitable? or is it to look after the vast majority of the american people? government in the interest of the vast majority of americans has produced our gate -- our

greatest achievement -- the new deal, the great society, the civil rights movement, social security, medicare, the minimum wage, the 40 hour week, the civil rights act, and the voting rights act. that is what made the united states a beacon of hope in a confused and divided world. but too many people now take for granted government's role as protector of wall street and privileged -- and the privileged. the see middle-class americans as overpaid and underworked. they see social security as a problem rather than the only piece of our retirement system that actually works. they feel sorry for homeless people, but fail to see the connections between downsizing and outsourcing and inequality and homelessness. this world view has brought

democrats nothing but disaster. the republicans' response is to offer the middle-class the false hope of tax cuts. tax cuts and enriching the rich, devastating the middle-class by destroying the institutions like public education and social security that make the middle- class possible. are you trying to tell me something? >> we're now into the question and answer time. but i'm not done with what i have to say. i'm going to continue my speech. i can wrap up in a few minutes but not 30 seconds. working people have been waiting 30 years. >> we have all these questions. >> thank you.

not a problem. here is what i have to say -- no matter what i say or do, the reality is that when unemployment is 10% and rising, working people will not stand tokenism, will not vote for politicians to think they can push a few crumbs are way and continue the failed economic policies of the last 30 years. i will be even more blunt -- in 1992, workers voted for democrats who promised action on the job, who talked about reining in corporate greed and promised health care reform. instead, we got naphtha and emboldened wall street, and not much more. -- instead we got nafta. we swallowed her pride and work to have a democratic majority

because we with the alternative was. but there was no way to persuade enough working americans to go to the polls when they could not tell the difference between the policies of the two parties. so politicians to think working people have it too good, too much health-care, too much so security, too much medicare, too much power on the job, they are inviting a repeat of 1994. [applause] our country cannot stand that repeat. president obama said in his inaugural address that the state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act, not only to create new jobs but too late and a foundation for growth. now is the time to make good on those words, for congress, for president obama, and for the american people.

we have some ideas of what those people can do on weekends if they don't believe us. bacon is it the unemployed. they can talk to college students -- they can go sit with the unemployed. they can talk to college students and professors with no jobs at graduation. they can talk to workers who have their jobs being offshore. they can ask what they think of wall street, health insurance companies and the big banks. ask them if they want a government that sits in partnership with those folks or a government that stands up for working people. then think about the great promise of america and the great legacy we have inherited. our wealth as a nation and our energy as a people can secure for us in the words of my predecessor, more schoolhouses and less jails, more books and less arsenals, more learning and

less voice, more leisure and less greed, more justice and less revenge. in fact, more of the opportunities to cultivate our better natures. that is the maricopa look forward to and we are looking forward to getting it now. -- that is the america we are looking forward to and we're looking forward to getting it now. [applause] >> we are going to get started -- [applause] we only have 20 minutes for questions. i ask that you be seated. the ap is reporting that the stimulus bill had virtually no impact on employment and was virtually ineffective in the construction industry. why should there be another stimulus if this was the result of the first? >> good question treat let's talk about history. when the first stimulus was being thought about, nobody thought the economy was going to

be in as deep a recession as it turned out to be. back then, they said we would need at least 1.3 trillion dollars to turn the economy around. remember that? the republicans stood up and fought against every last piece of the stimulus bill. we were able to get a bill that was about two-thirds of what was needed. nonetheless, our figures indicate and most economists figures indicate that we are saving some jobs, but we need a second step was package. at second stimulus package along the lines that we have lined out -- the five points the afl-cio lined out -- will create many jobs. else wise, we stand a danger of a double-dip recession, going back into that because the states are not spending, workers are not spending, and if we do not do something to create jobs and spending, the recovery that has taken over all but the financial economy but the real economy will take over.

>> you mentioned that the five. plan to stem unemployment that i think you introduced in november. that includes using tarp money to offer loans to small and medium-sized businesses. which parts of your plan have come to pass, which have not, why did you propose a plan, and when you meet mr. obama today, what will you tell him about land? >> today's meeting is not about the economy. some portions of the plan have already been enacted. the extending unemployment benefits, health care benefits and cover benefits were extended. we suggested a 12-month extension and house agreed. the senate gave a two-month extension. we will revisit that investment in infrastructure, the reauthorization of the transportation bill, house has done it. the senate is hopefully working on it. the reauthorization of the clean water act, the house has done that and the senate is hopefully

working on it. aid to state and local government is being done some what. it needs to be done more because we have 48 states in danger of cutting of spending and it does us precious little good at the federal level to increase spending to create jobs if the state level is decreasing by the same amount. that is why we have to give them some help. creating jobs has not been taken up yet. but it will be. the last one come of thetarp money has not been done yet. loans are not being made to small businesses and middle sized manufacturers that can create jobs. we ought to take the money that has not been spent, but has been paid back, said it to small, regional banks so they can do a media lending to small businesses that can create jobs. --

>> what is the roadblock to getting it passed? >> week and recalcitrant politicians. [applause] and a republican party that is more disciplined than anyone imagined that is determined to see this president fail and so they will not work for the interest of the country. they fought against healthcare. they fought against the stimulus package. they have no alternative except to say no. we think that is a tragic thing for the country and we hope they finally come to their senses and start thinking about what is best for the country and some of what is best for the next election. >> wooden more stimulus signify more debt and how would a stimulus investment -- wouldn't more stimulus signify more debt and it wouldn't it be investment -- [unintelligible] >> let me do a survey -- how

many people here can afford to live in the house therein. raise your hand. how many people paid cash for the house to live in? one person paid cash. the rest of us had to buy it on time. we can afford the house, but we had to do it on time. that's the same thing with the jobs program. we can afford a jobs program of the size necessary to write the economy, we just have to pay for overtime. so in long term, it looked at what the chinese did. -- it will not mean that more debt, it will be less debt. look at what the chinese did. they spent all the money in china. we spent 2% of our gdp and we spent some of it in the united states. most of it went out. some of that went out. for instance, a wind mill -- if

you buy a windmill abroad, 62 cents of every dollar is used to stimulate some deals economy rather than hours. -- rather than hours. we create jobs, that creates demand, that feels the economy. what we have had for the last 30 years is a low wage, high consumption economy. to bridge that contradiction, we borrowed. we now know that that's a system that cannot long endure. what will be the new engine that feels the economy? more debt? it has to be good jobs, where the wealth we produce gets distributed a little more fairly so that everybody can then demand something. because one person, a millionaire, or one person with

a hundred dollars creates less demand than 100 people with $1. what we have to do is make sure that the wealth is spread out a little more sweet and build the economy on strength. the other thing that has to be done is we regulate the economy. if we only stimulate the economy and go back to the same economy we have, the same result happen. the people at the top will walk away with the vast majority of what is produced and the rest of the country will see more jobs go overseas. it is up to us. we are at a crossroads. we are urging people to quickly to create those jobs because there is suffering going on. hopefully they will do that. if they do not, i think they will face the scorn of the american populace in the elections. >> the demand for shorter work time with a traditional response to an employment by the american

labor movement -- the struggle for a eight hour day was the core of union policy. dear -- during the depression, the demand for a 30-hour week was the policy. why are unions not demanding a four day work week? >> good question. we would like to have a four day work week if we got paid for five, but unfortunately, we're getting a no day work week and getting paid for no days. as it is now, we get laid off. when wages started to stagnate -- maybe i should go back a little bit. from 1946-1973, wages in this country doubled. productivity doubled and so did wages. we had a good thing going. we built the middle-class. the greatest expansion of wealth in the history of mankind. during that time, the interesting thing is the bottom income was increasing faster than the people of the top. the wage gap was collapsing. from night -- for 1973 to today,

productivity has continued up wages have stagnated. so workers went through four or five different strategies to compete with that. when wages stagnated, the first thing we tried to was work longer hours to get overtime to make up for what we were not getting in raises. when that did not work, we sent somebody from the family, another person or to into the work force so family income filled up. when that did not work, we took on a second or third job. that did not work either. then we got lucky and hit the high tech bubble of the 1990's. people's wages were not going up, but they said look at that 401k -- look that. they felt rich. they felt like they could borrow. and they did barrault.

then -- and they did it barrault. and in the high-tech bubble collapse. then housing bubble took off and now my hundred thousand dollars house is worth $200,000 so i can borrow. so i did. what we have is an economy that forces people just to get by to force longer and more jobs, retirees whose pension has been taken away, having to go back into the workforce. we should have a work system where we work fewer hours. and make more money. but this economy over the last 30 years has made that impossible for most americans. it is an economy that has grown people lot, taking jobs and turn back time and lower wages. you have people working for wages today that are lower than they were in the 1970's.

you cannot work fewer hours on wages to pay for 2010 commodities with wages from the 1970's. it is up to us to create those jobs and that is why the employee free choice act is the all-important. we get chance to make those jobs good jobs, create a better balance in the economy, create a real demand for products so we do not have to borrow our way into the middle class. we connect to bargain our way into the middle class. >> speaking of the employee free choice act, what are the prospects for labor law reform in 2010 was charged even a scaled-down version, given the momentum shift against the democrats and a general election your anxiety? >> i think you will see the employee free choice act passed in the first quarter of 2010. you will see it have some real

facts and we will start creating and making good jobs in this country again. >> in regards to the employee free choice act, it seemed that you and andy stern have different messaging. who is right and what is going on? >> the employee free choice act? the question is wrong. i never said it would not be a vote. maybe he said there wouldn't be, i don't know. i think we are in 100% agreement. i think everybody in the labor movement is in lock step with that, whether you are in the afl-cio or not. >> some health care reform supporters have expressed frustration at president obama that he is not weigh in more forcefully to shape legislation and push it through congress. how you feel about the employee free choice act that has been stalled since march? >> the president fully supports it, the vice president supports

it, a vast majority of the members of house support the employee free choice act. a vast majority of the people in the senate support the employee free choice act and i think we will have the employee free choice act despite the determined efforts of the republican party and a group of business people who do not want any kind of labor law reform and all. >> what industries or companies that do you believe should be targeted for unionization under efca, and card check will survive in the final bill -- will card check survive the final bill? >> i believe every workshop should have a union. i believe better decisions are made when you sit down at the table as equals. i will give a classic example. when my son was 5 years old, he would come to me and say that, i want to do this. i would say no. that was it.

it was no. he did not have any kind of leverage or bargaining power with me. he could not go to any higher authority. he had no bargaining power. then, two minutes later, my wife comes up to me. my wife says i want to get a new car and i say let's sit down and talk about it. its whole different process because we came to the table with -- she and i came with almost the same bargaining power. [laughter] i was probably on the short end and he had no bargaining power. that's what the union does. one worker against an employer, it does not matter how right or righteous you are, you have no ability to do anything. but no matter what the group is, if you have people sitting down and they're working, you can work together more effectively, we can create partnerships where we really do take on who i

consider to be the opponents and their decisions can get made. or you can look at it a different way and try to legislate every issue so that every health and safety issue could it legislated. that would be a real mess because you could not create a one size fits all in every place. collective bargaining allows everybody to tailor every decision or problem they have for the best for those two parties. it's a great solution and should be in every industry and workplace. >> would you be willing to accept a compromise that drops card check but maintains binding arbitration? >> if the person that asks the question has the power to do that will come up, i will bargain with you, other wise i make a habit of not bargaining in public. >> thanks to the old on the tsa

nominee, later -- labor relations have been inserted into the controversy over the detroit bombings there. how would allowing tsa workers to bargain collectively help? >> if you listen to senator demint, he would argue against it. i would recommend that his holdings lessening security in this country because they have an interim leader -- [applause] they have an interim leader, but they do not have a leader for the transportation security administration and that has an adverse effect. let me see if i've got the logic right -- the pilot can be in a union, and they are. the flight attendants can be in a union and they are. the mechanics and all the ground personnel can be in a union and they are. but the people who check them

somehow, if they are in a union, somehow that adversely affects national security. i just do not get the logic. i think they were in a union, they would have -- we would have better security in this country. go talk to them. when you go through, talk to them. they're overworked, there are too few of them around, we would be able to see that this is what is necessary for security at the airport and we will bring a union to everyone of them and more security to the work sites. [applause] >> will you actively oppose the health bill if the taxes in there? >> we have been working diligently for decades to try to get healthcare passed in this country. for decades. we're not about to stop now. i'm not about to speculate on what's going to be in the bill

or what's not going to be in the bill. the senate bill in our point of view is inadequate. it does not deserve the support of working men and women. but we are a long ways from the finish line yet and we will try to get a bill that does, should, and will garner support of working people in this country because bringing health care to every citizen out there is too important for us to get this close and say we quit. [applause] >> we're almost out of time, before i ask the last question, we have some important matters to take care of. let me remind our members of some future speakers -- on march 5th, the hon. that romney, former governor of massachusetts will be here. -- the hon. mitt romney will be here. then it dennis quaid will discuss potentially deadly medical errors. next, i would like to present our guest with the much coveted

national press club mud. -- national press club mug. but we're only give you half a cup of coffee because your speech went over. >> if you would have given me a full cup of coffee it would have gone an hour. [laughter] >> your meeting with president as afternoon, what will you be telling him? >> we will be talking about the weather and the football games, he thinks will win the super bowl, health-care and a couple of other things. we will be talking about health care. >> what is your message to him? what is the one thing you want to come away from a meeting with? >> it is a meeting among friends trying to solve problems. i'm not going into what are we are going to talk about. we will talk about trying to solve problems. >> i would like to thank you for coming today.

i appreciate it. really. [applause] i would also like to think the national press club staff members for organizing today's lunch. . [applause]

>> join us a little later tonight for arizona gov. brewer in her state of the stick address, live at 3:30 p.m. eastern.

later, the candidates to succeed did kennedy in the u.s. senate are set to debate. they will discuss the issues live at 7:00 p.m., also here on c-span. over on c-span2 our live coverage continues in the day- long education forum. that is on now you can watch a live on c-span2. >> i am always concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences of new regulations. regulations of any kind act as a tax when you tax the regulate something you tend to get less of something. >> today on the communicator's republican commissioner on efforts to create a national broadband plan, net neutrality ,

and the wireless industry. >> now a discussion on terrorism and the response to the attempted bombing of the christmas day northwest airlines flight. this is from this morning's show. where downloads are sold. learn more at c-span.org/slink in book. >> "washington journal" continues. host: brian michael jenkins is a senior advisor at the rand corp., a former captain with army special forces and has testified numerous times on terrorism, international and homegrown terrorism. i want to start looking at 2009 with major hasan, and the somalis recruited from minnesota and those from northern virginia who went to pakistan and more recently flight 253, the alleged bomber.

what does this say about recruitment from al qaeda and other radical groups both here in the u.s. -- in the u.s. and abroad? guest: it continues to exhort followers toward violence worldwide. what has happened is the conflict we are currently in has really completely destroyed any notion that armies are made up of individuals from a single nationality under a single organization. you see individuals from all over the globe, d.c. the attempt on the northwest flight, from nigeria who received training in yemen, or we see young men in minnesota recruited to go off and fight in various jihadist friends in pakistan, iraq, and elsewhere. -- jihadist fronts.

no distinctions between the front line and the home front and clearly makes no distinctions between combatants and non-combatants. the battlefield is everywhere. host: in your riding you talk about the difference between recruitment and radicalization -- in your writing. guest: radicalization itself is not -- it just means been fervent in one's beliefs. it does not create any danger in itself. it is when one carries that believes further and attempts to implement, not through a political process, but through self recruitment into terrorist violence, that we become concerned about it. the issue is not radical views,

the issue is the implementation of those radical views or the imposition of those radical views through terrorist violence. host: we will get to phone calls and a moment. but want to take back to test of phony -- testimony you did before the house. this was three years ago. you were reported to say, in order to focus limited security resources, we must be able to employ a selective methods systems that fast-track identified travelers, the latest versions of computer assistant passenger screening. have any of these in your mind been fully implemented to your satisfaction? guest: not really. when it comes to aviation security we are still falling in a sense the early industrial age assembly line model. that is, except for those who receive a secondary search, we do exactly the same set of processes and procedures for

every passenger boarding an airplane. the problem we face is that passenger loads are increasing. the number of procedures that we have to take passengers through has increased since 9/11 -- taking off your shoes, no liquids, more hardware being deployed to the airports. the number of tsa screeners is not increasing, so at some point it breaks. unless we get a system that allows us to focus more on some and perhaps take some risks with other portions of the flying population, then in a sense we are simply going to see the system collapse. host: how did get around issue of not wanting to profile but wanting to identify potential threats before the come to the airport and at the airport? guest: when we talk about profiling in a securities sense, we are not talking in terms of

racial or ethnic. putting aside constitutional concerns, that would be stupid. terrorists have demonstrated that they can recruit individuals of any nationality -- there were people arrested in north carolina last year for being involved in terrorist activities whose hair was a blunder and eyes blue were then my own. -- hair was blonder and eyes more blue than my own. we are talking about patterns of travel, at the airport itself, patterns of behavior. to get a silly illustration -- if somebody walks into a building in the middle of august in washington, d.c., wearing a heavy overcoat, that is going to attract some attention and it should. host: prescott, arizona. good morning on the republican

line. caller: good morning. my name is mark and i'm a special forces soldier. i am very disturbed by the notion that our present claims that gtmo is the biggest recruiting tool and damages or national security, yet i would say that successful attacks like the one conducted on 911 are a bigger recruiting tool, far more important to the jihadists than any treatment given to prisoners, and even unsuccessful attacks like the christmas day bombing attempt in detroit are tremendous recruiting tools for anyone willing to kill a few

americans -- it is a glorious thing that attracts these people to have their 72 virgins in paradise. their chief concern is the glory of allah. they don't care very much about the people in gtmo until they are sprung out. you agree? guest: a couple of old soldiers will agree and disagree in a couple of points. in terms of guantanamo being used as part of the jihadist narrative which portrays what they believe is a western assault on all aspects of islam -- that is, sending our troops, the way we treat people at guantanamo, that does in fact enable them to exploit that and use it for propaganda purposes.

at the same time, you are absolutely right in pointing out that the real recruiting posters here are the terrorist attacks that al qaeda and its affiliates carried out. that is what terrorism is all about. these are recruiting posters. everyone of these attacks is meant to attract a funding to their cause, to attract volunteers to their cause, so that they can participate in what they describe as this epic struggle, which is divinely mandated. host: florida, brian of independent line. caller: good morning. one of the core reasons for afghanistan is that we were there to take away an area for al qaeda to congregate and

launch their attacks from. given the fact now that they seem to be everywhere, doesn't that reason for being in afghanistan sort of a evaporate? guest: no, it really doesn't. the fact is while they can exhort individuals to carry out violence everywhere, the difference between the situation, say, before the dispersal of the training camps in afghanistan and a system which and we certainly don't want to see occur again, is where they are able to sit -- set up secure bases and attract volunteers from all over the world and have their operational planners looked at the continuing flow of talent and put together a operations like 9/11, that enabled al qaeda to 9/11, that enabled al qaeda to operate at a

while they are still able to exhort terrorists another part of the world, it is clear that while they have some recruits they also have some quality control problems. their ability to project really quality operations have been steadily declining since our intervention in afghanistan and we do not want to walk away and give that back to them. host: fairfax, virginia, republican caller. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i watched the stock on these machines. right after that guy on the plane to go to detroit -- he wants us to buy these machines

because he has money in them. i personally can think will weaken still get explosives past those machines. y where you can still get explosives past those machines. i would just say it on the air because i don't want our planes to blow up. once somebody has dreadlocks and a crew of the explosives in the dreadlocks and lit their head on fire, i don't want the airplane go up. and i want to make one more statement -- i had a moment on this american muslim issue when my friend had a heart attack, and this guy was not able to help her but there was a muslim, a black american muslim dr. that cured a white baby --

did a heart transplant. host: barbour, i will let you go there. -- barbara, i will let you go there. guest: i don't know who owns the shares of the companies to make the machines. but i think you are asking the right question. the question is, before we grow more prone to our already hardware heavy security process at the airport, how much will this contribute to security? will there be a significant contribution, will it be a modest contribution. it is not going to be a silver bullet. there is no hardware on the shelf or on the horizon that is going to solve the security problem. fact is, i don't know if it will work in dreadlocks, but the fact is terrorists today can construct and configure and

conceal bombs that will be missed by all but the most interest to inspections that would not only potentially detect terrorists but would also deter air travel itself. host: on the suspect, "the detroit free press" has a story. from what you have read of his background and recruitment, is he a typical case? guest: i should point out, he is typical in that there is no typical profile. we have seen everything from gang bangers recruited from prison joining the movement, we have seen medical doctors, people with military backgrounds, we have seen people with backgrounds on the streets, we have seen people will come from modest economic backgrounds and people who come

from privileged families, as this man did. . apart from committed it is host: pathetic a caller from pittsburgh on the democrats' line. caller: i come from a family in the intelligence committee. my father was a former director and my brother was a navy seal. during the bush administration

are received an article from a friend and saudi, saudi and it consisted of the story about a saudi storyprince who had his bodyguards search individual who was a member of al qaeda. that individual blew himself up. he almost killed the prince with the very device that the exact same dice used on the plane. not only did my brother, but myself both contacted homeland security and informed them that if you do not take this seriously we guarantee that this device will be used. it is a stealthful approach toward killing americans. i have to say about you, sir, that you are doing a great job.

we really need to put politics aside in at this situation and act in a unified manner, and understand the entire islamic world does not like the u.s. their view is unified across the board, wanting to kill our countrymen. guest: patrick, thank you very much. you make an important point. this latest episode involving this nigerian would-be bomber -- fortunately his device did not work, but it has become caught up in narrow tubes that -- about other things -- in narratives about other things. whether we must call the conflict a war, out guantanamo,

about other aspects. in the process we're losing a couple of things. one, a thoughtful review of what worked and what did not on the intelligence side. lose and opportunity to coolly look at aviation security. more importantly if we lose this in partisan debate, we will hand a victory to the terrorists that will be equal to what it would have achieved if they had brought down the airplane. but only in bringing worldwide attention to themselves, causing alarm, obliging us to divert increasing resources to every kiaviation security, but allow w

mexico to exploit partisan divisions in this country. what are the national interest here? not the democrat, republican, independent line? host: the ap is reporting this morning that a defense department review of the shooting at fort hood found that the doctors overseeing dr. hasan's review continued to voice concerns over his extremist views but continue to give him positive performance reviews that kept him moving through ranks. ratings which allowed him to move through the ranks. do you think he is a clear example of homegrown terrorism? guest: to enter your second question, i think he is. i know some in the media have described him as an individual

personality problem. the two are not mutually exclusive. we are going to find individuals that have gone through personal crisis, that are attempting to sort things out in their own lives, and find resonance and reinforcement in an extremist audiology that gives direction to their aggressive impulses. that is not unusual at all. i will have to read the whole report. should everyone have picked up on the clues in major hasan's behavior? possibly so, and that merits they look, but at the same time, i am skeptical about these

clues that are so obvious in the rearview mirror. an army of reporters go off and explores every detail of his life and comes back with profiles. of course, that never did is already set. when they interview someone who knew nidal hasan or the call- up, -- would colombes -- abdulmutallab, the story is already there. did you know him, did he look at you weird, did he voiced strong opinions? however, if you reverse that, everyone who strikes you as odd, who has tried in views about an issue -- strident views

about an issue -- that is not something that we try to do. host: next phone call. caller: i am thankful for c- span. i would quickly -- first, i would like to ask a question -- and then i will add a comment. i tried to pay attention, but is it not a fundamental military weapons and will that there is no victory with a strictly defensive action? guest: you are right. certainly, as a former soldier, i would say you have to take the fight to the enemy in order to ultimately prevail. i will condition that under the

current circumstances, which is, that the same time, we have to provide protection for our homeland, for americans, the best we can, at the same time that we carry the fight to the terrorist leadership and flows abroad. -- foes abroad. one or the other is not going to do it. caller: i found myself disturbed about the terminology of the war on terror. as a recovering alcoholic, i have had wars on anxiety, and then when i get a few drinks indeed, it is over. in terms of the terminology, i think we should have a war on

terrorism. victory is a foolish proposition. although it would not sell, what we have is a war on perverse religionism. guest: about the use of the term "war" -- it has advantages and disadvantages. after 9/11, i said our response have to be different. we are going to have to initiate a relentless campaign to track down those responsible, and the organization behind the attacks, the allies in it will be a long contest that will take many years.

the disadvantaged is, first of all, it tends to implies only military means. that will take intelligence, law-enforcement, military operations, diplomacy, a full orchestration of all the capabilities we have. the second problem with using the term war is that for most westerners, certainly americans, war and i'm afraid in this particular contest we will not have that clear end. this is the kind of thing that will go on not for a few years, but probably for something we will end up measuring in decades. brian michael jenkins with us

until a 30 a.m. eastern. you testifying in front of the homeland security movement m shortly after securityumbai attacks. you said terrorists can innovate tactically and confuse authorities. once again they have demonstrated with simple tactics and low-tech weapons they can produce vastly disproportionate results. they do surface transportation as a public killing field. do you think the committee heard you and made any recommendations based on yours? >>guest: i think so. what is fascinating on this most recent flight into detroit is if you look at the numbers of individuals that have been killed on public surface transportation which is much

more honorable than commercial aviation -- host: rail? guest: the bombs in madrid, for example. the bombs on the london subway system which killed 52 people. the bombs on the train in mumbai which killed 200 people -- when we look at the record since 9/11 terrorists have gone after surface transportation. surface transportation, public transportation. it is accessible, much more tough to protect them commercial aviation. they have, hundreds of fatalities and thousands of injuries in those attacks, but at the same time, we remain obsessed with commercial aviation. the first terrorist sabotage

attempt for an airplane was in 1970, and they are still coming at us, trying to develop tactics and technology that will evade our security systems. this contest goes on for years after it begins. host: tulsa, oklahoma. gilbert, good morning. caller: i do not even know where to begin listening to this person. war profiteering on steroids is what i hear. there is nothing that we can defend ourselves from by staying home. we are in a 120 countries are around with the world. why do they hate us? let us try to count the ways. look at the s -- assassination

at times that we have tried around the world. look at what happened in the iran -- in iran. this is why they hate us. terrorism is a tactic. it only takes one person. the thing is, we are falling apart at home and war companies are making lots of money and we are falling apart at home. every day around the world of billions of dollars a day. we did not militarily defeat the russians. to me, this is a false issue. our southern border is wide open. guest: this person has a

somewhat different view. i would certainly agree with you that there are things the united states have done over the past half century which you have listed that have provoked a great deal of hostility toward the united states. at the same time, the terrorists that we confront today are also going after the nations of europe, muslim countries -- in fact, more muslims are being killed in t attacks then hated americans. this is about an extremist ideology that has a vision of finding mandated violence. if we were toñr withdraw from afghanistan tomorrow, cease to

assist pakistan, back off entirely, they would not stop. they had indicated they are going to recover territory that they want to held in the seventh century. you have listed correctly events coming back to 1953. these people are fighting on the basis of events that go back to the eighth century. host: you are a senior adviser for the rand corporation. how much work you do for the defense department? guest: it does a tremendous amount, but as well, we do a tremendous amount for other departments. we make no money. we are devoted to issues of

national interest. the biggest research program for many years has been into health policy program, which has become so important with today's debates. rand is not partisan, does not take a political stance on any issue, but will take the responsibility to inform those in power. host: when you do analysis of terrorism, do you personally visit some of these places, do you have experts on the ground? guest: we have had individuals in iraq, afghanistan. unlike many of my colleague researchers, imf on an airplane around the world. -- i live on an airplane around the world. certainly, getting a feel

of what it is like on the inside. host: next phone call. caller: you are in excellent guest. i actually agree with john from travers city, and gilbert, even though they are opposing views. you cannot have a war on a tactic. we are at war with religious things. we do have the occasional terrorist acts but we are not at war with our christian fundamentalists. i appreciate you using the word jihad.

there are people who do not like that word being used. i would like to close by talking about some recent incidents in malaysia. i read something upon robert spencer's website and it said apparently the roman catholic church have started to use the word allah in their services and there have been churches firebombed and there because month london not want to allow the in roman catholics -- because the muslims do not want to allow the roman catholics to use that word. guest: in terms of what we are at war with -- before 9/11, the term that was used by the u.s.

government was combating terrorism. in the state department, there was an office for combating terrorism. i think that was an appropriate label because you are right. terrorism is a set of tactics, basically. combating it is what we are trying to do, and reduce the acceptance of those tactics. combating is also appropriate because in connates an enduring task. this campaign is not aimed directly at terrorist tactics. it is certainly not aimed at extremist religions, one religion, but is focused on a jihadist enterprise.

the term has jihad -- jihad is a term used by our foes themselves. our goal should be to dismantle the jihadist enterprise, not what they believe, but for what they have done, what they are trying to do, and if they have access to greater weapons, what they would try to do. so it is much more narrowly focused. when necessary, we are going to use military means to go after that enterprise. host: a professor at georgetown university had a lead in thexd "washington post" talking about the strategy of al qaeda.

do any of those terms resonate with your interpretation of what they are up to? guest: since 9/11, certainly, unprecedented focused and cooperation among the intelligence services and law enforcement organizations. we have succeeded in degrading central al qaeda's operational capability. operationally, 9/11 would be much harder. but they have also adapted to this. in a briefing in 2002, i said in order to survive in the long run, al qaeda has to do a number of things.

it has to maintain their in leadership -- they have done that. they have to find a location to continue to exarchate communications, command. they have done that. they have to be able to communicate to their followers. they have done that. the have to be able to maintain some level of terrorist operations. they have had some difficulty there, but they have been able to do that. the strategy they are following now is a much more decentralized approach. some have called it a strategy of meter less -- leaderless resistance where there is no, and leadership. others including zwahiri have

said that it is their goal to start a global conflict. detonate operations with al qaeda, as well as other operations going on, like nidal hasan. that kind of a thing. host: allentown, gregg. good morning. guest: good morning -- caller: good morning. guantanamo bay, they want to close that down.

no pun intended, i know we have a lot of jets. we lost 10 soldiers in afghanistan last week or so. they are getting blown up by a roadside bombs, bombers. we have 200,000 troopsñi over there. why not put them up in hundreds of the bomcb-proof watchtowers. they would be high enough to keep them safe. keep them safe. one not try and also, i drove to jfk, la guardia, newark as a chauffeur.

i stand there and wait for people. i don't see any way someone could just walk right in to a plane without being checked. guest: with regard to afghanistan we don't have a watch towers. we have something they call fire bases which are protected, but the fact is this is an armed conflict. i don't know of any armed conflict where there will not be casualties. the enemy gets to shoot too. men inside those fire bases are not really doing their job unless they can get out among the people. this is not simply about sitting inside bunkers and calling in

air strikes. we cannot do it that way. ultimately, we're going to have to enlist the afghans. you mentioned a frontier. fghans -- particularly those tribes along the pakistan-afghan frontier -- and enlist them in the defense of their own country. otherwise, we are going to take on an imperial mission that is going to put us in afghanistan for the foreseeable future host. host: spain is improving the acceptance of two guantanamo prisoners. what is your impression about sending detainees to other countries? guest: we have to look at some of these specific situations.

in some cases, they will be transferred from the custody of guantanamo to another prison in another part of the world where they will be held. not released, not necessarily rehabilitated and then released, but simply, in a sense, to be held in different places. with regard to those people that go through these to rehabilitation programs, there is always a risk that some of them will drift back. certainly, it is processed -- promising, and there was some flowback. but on the other hand, some of these people, in some cases

former prisoners, become valuable resources for us. host: bryan m michael

[inaudible] i have enjoyed working with him. it has been tremendous, terrific. my heart has been warmed by the response i have gotten around the country. in effect eric holder said anything i can do, anyone you want me to talk to, i can do that. we have a lot to do. i have spent hours on the telephone working through health care. i have spent a long time with the president yesterday. we have a lot of work to do and i will continue to do my very best.

>> senator reid, some as suggested that your comments for which to apologize are uncomfortable. how do you feel about that? >> i have been -- i really appreciate people writing nice things about me. there is a wonderful editorial in "the l.a. times" today and "of huntington post" but i am very proud of the fact that i can still remember the meeting that took place in office with senator barack obama, telling him that think he will be reelected president. i am sure there were others -- he was kind of surprised that

this and democratic senator was suggesting he could be president. my conversation with the highest-ranking african-american in congress, jim from a south carolina -- like the caller got to date from hermerv whom i serd in congress with him -- people -- not to me. -- i got the call today from merv. i apologized to the president. i could have used a better choice of words. i will continue to do my work. as a very young man for the state of nevada i was one of the movers of the civil rights for that state. the governor and i work hard to

work out the consent decree to allow integration of the gaming community in nevada, living forward. i am very aware of the fact of the first african-american to serve on the federal court in the state of nevada was [inaudible] >i got a call is not from secretary salazar who said harry, you make sure you tell everyone that you have done more for diversity in the u.s. senate then all the people put together. so, that is where we are and we'll try to get health care done in the next few weeks. [ chatter] >> what about the voters?

and you owe them an apology? >> i have talked about the national leaders. the african-american leaders in nevada have been wonderful. joannie said to have anyone call her. the majority leader of the senate ofin nevada, stephen, he is one of my proteges. i am not going to dwell on this anymore. it is on the books. i have made all the statements that i will. >> majority leader harry reid just a short time ago. and join us later today for the

arizona governor and her state of the state address, live beginning at 3:30 p.m. eastern. later, the candidates to succeed at ted kennedy in the u.s. and the >> are set to debate. they will discuss the issues like at 7:00 p.m. eastern. -- they are set to debate. going on now, an education forum. it is on c-span2. >> i am always concerned about the potential of unintended consequences. new regulations or regulations of any kind act as a tax. you tend to get less of something when you tax it. >> today the republican commissioner on efforts to

create a national broadband plan, ne neutralt id, and the wireless industry. >> from the ap this afternoon a groundbreaking gay marriage truck has begun in san francisco, the first to determine whether the constitution bans states from outlawing same-sex marriage. the supreme court blocked the deal from being posted on youtube sang the justices need more time to review the issue. we get more on that now from today's show. host: our guest is david masci, senior researcher at the pure form. -- pew forum. this morning in the "san francisco chronicle" proposition 8 trial begins today.

what is this about? guest: first of all, it is very significant. it is a constitutional challenge to proposition 8. that many of your viewers know, the proposition was passed by california voters by a bonus to 2% to 40% in november -- 52% to 48% in november 2008. the proposition that it to the california state constitution language defining marriage as being between a man and woman. 18,000 couples had already married -- same-sex couples were married -- before proposition 8 was passed. this case, the second case,

really deals with proposition 8. the first case dealt with state rights. the california supreme court upheld proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. however, the justices on the california supreme court said those 18,000 who were already married, and they were legitimate and would remain so. so you have a two-tiered system. host: "the san francisco chronicle" writes --

the issue goes from a state issue, to one with federal implications. guest: this case will almost certainly be appealed, and then it would go to the ninth circuit court of appeals. if, in either of those venues, the court rules that they are obliged to offer equal protection clause, a guarantee to same-sex marriage, at that point, it would be hard to imagine the supreme court not taking the case because the ruling in the lower court would be so dramatically profound. and then we would have a supreme court ruling on the issue. there is something interesting about this case. a lot of supporters of same-sex marriage are not in favor of it.

the reason they are not is because they fear the supreme court would say that the constitution at this stage did not guarantee same-sex marriage. let us say 10 years down the road at a liberal supreme court could be more likely to say the constitution does guarantee a right to same-sex marriage, and could feel hamstrung by its earlier position. we have this position, i'm we have this position, i'm sorry, we cann host: has of the supreme court ruled in the past that folks are right to marry? guest: yes, they have. but there were doing so within the proponents of traditional marriage. in 1967 there was a famous case where they said there was a fundamental right guaranteed by

the constitution, a privacy right to marry, but that does not necessarily mean that the supreme court would extend that to same-sex couples. host: aside from constitutional issues there is some celebrity to the case, that the lawyers for the plaintiffs are ted olson and david were opposite back in 2007. . . were offset each other in the gore case. what has unified the two of them to come together on this issue to represent the plaintiff? guest: a lotf/h@ @

he is known as a conservative lawyer and conservative heavyweight. it is very surprising that he has taken on this case. host: he writes that marriage is beyond one's own needs and there is a union and in doing so, it did stablish is a formal investment in society. conservatives should celebrate this rather than lament this. guest: this is an argument that

is often made. when you talk to people who are in favor of same-sex marriage, they will say what we're doing here is trying to do exactly what conservatives say we should be doing, which is normalizing already normal nations in the legal arena, bringing in the guarantees and institutions that allow people to raise families, that allow people to live together as partners. when you talk to some people in the gay rights community, they will say i do not understand why conservatives are opposed to this. they should be happy. of course, conservatives will say, that is not the way we feel. we have a problem -- we are not trying to tell gay people what they can and cannot do.

what we are concerned about is the institution of marriage which has already been damaged by high divorce rate to, other things like that, and they see this as the nail in the coffin. it is more than just two people spending their lives together. it is an institution in which families and children are raised. in every situation, most children will be raised by a man and woman. if same-sex marriage redefines the rich so broad that it makes marriage meaningless, at the end of the day, this institution will be damaged. those are some of the competing arguments, there are others. host: richard on the independent

line. caller: i'm always puzzled by the need of the public to define words. marriage has been used in various contexts, but in general it means putting together two things that adds to the goodness. same-sex marriage does not seem like a definition of marriage. civil unions seem to be more appropriate. the people fighting for these legal and tax advantages of civil unions and for getting the name marriage, it would be a simpler thing to accomplish nationwide without all of the inflammatory things that this provokes.

guest: the caller makes a good point. public opinion has been pretty steadily opposed to same-sex marriage. the last poll done by the pew research center shows only about 39% of the public supports same-sex marriage. on the other hand, about 59% support civil unions. so i think a lot of people feel the way that you do. i am not opposed to giving same- sex couples certain rights. i do not want them to be turned away at the hospital. i want them to be able to have legal rights, tax right, things that married couples enjoy. on the other hand, just please

do not call it marriage. there is a segment of the population that feels that way. we have seen civil unions in a number of states, and we may see something like that. i believe 11 states have civil unions or domestic partnerships. i would not be surprised, if in the coming years, we saw more states adopt something like that, especially in places like the midwest where they are not when as conservative as those in the south. host: as we go to the next phone call, a chart that looks at the six states that approved the gay marriage, -- approved gay marriage.

guest: if i could just add one thing. that is out of date because it does not include maine. voters overturned the legislator's law which legalized same-sex marriage. a voter referendum overturned that law, so same-sex marriage is no longer legal in maine. we now have five states. host: memphis, jay, republican caller. guestcaller: this is a money is

they won a deduction on their taxes. single people are better democratic voters than married people. the purpose of this is not to have a bunch of fun. the purpose is to raise children. that is why you get the income tax reduction. this is more politics with the left trying to win more elections. that is all it is. all they want to do is maintain power. they do not care about the environment or anything else. my question is why do we not have strong same-sex drives in states that do not have an income tax? liberals are always the best ones to avoid taxes. guest: we have not done a correlation between same-sex marriage and taxation, so i am

not sure that we can speak to that point. certainly, people who are politically conservative are much more likely to oppose same- sex marriage. people who are politically conservative are also much more likely to be in favor of lower taxes, less government. so there could be some correlation there but i cannot speak to that directly. host: next phone call from east point, michigan. caller: to the caller from tennessee -- i just had my breakfast and almost lost it. this is 2010. get over it. we have a right to be married. i know many parents that are raising kids. i know plenty of conservatives

who do not understand why we cannot be married. it is ridiculous. the religious right keeps on sticking their nose in our business and they want to tell us how to live our lives. it is a modern movement. get over it. guest: i am not allowed to express opinions one way or another, but this is something that you often hear from people who support same-sex marriage. let me focus on what they set about raising children. those who support same-sex marriage will say yes, marriage is about children, and yes, committed gay couples are raising children. this is a big argument that are -- that is made by advocates for same-sex marriage. host: there are reports that the

judge in today's case may open up his court room to the cameras. guest: the opening of the trial is interesting. first of all, it is interesting. it is one of the first trials that the ninth circuit has allowed to be televised. i think one of the reasons why the plaintiffs in the case, those who oppose proposition 8, those who support traditional marriage -- we have to get our ducks in order here -- the reason they are interested in this is because one of the things to be hashed out in the trial is if there is any legitimate reason my the government should forbid same- sex marriage. if the state can show there is a good reason not to allow it, that would essentially allow them to say people protection,

in this case -- equal protection, in this case, it is not applicable. but if they can establish a benefit in limiting same-sex marriage, then it will be harder for them to say that that clause does not apply here. but getting back to the television, one thing that a lot of people associated with the case was along the public to see the debate. supporters of same-sex marriage have said publicly, we think we are going to win the debate in the courtroom. we will be able to show that there is no reason outside of prejudice and discrimination, religious tradition -- of course, given our constitutional framework is not the servant a determinant in the case -- they will say that will help bring

public opinion along with us. host: as in your thought -- is in your thought that to gain victory, they need to have victory at the supreme court level? guest: some have begun to think that way. i think they were very disappointed at what happened in new york in december where the new york state senate -- same- sex supporters believe that they would approve it. they did not and voted pretty substantially -- 20-14 -- against the bill. in new jersey, the same thing happened in january. now there is a new governor -- there will be a new governor, chris christie, who opposes same-sex marriage.

we have been trying it at the grass-roots level, trying to get it done, even in a place like maine and california -- the voters, any time there is a referendum, with one exception, voters have voted against it. arizona was the exception. that was 2006. then in 2008, they approved a ban on same-sex marriage. some people who are frustrated that it is not moving faster might say, let's go right to the supreme host: guest: in abortion, right before roe vs. wade, some states

were legalizing abortion, some states have banned it. it was being hashed out at the state level just like this issue is. this state -- the supreme court that -- the supreme court cleared the landscape, saying there's a constitutional right for abortion up to a certain point in a woman's pregnancy, which was the field liability. that change everything overnight. some people are looking for something like that, a kind of magic bullet in a sense that would vary dramatically change everything. will that happen? obviously nobody knows right now. host: let's go to our call on memphis -- from and this, tenn.. caller: i'm not sure that the state constitutional amendments actually run afoul of the 10th amendment and the equal protection clause in that marriage is sanctioned by the state not by the federal

government. so the ability to marry to people should rest with the state and i don't think it runs afoul of the protection clause because it's not just telling gay people a man can marry a man or woman can marry a woman, it is telling everybody that a man can marry a man and woman can marry a woman. i don't know that it runs afoul of it in that respect because it is equally limiting to everybody. i'm wondering if that is a tactic they will take. guest: i'm not sure if it will make that argument. i'm sure that the 10th amendment will come into it, but at the end of the day, the equal protection clause says what the supreme court says. the supreme court says. let us say they make a determination that gays and lesbians are a protected class in the same way that racial minorities, religious minorities, women, are a protected class. then it would almost certainly

apply in this case. the california supreme court, looking at the california state constitution, says that gays and lesbians in california are a recognized class. they've ruled in march 2009 that there was a right. at the same time, they ruled that they were in a protected class. even the same-sex marriage was overturned by proposition 8 in november 2008, even though that have been, the ruling still stands in the sense that gays and lesbians are still a protected class, the city --

according to the california state constitution. host: next phone call. caller: i have heard the word prejudice and a couple of times. you are talking about 39% of the public in favor of this. i am not sure if public opinion is the answer. i wonder how things like slavery would have done with registered voters? it is the role of the government to take care of those who are not in the majority. guest: people who support same- sex marriage make your argument. we cannot have the protection of minorities -- the protection of certain rights of minorities cannot be held hostage to the whim of the majority.

the founders created a system in which that could not happen. this argument is put forward quite frequently by supporters. opponents, on the other hand, say what we're talking about here is not some kind of right that has been taken away from people. it is not like slavery, civil rights, women's rights. what we have is a radical redefinition of something that has been defined one way. the union between man and woman. this is not a rights issue. it is a social engineering question. the american public is not ready for this kind of social, radical re-engineering. those are some of the arguments made by both sides. host: james tweets --

a follow-up on that, i wanted to ask you about the role of the right to privacy. guest: i do not know what the polls on interracial marriage. i know that in the 1950's, 1960's, i have read public opinion shifted on civil rights issues in this country. you had a second question? host: the right of privacy, where does that come from? guest: there is no direct reference to privacy, in terms of behavioral privacy. there were always specific rulings, but nothing to behavioral privacy. i have the right to live my life the way i want to.

in the constitution, there are questions about searching your house. but the sort of privacy we talk about when we talk about issues like abortion and same-sex marriage is something that has built up over time via court precedentce. lawrence the texas -- v. texas dealt with sodomy laws. there were laws on the books banning sodomy. the court overturned those laws. in each of these cases, the court had articulated -- and in other cases as well -- that implicit in the constitution,

even though it is not directly stated, there is a right to behavioral privacy, a right to marriage, a right of a woman to have certain control over her reproductive choices. other sorts of rights that have been articulated as well link to this right that you have a certain privacy right over your body, over your life. . . in a case, the court said that you cannot -- states can certainly pass laws allowing people to commit suicide when

they are terminally ill, and many states have done that, but there is no constitutional right to such a thing. gueshost: we have about 15 more minutes with my guest. he is with you center on religion and public life, a senior research fellow talking about the case coming up in california on same-sex marriage. the case will be heard beginning today. let's go to a call from mobile, alabama, a republican caller. caller: i think it is interesting that homosexuals do not ask for the right to matrimony, especially holy matrimony or sacred matrimony. the derivation of the word matrimony is the same for the word mother. matrimony implies joining together for the situation for a

mother to have children. you were talking about the people who are in favor of abortion. all of these things seem to be an attack on the higher qualities of human life. it seems like they want to destroy and bring things down to a very basic quality. ase quality. guest: you mentioned -- the caller mentioned "holy matrimony" and that leads to something else that is very interesting about this whole debate, which is the role of churches and other religious organizations play. every same-sex marriage law that has been enacted so far has stated categorically that a church cannot be forced to marry

a same-sex couple. and in america right now, there are quite a few churches of and -- of the evangelical christian churches, a roman catholic churches, and some of the other churches that do not -- that are opposed to same-sex marriage. and i do not allow any sort of same-sex marriage ceremony in their houses of worship this whole question is rich with ethical and moral and religious overtones at the same time there has been a move towards same-sex marriage, there has almost been an assurance that the first amendment right of churches and other houses of worship to set their own agenda is protected.

that being said, there have been cases where churches have come into conflict with the law because in massachusetts, after same-sex marriage was enacted the state told charities that they had to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. the catholic charities said, i'm sorry, we cannot do that. and they took themselves out of the adoption business. they were the largest private provider of adoption services in the state of massachusetts. a similar to the situation has risen in d.c.. the same sex marriage law has not taken effect yet, for growth -- probably not until march, but it probably will take effect

and it is unlikely to change it. the congressional leadership is telling us this. if that happens, there are some questions about -- particularly catholic charities again, which is the largest social provider in the district of columbia. the district is saying you have to give benefits to your employees. host: it broadens it out to a larger -- guest: yes, and there'll these bac questions. but the basic question of what does the catholic church to have to marry same-sex couples, they will remain exempt. there is a clause that protects churches in this way. host: next up, democrats line, we will hear from a lane in nyc.

caller: i have not a comment. i have friends -- i have a comment. i have friends who have been together for 60 years. not allowing same-sex marriage is ridiculous when you consider over 50% end up in divorce. this anti-american is ridiculous. it is these people who are loving, caring, and there are many committed couples in the gay and lesbian community. i'm just a 77-year-old heterosexual woman, but there is no reason in my mind to deny these people marriage.

they certainly are no danger to the sanctity of marriage considering the divorce rate. people are so self righteous. host: thanks for your comments this morning. a case gets underway tomorrow -- this morning in california, san francisco. at the district level, how long will this last? guest: it will depend on how many witnesses both sides want to call. i get the sense that just from reading about the case that both sides have a lot of witnesses that they want to call. it could run weeks. host: with a call folks who are in committed relationships or in same-sex relationships? i had guest: no doubt that they will. i am sure there will be a lot of

experts called who will talk about marriage from a sociological perspective. you know, do children do better in certain kinds of situations with a single parents, with a mother and a father? is there a difference between same-sex couples and opposite sex couples raising children? i'm sure these will all be hashed out during the course of this trial. there will almost certainly be an appeal and i would be surprised if either side didn't appeal if they lost. the thing is, if the ninth circuit court of appeals rules that same sex marriage is not a constitutional right, i think it would be more likely that the supreme court would let that stand. again, i do not know, but i am speculating. on the other side, if the ninth circuit court of appeals rules that same-sex marriages protected by the equal protection clause, the right to

same-sex marriage is protected, i would be surprised if the court did not take that up. host: what is the expansion of individual rights? guest: it is considered very proud -- and very probably the most liberal of the circuits. it is entirely possible that they could rule in favor of those who support same-sex marriage. during a preliminary hearing when judge walker is talking to the attorney for those who opposed same-sex marriage, mr. cooper, he asked him at one point if there was any sort of real reason why the state should limit this particular practice. cooper surprised a lot of people by saying -- i am paraphrasing,

but he basically said i do not know of anyone write off the top of my head. i think we're in for a very interesting trial. i think it will be extremely commented on and covered. and again, it will almost certainly lead to a -- an appeal. host: will you be watching it on you tube? guest: definitely. [laughter] host: michael on the republican line. caller: when it comes to marriage, have they really thought about if it is to same- sex or bisexual or transsexual? is there a limit? guest: in makes the limit the -- the comment that opponents of syndex marriage makes ought -- make all the -- that the opponents of same-sex marriage make all the time.

it is like opening pandora's box. if you open this up, why can't you allow a brother and sister to marry if one of them is sterile and there's no question of show a children? why can't a person mary 10 people as opposed to just two? opponents of same-sex marriage say once you open this door, you're opening yourself upon for basically defining marriage into utter meaninglessness. supporters of same-sex marriage say that is just not true. what government and what our court do every day is draw lines. we let certain things happen and we that certain other things not -- don't. just because we grant a new right to somebody does not mean

we have to grant this right to every possible, conceivable combination. the callers argument is an argument that opponents often make and their arguments on both sides in this particular facet of the debate. host: one more call for you, bakersfield, calif., tony on the independent line. caller: 3 points, first of all, freedom of religion in furs that we have a right to to reach their own. i'm heterosexual in california and we are pretty much like, live and let live. the second point, the separation of powers doctrine, religion to stay out of the business and affairs of government. the third point, tax-exempt churches and they want to control what they do not have to pay for. religion is for weak minded people who are too lazy to give serious thought to the critical social issues like same-sex marriage.

to reach their own and that is pretty much the mind set of us out in california. and keep in mind, i am a heterosexual. let them go about their business. it is nonsense that the church goes poking its nose into every aspect of our lives. they do not pay taxes and they want to control what they do not pay for. host: tony, thank you for your call. any last thoughts on that? guest: opponents of same-sex marriage will often say they're not trying to tell gay people what they can and cannot do in their bedrooms. what we're doing is protecting what they see as a traditional marriage and all of the benefits, and when i say that i mean the broader social benefits that flow from the social institution of marriage. the argument again, especially the one about not legislating religious morality, which is what your caller was referring to, are often brought up by

supporters of same-sex marriage to say the first amendment also has not just a free exercise clause, but an establishment clause that essentially is intended to disentangle the government from a religious organization. on the other hand, religious people and religious organizations have for -- have first amendment free-speech rights, they have the right to make the arguments they want to make. there are all these sorts of competing interests that are at work here. as i said to you before we started, there are all these different moving pieces in this debate. i think we are going to see all kinds of things going on at various levels, state legislatures, more voter referendum, more court cases, including this case that we talked about extensively in california. the one thing we can say about where it is going, i cannot really say what is going to

happen. i can say that this is not >> here is a live picture from the arizona state capitol in phoenix, where and a few minutes, the governor is set to give her state of the state address. it is expected to begin shortly, probably in about 10 minutes. if we will have live coverage when it gets under way. until then, this morning's "washington journal." christina rumor yesterday on "state of the union." here is a " n "the financial times" from in the stern -- here is a quote in "the financial times" from andy stern.

so, are wall street bonuses to generous? fernando on the democrats' line. caller: they are too generous. and something needs to be done about this. hello, i can't hear you. host: i can hear you just fine, larry, go ahead. caller: they are too generous and something needs to be done. this is a rip-off. host: let's go to new york and jill -- or i should say bill on our independent line. caller: they are entirely too generous. the whole thing is this system, the federal reserve system, it is a private cartel with the bankers to print their own money. if you owned a printing press

and you could print as much as you wanted to, we would all be billionaires. we've got to get back to where our congress controls the money and prince money. we have to nationalize the federal reserve. why borrow money from bankers who charged the american people the principal and interest. it is totally insane. since 1913, america has been just ripped off by this entire system. this has got to stop. that is why we need men like ron paul or jim traffic can't or somebody to put a stop to this once and for all -- jim traficant. host: south carolina, fred on our democrats line. caller: i don't understand why this administration or anyone can make a comment about this because when it was little timmy tax cheat geithner who made the

rules to make sure his buddies on wall street were taken care of. host: on tim geithner, the report that representative beryl issa from california sunday night lashed out at the federal reserve bank of new york by limits -- for lifting the disclosure during the bailout of american international group. it showed the new dark said it aims to limit exposure of tens of million dollars of payments related to derivatives transactions. timothy geithner, who was head of the new york fed at the time has come under scrutiny. one of the most controversial parts of the government bailout effort. the indianapolis, good morning to jeff. caller: i and a stampede a lot of said of the bonuses but what people understand, what happens is a person get a salary and bonus as part of their compensation.

all it is, is in a person contract. in order for the federal government to try to do something about this, they will have to break an already negotiated contract that has been negotiated with the employees, and then you get into a constitutional issue of contract law. people can be upset all they want to about these bonuses, but most of them are contract to employees to work on wall street and right now since most of the banks paid their tarp money back, there is nothing the book and say about it. people can be upset about it all they want to but there is nothing anyone can do at this point. host: what about the role -- hang on the line for a second. i will read a little bit about an article, the business day section of " the new york times." one company winning employees to

donate part to charity. what do you for me, the only way you could really change that is by agreement of the employee. the employee has to say they will go along with it. but the employee does not have to if you have negotiated a contract with them. along with it. if you have a contract you have to pay that person or else have a lawsuit. host: houston, texas. john on the republican line. caller: my comment is, the question is whether wall street bonuses are too generous. it leads me to question -- do

sports figures make too much money? does tiger woods make too much money? to make, this is dangerous, this is the government telling people how much money they can make. aside from, if there is criminal activity involved, i did not think there -- it is any of the government's business. host: thank you for your comments. back to the front-page article in " the wall street journal." -- in a "the wall street journal." some say the shift to stock could leave them short of cash because stocks come with restrictions on how quickly it can be sold and some people plan their household budgets around a bonus expectations, they may need the cash to cover mortgages, school tuition, and other expenses. next is indianapolis.

good morning to david on our independent line. caller: i have listened and i was compelled to call because an earlier caller talked about reforming things, you need to get people like james traficant in there, but he was recently paroled for bribery or whatever. it is just that kind of type of ideology and activity that got us where we are. all of the kickbacks and things. the last thing -- person would need to regulate would be someone like that. he may be a gifted and a lot of and arenas, but you don't take a convicted felon for breeze and put him in charge of bonuses for people. -- felon for bribery and put in charge. once people were given this money -- under the obama

administration, with a stipulation to have to pay it back, people don't realize that was an investment on behalf of the american people to keep the institutions alive and they paid it back at this time. host: so, david, how much say so and the u.s. government have in bonuses after the fact some of these firms paid back their government loans? caller: they shouldn't have anything to say as long as they are not benefiting from getting bailed out from the government. but for those who did not pay back their loans and still get money from the government, then, of course, they should have some say so and the dollar amount should be according to what the total piece of the pie. host: thanks for the call. he mentioned the former congressman jim traficant recently released from jail. 25 ethics inquiries in 2009, one senator admonish. the article this morning --

after the ethics panel said he executives of wall street. but i will say they have made a lot of those gains with ill- conceived means, in my opinion. in 1978 china decided to let sen

a private business have a shot, and that that time that was kind of a shock to the world -- semi-private businesses. some had an opportunity to make a lot of money, but at our expense. so, they make a lot of money while we lose jobs and now we are pistol they are making a lot of money. the means of the making money is the problem, not the money itself that they earned. we have to take the means and get production back in our country and other industrialized nations so we have a consumer base that would buy things again. host: chicago, doris on the democrats' line. caller: yes, the bonuses are much too big when you are looking at what is happening in the country. i don't begrudge people bonuses.

bonuses are a good thing. they are incentives. but, along with wall street, you work and you send us into a deep recession, why are they getting bonuses? there is agreed the wing on. those of us on the left, we are not marching to overthrow the president or the government. we are working to overthrow the big banks on wall street. we have any -- we have buy american. we are telling people to take their money out of those banks, put them in community banks and credit unions. host: have you done that? caller: we have banked with a credit union for decades because my husband works for the state. but those are the banks to invest in the neighborhoods, they invest in small businesses. also, we have buy american for

clothing. allamericanclothing.com -- this guy makes all american cloaks, all american workers and sells it -- all-american clothes. people need to go to the website. host: thank you for the suggestions. about half an hour or more for your phone calls. arkansas wall street bonuses today? here's an e-mailer. new bern, north carolina, fred on our gop line. caller: i guess i'm a little confused. the question seems to be, does of the federal government have a right to impose a limit on

compensation in a private business. if that is the question, this question -- the government does not run private businesses. that is the difference between a private business and a public institution. on what basis is there any right at all? it is the same discussion. where does the government ever have the right, and should they invent this right to control compensation in a private business? where? just invent this the right? if someone gives you $1,000 to help you survive some economic turndown in your life, and you paid them back, what they have a right to tell you what kind of car to drive or what kind of vacation to take?

did the government buy the souls of these companies? do hat -- do they have control over the internal decisions? that is what a bonuses, decisions that people made inside the company on how they should be compensated. host: weepers -- appreciate the callers this morning precipitated by comments by christina rona. "the wall street journal" this morning says -- here is a comment from twitter.com -- long beach, california, good morning to peggy on our independent line. caller: i was listening to it

nbc nightly news and he was talking about the bonuses -- tens of millions of dollars. also a segment on the deepening foreclosure crisis. also in that report there were talking about maybe the banks to do not want to write down principal, whether they would be allowed to write that down if they are reimbursed by the taxpayer, which means i am paying for my house and my neighbor's house that could not afford it. i got back from the u.k. and i was listening to a financial show, and they had a young trader in the city and he had his back to the camera and was saying he expected and anticipated riots either in new york city, paris, one london from irate people and is never came but they anticipated that and also he said it a tax us 50 percent, as in london, we don't mind it for a year but if my colleagues have to do it for five years we will dig in our

heels and fight that. to be honest, i think they do realize there is a lot of fury at them and they need to show a little bit of common sense when a lot of them have been helped by our government. they need to show the common sense that this will not happen again. i think they are compensated too well at the moment, at the moment. thank you so much. host: the comments earlier from the union chief. "the financial times" has an article about financial regulation. union boss loses patience. he will pressure, the spring, come what may. new york. good morning, alice.

republican line. caller: i know everybody is out raised about these bonuses, but why aren't they outraged for bonuses for freddie mac and fannie mae? they are getting large bonuses, too. and they are giving them more money. i just don't understand the reasoning. host: i think >> we will leave "washington journal" as a governor of arizona is about to deliver her first state of the state address. she took off after her predecessor, at janet napolitano, was confirmed as the homeland security secretary. her state is facing a $4.5 billion debt. from the state capitol in phoenix, this is live coverage on c-span. [applause]

[applause] >> please join me in welcoming the governor of the great state of arizona, the governor janice brewer. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. [applause] thank you.

>> speaker, president, honorable senators and representatives, chief justice, and the justices of the supreme court, the secretary of state, and all other constitutional officers, tribal leaders, honored guests, and my fellow arizonans -- i have worked hard all my life in many ways and places. for 27 years, i have had the chance to serve ariz., to help this wonderful place grow. i served beside you and i am proud to serve the same master each of you sir, the people of -- each of you serve, the people of arizona. [applause] like you, i know arizonans it to be a tough minded bunch. strong, iron-willed, an equal to

every challenge. that is a good thing, because as we gather today, are still young state is challenged as never before. let me be abundantly clear -- i know we will meet this challenge. i believe in arizona's future. i believe in our strengths. i believe in our goodness, and i believe in our grace period i believe arizona's second century will far surpass its first. let me be clear about something else as well -- meeting this challenge will not be easy. i know this for a fact because if there is one thing i've learned in my years of public service, it is that doing the right thing almost always means doing the hard thing. [applause]

that is what it will come down to in the days ahead -- choosing what is tough over what is tempting, choosing commitment over ignorance, choosing a government that is necessary over government that is merely desired. choosing the truthful over the false, honesty vs. lies, right versus wrong. those are the choices arizona faces. the asses of the challenge is late at our feet. -- the essence of the challenge is late at our feet. the high rolling years, when the system was designed and operated to grow government as large as possible. from the is a state budget deficit of nearly $5 billion across two fiscal years. wrong is a federal government

whose unfunded mandates and sweetheart deals steel arizonas freedom and threaten to bankrupt our state. [applause] wrong is arguing the system worked when evidence to the contrary is everywhere and obvious. [applause] what is right, you ask. wright is telling the hard truth when everyone exacts a political cost. wright is acting not in self- interest, but on behalf of others. right is self sacrifice, committed to the greater good, dollarvvalour, like a fellow wet

cider. a 39-year-old husband and father to their three daughters. he put aside his work as a phoenix police officer last year to join his national guard unit in deployment to afghanistan. he resumed his job as staff sgt, team leader to the 363rd explosive ordnance detect auction company. -- detection company. last fall, he and his fellow soldiers went to a combat area and successfully disabled a number of deadly explosive devices. he was a long way from here. they carry out their perilous work with consummate skill and column. -- and calm.

before disengaging, they came upon another device, the discovery came too late. with his last breath on this earth, this courageous man shouted a warning to his two fellow guardsmen. he saved their lives. . [applause]

[applause] be bought this remember the 153 arizonans to have given their lives and the many who have been injured and awarded a purple heart. but let's remember ever service man and woman, police officer, and firefighter, every arizona and and american who has ever stood watch. every man and woman across the years who have fought and suffered and died in desperate love of the freedom we still know.

let us remember the very best of us and tried in their honor to find the best within ourselves. [applause] then, my friends, let's continue our work. we certainly have a lot of work to do. that spring, you will recall, that i offered you a five. a perch to resolving the fiscal crisis and restoring our economic vitality. -- a five point approach. in my 1 year i have grown wiser and time has grown shorter. i know times are tough. today, let me open the proceedings by offering you a deal. a 40% cutback. i am going to boil my five points down to three. [applause]

first, we must make further substantial cuts in spending. [applause] the economy has still not recovered. our revenues are still depressed. there is no avoiding this hardship. more state jobs are going to be shed and services are going to be further curtailed or lost. that me be clear. in the history of this state, no other governor has cut state government more than i have. [applause] working with you we have reduced government spending more than $1 billion and decreased state jobs more than 10%. i have stated from the beginning that the deaths of the problem is so severe that we cannot solve it through cuts alone.

the damage done to education and public safety would be far too great. it would be fiscally counterproductive. second, in the short run we must raise some additional revenue. the lottery but the soft the less effective it will be in stabilizing our financial position. over the long run, i supported a responsible, pro-growth tax reform project that included tax cuts. however, we must ensure and no longer considered that a source of state revenue. -- and no longer considered debt a source of revenue. must make sure we never spend ourselves into this kind of crisis again.

-- we must make sure. [applause] after we have reduced spending, move away from the brink of financial failure, then we must enact a limitation on future growth of government and save more for a rainy day. government must live within its means. [applause] i did not create this situation, but i intend to resolve it. i will continue to tell the people the truth about this. i understand that some in this chamber and some who want to try their own hand at the straw will differ. that is fine. i have a straightforward message for you. if you have a better plan, produce it and soon.

as for me, i will publish my plan on friday. let me make my point very clear. i have great respect for everyone in this chamber in your contributions to our state. there is no one here and no one else where who has fought any longer or harder than i have for lower taxes, job growth, and economic freedom in arizona. [applause] spare us the profiles of courage. it is time for a little less profile and a little more courage. [applause] tell us clearly how you would solve a $5 billion problem over the next 17 months.

the suggestion box is wide open. while you are preparing your plans, do bear in mind that even with the new revenues i have proposed the cuts to government will be deep and unprecedented. some people say that with revenues back to the 2004 levels we should just adopt the 2004 budget. unfortunately, we do not get to roll back the odometer on state government. at least not without help from voters. since 2004, we have 140,000 new students. 11,000 in new prisoners and 475,000 medicaid enrollees. all the mandated expenses that they bring. this is making the best of the situation requires hard choices with tough consequences. if we keep our priorities straight, we will make it

through. my friends, there is still time. if we do not act decisively we will look to the west to california and see our future. government overgrown, people overtaxed, borders overrun, employers over a barrel, freedom over. looking east, we can see and i for grander scale. our federal government has reached new levels of arrogance and disregard for the constitution. [applause] the biggest threat to our budget comes from the federal government. oppressive health-care mandates,

job of killing environmental restrictions, and the continual refusal to pay for costs associated with immigration. they are just getting warmed up. i met recently with the members of the arizona federal delegation and ask them about the expansion of health-care mandates on our state. already federal mandates on health care costs nearly $2 billion per year. people, that is people -- that is money we simply do not have. on top of that, washington's solution will cost arizona another $500 million per year. only in washington can they look upon a massive federal entitlement programs, bleeding red ink, and propose an even bigger entitlement program. that is how it goes in washington. when you begin by spreading the wealth around you end up

destroying it. the president and congress tell us they're going to help us by reducing costs. in reality, what they're doing is eliminating freedom for our citizens. dictating policies they must buy for their families, and forcing employers and the state to pick up the tab. we do not need that kind of help. at last count, 14 attorney general's, republican and democrat, are investigating this legislation for violating the 10th amendment to the united states constitution. as you know, in the past, i have successfully joined the legislature and the superintendent to join the state of arizona against the arizona attorney general as the u.s. supreme court case. [applause]

today, in our attorney-general will not join this effort to defend the state of arizona against this infringement on states' rights, i will. [applause] until then, i have a simple message to every member of our delegation. for the good of our state just vote "no." [applause] the federal government is also trying to control our southern borders and refusing to pay for its failures. as you know, i have ordered the arizona department of corrections to return to the custody of the u.s. immigration and customs enforcement as soon

as possible all non-violent criminal aliens for immediate deportation as allowed under existing laws. the cost of incarcerating these criminal aliens is not arizona's responsibility. [applause] it is washington's legal and moral obligations. this is insult and injury to the arizona taxpayers. in this process, we must insure public safety. that is my highest priority as governor. i will be working to enhance the existing penalties for any criminal alien the returns to our state. enough is enough. secure our borders. [applause]

washington also likes to pretend that government creates jobs. we know better. no government ever created $1 of wealth or one dime of capital. only the free market can do that. meeting our economic challenges is working with the private sector to jump-start arizona's economy. as long as i am your governor, the sign up front will always read, "arizona is open for business." [applause] the word is already getting out. today, we celebrate significant progress in establishing our foothold in the solar industry. we are advancing our competitive position in the national and global economy. our goal is to land the top

seller manufacturers in the world and we are well on our way. recently, i was proud to announce the arrival of the suntech power holdings. it is the first solar company to come to arizona because of the renewable energy tax incentive program i signed into law in june. hats off to the senators and representatives. [applause] they worked with my department of congress last session to pass this critical legislation. trust me. suntech is just the beginning. i have been meeting with other large can manufacturers who want to come the arizona. today, i want to introduce someone to you. is vice -- he is vice president of a leading auto supplier that

has diversified his business into production of solar equipment. how is that for american creativity? [applause] just a few days ago, helped secure an agreement from his company to come to arizona and invest millions of dollars to create nearly 200 quality jobs. arizonans back to work and help arizona families get back on their feet. the components made by his company are used by another arizona co., sterling energy systems, to help create greater equality solar electric power. joining us to help celebrate the co location of their key supplier in arizona is the vice

president starling energy systems. thank you for choosing arizona and we welcome power to our great state. jim and jeff, please stand and be recognized. [applause] suntech and tower our strategic wins for our state that proves we can leverage our natural assets like are plentiful sunshine and land. and educational community to attract new and better jobs every day. just as we see here today, material suppliers want to locate. that is sure to draw additional companies and jobs to arizona. we welcome our new leaders to arizona. we must not forget those who are

already here fighting every day to create new opportunities. industries and small businesses who has been hit hard but who are choosing to stick it out with us. i say thank you. [applause] we needed to do more to unshackle our job creators. during the last year, i have met with hundreds of business leaders about job creation. from these discussions, i have taken the following specific actions to make arizona even more competitive in creating jobs. first, i am announcing the formation of a governor's job cabinet. this team of agency directors will cut through the red tape and agreed tape for job creation. -- the red tape and green tape.

i will be allocating a significant portion of remaining stimulus funds directly to bringing new jobs to arizona. specifically i am not devoting $10 million in one time a federal stimulus fund for job training. [applause] that way, our employees will be ready to work for new employees -- new employers choosing to locate to arizona. third, under the leadership of the commerce director i have created the governor's commerce advisory council. working with other arizona business leaders they will transform the department of conference -- commerce into an engine for job creation. [applause]

finally, i will convene a summit of leading c.e.o.'s of national and international companies in the near future to discuss job creation opportunities in arizona. while i am talking about jobs, let me say we should do everything we can to see that arizona is named the training site for the f-35 joint strike fighter. [applause] at luke air force base in tucson and at the air corps station in yuma, as a child that was raised on a military base and i have an affection for those who serve in the armed forces. everyone of our military bases is critical to our national defense and to our state and

local economy. let's recognize that even within this regulatory climate that the jobs of the future will demand an increasingly skilled work force and that starts with our schools and our universities. i would like to recognize the work to date by the regents and presidents of our universities and community colleges. in response to my call for new hire education models that promote greater access, quality, and affordability, let me also say thank you to the dedicated teachers who give so much to our students. absolutely. [applause] without them, note challenges could be met, no future assured. -- no challeneges could be met.

as research for the talents, let's not limit ourselves to the traditional colleges and educations. isn't it astonishing that in arizona today bill gates would not be considered qualified to teach students about computer science? we must stop the gate keeping an open the doors to all qualified and skilled citizens who want to teach our children. [applause] that being said, teachers are only one part of the education equation. engaged parents must balance educators contributions and play an active role in their children's learning. now a teacher can ever substitute for an involved parents. we must give parents the ability to make the best choices for their children.

that starts with where they go to school. we lead the nation in school choice. in arizona, a parent's right to choose the best school must endure. whether that is in a district, private, charter, or holds gold -- or home schooled. we will make sure they have up- to-date data and that is available on-line at any time. sorry, kids. no more losing your report cards. [applause] we must also tell parents the truth about how their children's schools are doing. to that end, i urge the legislature and the state department of education to immediately replace our school labeling system. our current system rates schools as "excelling, high-performance,

performing plus, performing, underperforming, and failing." who understands that? we assigned a simple letter grades, and "a, b, c, d, and f." our children live by those grades every day and so should our schools. [applause] finally, we must have the courage to tell parents the truth when their parents are not rigid with their children are not doing well. -- we must tell the paris the truth when their children are not doing well. to many of our children are still unable to read as they should by the end of the third grade. yet, we continue to promote them to more advanced class's. at every step we damned the

light of their promise. we must stop promoting children who cannot read by the end of the third grade. we should know well before the third grade those students who are falling behind and give them the help they need. i look forward to working with the senators and representatives and other members to enact these reforms. [applause] starting today, we must give the future back to our students. the reforms should not stop with education. our state government today is not suited for arizona's second century. i am implementing the following reforms to give arizonans the state government they deserve. first, i am establishing the commission on privatization and

efficiency or, cope. this will identify state services and agencies whose functions can be eliminated, consolidated, streamlined, or outsourced to achieve greater operational efficiency in meeting the needs of our citizens. [applause] i'm proud to announce today that my director of the department of the gaming and former director of the center for constitutional government at the goldwater institute will serve as chairman. [applause] i will consult with the president and speaker said they can join me in this very important effort. second, i am also proposing reforms to our existing medicaid program beginning with one that

is quite fundamental. in these times, they must be asked to reconsider the prop 204 expansion . [applause] contrary to what they say, there is no such thing as free health care. supporters assured us it would be covered by tobacco revenue, but in reality almost $1 billion of our general fund deficit can be directly attributed to this enormous expansion. we must ask the voters to roll it back. [applause] we agree we must provide the symbol services to those with no other place to turn. we must also offer those benefits necessary and assure we have a program free of abuse or

waste. it to that end, i am instructing the program to pursue changes to require a photograph of every adult's and roll the cards of the right person is getting the treatment. -- of every dollar enrolled. we want to maintain the high quality care of the program is known for. we must decrease visits to high- cost settings like emergency rooms and encouraging those services to take personal responsibility for their own health as all arizonans should. the federal government may be failing in its role, but we will continue to do better in hours. -- in ours. budget cuts have reduced funding for services for our most will marble, the elderly, disabled,

and low-income residents. therefore, i am establishing this with the department of arizona security. this will connect database and nonprofit organizations to help meet those needs. lastly, i will work with the legislature to enact common sense reforms to deter illegal immigration in our state. [applause] we are a nation of immigrants. however, we cannot tolerate those who break the law to gain the right to live in america. my fellow arizonans, we are living amid hard times. these are difficult days that province has set before us. i do not cower and neither

should you. the moments are painful. they are filled with hope and opportunity. we are a young state. arizona's best days are still to come. those are if we make three decisions. [applause] -- make the right decisions. around here, we deal with shades of gray. in our motives there can be no great, only black-and-white. those of us who hold the public trust must choose, serve others or serve yourself. hate politics and end in itself,

a thing for your pleasure or ego, or make it an honest work for the good of the free people? some arizonans look at their political leaders and see countless stage of factors. -- there are precious few workers in the field. my friends, let us gather in the field. our state is still waiting for us to conduct some very difficult business. it will not be easy, but we must close ranks and get it done. when our public service is over, we will be judged less by what we achieved than what we overcame. we will be remembered less for what we have gained than what we gave. let us do we need to do.

let us be truth tellers and honest with each other and worthy of the trust we have been given. lenice commence to an arizona revival equal to her spirit. equal to the promise of her second century, a government limited in scope but unrestrained in its goodness. that is what is expected of us. that is exactly what we will do. [applause] thank you all and may god bless you and your families. may god bless arizona. [applause]

[applause] by looking now at the latest stimulus figures of the $787 billion set aside, just under three and $14 billion has been committed by the federal government. join us later when these three are set to debate. they will discuss the issues live starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span.

>> i am always concerned about unforeseen consequences of new regulations. new regulations or regulations of any kind act as a tax. when you tax or regulate something, you tended to diminish it. >> today, republican and sec commissioner robert mcdowell on efforts to create a national broadband plan, neutrality, and the wireless industry at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> earlier today, a highway end of a safety advocacy group released a report. it covers areas including text messaging and distracted driving, a child car seats, interlock was for truckdrivers. joining in the discussion with state and federal officials. this is just over 90 minutes.

>> good morning and welcome. i am president of advocates for highway and auto safety. we are the sponsor of the 2010 highway map to safety laws. we are with in alliance with groups working together and it was passed in congress and state legislatures and have been doing that since 1989 when we were founded. i wish to welcome those of you who have joined us here at the national press club. also to those of you who are watching via our web cast at www.saferoads.org and to those doing through the internet, i would like to say you can access our electronic press kit and the -- at the home page of the same web address. if people could turn off their cell phones. thank you very much.

we are varied seized to be joined today by a group of who's who of highway safety to unveil an hour 2010 edition. the rating of each state and their enactment of 15 central highway safety laws that are of vital importance to the safety of american motorists and their families. after my opening remarks we will hear from the chair of the national transportation and safety board who will be followed by the u.s. department of transportation deputy secretary. i will have to say that both of devi and john are going to have to sneak out said they will not leave a for any other reason that they have other appointments they must to get to. we appreciate them joining as early in the agenda. after that, the vice-president of advocates and will present the findings of this report.

next is the president of the illinois state senate giving his perspective. following them, we will hear from susan of delaware and margin of new york -- marge who have lost children in terrible car crashes. they are the human faces of this never-ending american tragedy that takes the lives of tens of thousands of family members and friends each year creating personal, lifelong losses headwords really cannot adequately describe. these are losses that we say are largely preventable. we will also hear from someone from the american academy of pediatrics and the doctor that runs the emergency room. these two men are involved in

the highway safety wars. there the cochairs of advocates for highway and auto safety and on our board of directors. we will complete our lineup with congressman chris and holland. we will close by taking questions from reporters here and from some of those watching via the web cast. before introducing our first speaker, i want to point out we have made changes to this year's report by adding some new laws that are part of the scorecard and by putting aside a few older laws that have largely been dealt with by the states. these updates are designed to keep our core legislative agenda fresh and on the cutting edge of essential laws that deserve the most attention by our governors and state legislators.

this past year's criteria is pushing states in some new directions and, yes, it means some states did not rate as high as in past years but they will have a chance to remedy that this year when they reconvene in their state capitals. our aim as legislators to convene their 2010 stations, many of them this week, a 2010 recession is to close dangerous the polls in their laws which save lives and taxpayer dollars. we also recognize the federal government and u.s. congress have a legitimate role in the accounting nationwide action on public health and safety problems especially those as massive as those results in an average of 40,000 lives lost every year. even the traffic deaths are down in many states, now was not the time for government leaders are safety advocates to congratulate themselves. we know that any time there is a

major economic downturn that highway fatalities dropped as well. this is the silver lining of a recession. no state should be complacent about the unfinished highway safety agenda because we know that when the economy is finally revived, hopefully that will be soon, that the fatality numbers that will likely rise again. that is why our annual report cards are a timely and useful tool to help our lawmakers focus on rhetoric and make the most progress in bringing the death toll down. now, i would like to introduce our first speaker who is the chair of the national transportation and safety board who has been in that job for not a long time, but she has been in the high we see the field for a long time. she is an excellent advocates for highway safety and we appreciate you being here today, debbie. thank you.

>> the morning, everyone. -- good morning. thank you to judy, jackie, and advocates for your that your shift in making highway safety and national priority. advocates for highway and other safety have once again put together an outstanding record. i am honored to be here as they unveiled the 2010 remand to state highway safety laws. for many years, this is been an invaluable tool. littler -- it literally is a road map to identify transportation safety goals and to measure progress. each year, the ntsb publishes our most wanted list of transportation safety improvements. our list mirrors many of the issues and priorities in this road map. reducing highway fatalities must be a national priority.

the number of highway fatalities in any given year is about eight times the number of people we have lost in iraq since 2003 and is four times the number of people we have lost to swine flu in 2009 and twice as many that we lose annually to leukemia. it is time for highway fatalities to come forward. the results in almost 40,000 funerals for mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors. fortunately, in this arena, we know there are proven strategies that will reduce the death toll. what we need is the will to do so. whether this is preventing a drunk driver from getting behind a wheel, buckling our children and the booster seats, supporting our team drivers to graduated licenses, or making

sure drivers do not text and drive. comprehensive plan robust safety measures like those identified can and do save lives. -- comprehensive and robust safety measures. the road map helps identify areas in the states were work, still be done. it is up to leaders at the state and federal level to raise the bar on safety. here joined here today has some of those leaders in all walks of life, in many professions, some who see this on the front lines, and some who legislate for change. they work hard to prevent injuries and deaths on our roadways and can tell you just how hard it is to make a change in this area. it has been said that the definition of insanity is during the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. we cannot expect the fatality numbers to change unless we do

something different. the status quo is not enough. highway fatalities are the number one cause of unintended death for children, teens, and young adults. that alone should compel us to act. then we talk for a minute for -- about a number of initiatives. distracted driving is something we have all heard and read about it. research demonstrates that when driving distracted by any sort of a wireless device, whether talking on your cell phone, texting, or doing something else that we haven't even thought of yet, it is dangerous and often deadly. of the fatalities on the road, is estimated about 6000 of those involve a distraction. the problem is not abating. 81% of cell phone users say they talked while driving. and when things didn't get

distracted to the point they could cause an accident or result in a fatality. in north carolina, and mother of two children was talking on her cell phone when she crashed through a rail crossing gates to and into the path of a moving train. it killed a woman and her 5- year-old son. miraculously her infant strapped securely into a town safety seat and survive without injury. whether it is a car full of teenagers texting or adults hooked to their wireless devices, it is clear that distracted driving is a danger we must eliminate. we can and must do more. i mentioned how hard change is, but we have to start with ourselves and our own organizations. sometime during the right thing is not in the popular thing.

i can tell you from experience. when i became chairman of the ntsb we implemented an agency wide policy that prohibits employees from using electronic devices, including cell phones, whether handsfree or hand-held while they're driving. will this inconvenience people? yes, i am sure it will. you know what? it might also save one of their lives or the lives of others on the highway. while it distracted driving is a concern for drivers of all ages, we note it is particularly dangerous for teenagers. research has shown that new drivers like the experience and maturity to safely drive on are busy roadways and the danger of this experience is compounded when a new driver is talking myself on, has a car full of friends, or is driving at night. that is why safety laws geared toward teenagers are

particularly imperative. measures like graduated driver's licensing programs that put new drivers behind the wheel in graduated, less risky conditions. these measures are just beginning. it has long been known that enacting primary seatbelt laws, reducing crashes involving repeat dui offenders, and properly restrain children in age and size appropriate restraint will save lives. together we can do this. one initiative and one life at a time. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next, we will hear administration for six months. he has been deeply involved with the transportation secretary about the national

debate about distracted driving as well as many other issues. he comes from a well the state experience as secretary of transportation of maryland, twice. >> thank you. thank you for continuing to press for national and statewide reforms that will keep our roads as a as possible. at the department of transportation, safety remains our highest priority. we are continuing to work with congress and are many stakeholders. the law enforcement, research communities, advocates, private industry, and state and local officials, to make driving in the united states the safest in the world. what of the greatest threats on the road today is distracted driving. anyone using a cellphone t orexting while driving for even a second is a menace to others. we're working hard to raise awareness and combat this

problem. in 2008, nearly 6000 people died because of a distracted or inattentive driver. more than half a million were injured. that is acceptable. we are encouraged to see this year's road map including distracted driving for the first time as one of the key traffic measures for each state. let me highlight how we are addressing this problem. first, their presidential action. through executive order, president obama ordered a government employees not to text while driving or while driving privately-owned vehicles on official government business. the department transportation and other federal agencies have taken leadership roles as well. the department of transportation secretary sponsor the first national distracted driver said

on december 30th with which brought together governors, advocates, a private industry. he also issued an order complying with the president's order banning all messaging by the art of transportation employees. that says we may not use government issued phones or blackberries while driving, even off duty. i held a conference call last week with 50 secretaries, highway safety representatives and law enforcement representatives, encouraging them to do the same, lead by example, and adopt a similar orders for their employees and state governments. i would point out of the secretary has launched a new web site, distraction.gov. it provides news and public service announcements related to distraction. working with federal to

medications commission, we are but a evaluating technologies that might help curb distractive driving. we also have awarded demonstration grants to two states that hand-held cell phone lost. new york and connecticut. it will test the extent to which communities comply with these highly visible law enforcement activities. we're working on new rules to strengthen rules that would ban using devices while driving and rules that would -- this is a hot-button issue in legislatures across the country. i encourage advocates to keep working on this. lawmakers have proposed to under bills to ban testing -- too bad texting while driving. many states will see bills introduced this year to combat

distracted driving. we encourage you all to be part of the effort. we applaud the safety efforts. distracted driving is an important part of our overall safety effort. every bit and everyone are sticky issues are ones we're moving forward on. -- every bit and everyone are issues we are moving forward on. we will work with our partners throughout the nation. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you for participating in our press conference. i'm the vice president of advocates for highway and auto safety. i will briefly highlight the key findings of this year's road map report and discuss the next steps needed to advance safety. let me repeat that the report and all materials for the press pack are on our website.

i checked myself before i came here. advocates have selected 15 traffic safety lost we believe are fundamentally essential if we're going to seriously reduce death and injury on our way -- on our highways and reduce health-care costs. several states have since the 1980's and 1990's. most of them are not new to the states. all 15 laws are backed by scientific research and studies and supported by the major public health and safety organizations, business groups, and numerous elected officials from around country and in congress, both democrats and republicans. the states in the report are only rated on whether or not they have a particular law and not on how it is in force or how well the public is educated about the law. the major finding of this year's report is that there is no

state that has all the team lost. furthermore, to many states lack fundamental, basic traffic safety laws to reduce death and injury on our highways. too few elected officials are making these priorities in their state capital. meanwhile, millions of americans are a risk every single day, serious risk of death and injury because states do not have the safety measures. as the chairwoman said, many more people are dying in motor vehicle crashes than some of the major public health initiatives we are promoting out there. not that they are not important, but we need to elevate this issue to that level. let's turn to how the state laws were selected. this year, advocates made updates and additions and changes to the loss we considered in the analysis. in recognition of the growing problem of distracted driving

and the mounting scientific evidence of its contribution to death and injuries, we have added to the 15 lost and all driver text messaging band we strengthen the criteria for new team driving laws to reflect a growing consensus among the public health and safety industry, including the american academy of pediatrics that the ultimate age for a teenager to endure the licensing system is a 16. driving restriction should be held on 18 driver until age 18. furthermore, the criteria in the impaired driving section has been strengthened. full credit is only given to states with ignition interlock was that apply to first-time offenders. we support the efforts of mothers against drunk driving to get this law enacted in every state. finally, the state is given credit for a law that is secondary enforcement. this means that in order to

ticket somebody for not wearing their seat belts, if that is secondary enforcement, you have to commit another traffic offense. this does not make sense. secondary enforcement laws are weak and impossible to enforce. we're sending the wrong message to the public when we do that. once again, we used a color code to rate the states. green is the highest category, indicating the state is significantly advancing toward adoption of advocates- recommended highway safety laws. there are 10 states and the district of columbia that she did green rating. the color yellow indicates that while estate is advancing toward adoption of the 15 laws, there are numerous and serious safety gaps. this year, there are 31 states that fell in below category. it read a category is for states that have fewer than seven of the 15 basic traffic safety laws. these states are dangerously

lagging behind other states in adoption of key laws and are putting their citizens at risk every day. there are nine states in the red category. first of all, i want to congratulate the state of arkansas and the governor and leaders in the state legislature on improving their overall grade to yellow. ever since that it started the report, arkansas has been in the red category. last year, the arkansas legislature, with the support of the governor, enacted a primary enforcement seat belt law. this significantly upgraded their team driving laws and imposed a ban on text messaging while driving. they require ignition interlock for all offenders. these are significant improvements and -- significant improvements and a show that when there is political will, there is a legislative way to get it done and get laws enacted. minnesota improved their rating from yellow from last year to

bring it with the enactment of a primary enforcement seat belt law. other states were downgraded in this year's report. arizona, nebraska, ohio, pennsylvania, vermont and virginia dropped from yellow into the red. alabama, delaware, hawaii, louisiana, maine and michigan were downgraded to yellow from a previous rating of green. so there is a lot of work for all of these states to do this year. let me provide you with a brief summary of state legislative activity on highway safety laws last year. when we get our report, we identified 344 state laws that needed to be passed in order for every state to achieve and get into the green category. unfortunately, the legislative pace and progress is still painfully slow. in 2009, out of 344 lots that needed to be passed, only 36 state highway laws were enacted

throughout the nation. four states, arkansas, minnesota, florida and wisconsin as the primary seat belt law. they're still 21 states that need this law. 11 states sec action to strengthen seen driving requirements. only one state, delaware has all the optimal six elements of a strong, graduated driver licensing program for teenagers even though motor vehicle crashes are the number-one killer of our teenagers. booster seats covering children through age 7 were passed in five states. this law was first passed in washington 10 years ago and we still have too many states that do not have it. only six states enacted laws addressing impaired driving. there are 46 states and the district of columbia missing one or more critical impaired driving law. 10 states took actions to pass laws restricting text messaging for a total of 15 states with this law. we'reki