states passing this law this year. as usual, there was an attempt to@@' #@ @ @ @ t @ e @ @ @ @ @åú there were efforts in 19 states to repeal the slot. in fact, i want to single out missouri's governor who vetoed a repeal measure. they have had a helmet law and it's a tremendous amount of courage to veto that bill. . state traffic safety laws resulted in our usual best and worst list. i think it is amazing that as you drive through this country, you can pass through states with some of its strongest spring traffic safety laws and some of the weakest and yet it is incomprehensible to imagine flying into a large airport in

the united states or small airport and not be subject to the same, strong safety requirements. yet driving from washington d.c. to may or washington state to arizona means passing through states that have weak drunk driving laws, did not ban text driving laws, did not ban text messaging, do not require that use a booster seat for your child, have life-threatening with -- life-threatening loopholes in teen driving laws and an adequate enforcement of seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws. and worst states, there were 10 in the green category. the top to in this category are the district of columbia, i got credit for 13.5 lost and the state of new jersey, with credit for 13 lost. the other states are illinois, thank you center, maryland, new york, north carolina, oregon, tennessee, minnesota, california, and washington.

there are nine worst states this year. we added, unfortunately, six new states to that category. they are arizona, virginia, vt., pennsylvania, ohio, and nebraska. in order of ranking, the states in the worst category having fewer than half of these 15 basic laws are south dakota with only three of the laws, arizona, north dakota, wyoming, va., vt., pennsylvania, ohio, and nebraska. as i said earlier, it does not make sense in this area we have virginia, which is a red state, bordered by the district, which is our top area in the green category and maryland with a green rating, when all the thousands of people every day across between those dates, yet there are not covered by the same important traffic safety laws.

in ohio, the governor included a primarily -- a primary enforcement seat belt law this year. in a conference on the budget bill, it was stripped out. as a result, hyatt dropped to the red category. we're hopeful the government -- the governor will try again to get a high primary enforcement seat belt law. the report clearly raises the question of what can we do to accelerate adoption of traffic safety law. timing is everything in the time is right to increase pressure on states and put pressure on congress to take a leadership role. congress has successfully done this in the last three decades. the reason we have a 21 drinking age as the law of land and a zero tolerance blood alcohol concentration law as the law of land to close a loophole in underage drinking and driving is because congress recognized this was an important public health and safety measure and stepped

in and set up a situation and passed a law that compelled the states to act and it worked. we need that kind of leadership on these other issues. in fact, many members of congress have already taken a leadership role and laid the groundwork by introducing legislation that will spur state action on several of these laws. in fact, a in the house right now, there is a transportation bill that is pending which includes a sanction on states that do not adopt a primary enforcement seat belt law or an ignition interlock law for 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 nationally, laws must be updated to some parents are eager wrote to turn over their car keys to their children to be relieved of that car pulled burden. we sign on for these responsibilities when we become parents, including the development of safe driving habits and our children. it is too late for kim but it is not too late for the rest of us. all of us share the road with teens, and are potential victims of their inexperience. the purpose of gdl is not to punish but to protect and give them time to learn to deal with

distractions and road conditions under the guidance of an experienced adults conducted in power's parent to say no to allow children to ride with peers who lack the experience to keep unsafe. -- to keep them safe. it is my hope that you never get that call or not at the door. only those who share this experience know the heartache never goes away. it shatters your world and destroys your dreams. it is terrifying. our personal tragedy has taught us a difficult lesson. 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. your leadership.

>> thank you had me commend the advocates for highway safety for their report to be released today and for all of their good work -- and for all of their good work. thank you very much for all of your efforts. i'd be remiss if i did not recognize people who are here very quietly to support this. post especially -- most especially, i want to think the mother's who are here and shared their personal stories of family tragedy and who are now working so diligently in trying to make

sure we did not have more mothers and other family members that have to share their stories the tragedy. we have seen significant progress in this country in driving safety laws. mothers against drunk driving has made an important impact and others have, as well. we know we have to continue this war. -- we need to move ahead at the state level and at the federal level. this report has an entire slew of recommendations with respect to traffic safety and according crashes. 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 which i think is probably the best insurance policy for all of >> thank you. of would like to read the consumer cochair come to the podium. this is to wrap up.

as administrator of the national highway safety administration during the carter years, i saw firsthand the difficulties in changing driver behavior. the need to research and how to do so laid the groundwork for many successful of -- successful state and federal programs that we see today and that we are advocating for tomorrow. it is a great honor to hold that job because of the opportunities in saving lives and reducing costly interest. -- costly injuries. i note that the insurance industry has been instrumental in helping making the work of advocates possible and to help reduce highway deaths and injuries. in the late 1970's, we were beginning to understand that passing safety traffic laws in combination with public education and strong enforcement

would impact and changed the way people drive. changing driver behavior by education alone is ineffective. slogans and publicity campaigns without laws and enforcement have never worked and they never will. in 1978, the first child restraint law was passed. it received strong support and by the mid 1980's, every state had a lot about child safety seats. it was not long for these statistics to show this life- saving policy was successful. 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 and for some reason does not want this bill to go throug we are hopeful that may be 2010 will be the year that we did some of these laws passed. >> we are also in support -- in support of federal legislation that will help the states take such action. there is legislation that has seen some activity in the house of representatives and the transportation bill that will be taken up soon. we hope that will allow a number of the states to pass these laws. any other questions? >> i am representing abc.

>> more questions for the senator. i wonder why. >> 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 peak driving, that is the only category -- of teen driving, that is the only category that many states are in the yellow. what steps are you taking to get into the green? >> we really have only three things we need to do in illinois. the motorcycle helmet law is very difficult to pass. i would not predict that happening soon. the idea of moving back the minimum age to 16 for a learner's permits. . 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 comany states are trying to repl them. 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. .

does a police officer want to write tickets? most of them do not. that is what they have to do to make it effective. we're starting with this press conference to make a very strong statement about secondary enforcement and we will -- it has always been the case that one of our most important walls is the primary enforcement seat belt laws. they are the only ones that suffered from secondary enforcement. now it seems to be very popular to do. i don't know whether that is true in illinois with senator cullerton and marilyn, or anyone. it is really something that has to stop. >> another way we are addressing the issue of secondary

enforcement is in federal legislation. the legislation that is out there, team driving, they are all primary require, primary enforcement. what they're doing that the federal level is that when you have a safety law, distracted driving or team driving, we are asking our sponsors to do legislation that requires it. in order for states to meet the requirements of passing that law, it has to be primary enforcement. >> thank you very much. we have concluded the press conference. thank you. oh, yes, we are happy to do individual interviews. website is at saferoads.org.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> looking at the latest in millis figures, of the $787 billion set aside, just under $313 billion has been committed to state and federal governments, where has all but $164 billion has been paid out. coming up, the massachusetts senate debate. that will discuss the issues live starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> i am always concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences of new regulation. regulations of any kind act as a tax. when you tax to regulate

something, you tend to get less of it and diminish it. >> the republican fcc commissioner robert mcdowell on efforts to create a national broadband plan, net neutrality, and the wireless industry. that is on c-span2. remarks now by afl-cio president richard trumka. he talks about the state of the economy and its impact on families as well as is opposition to portions of the health care legislation. from the national press club, this last about an hour. >> good afternoon. welcome to the national press club for speakers luncheon. i am president of the national press club and a reporter for "usa today." we're the leading organization for professional journalist and we provide it informative programming and journalism education and foster a free

press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please web at our website at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, how well -- i would like to welcome our speaker and the gas in the audience today. i would also like to welcome those of you watching on c-span. for those in our broadcast audience if you hear applause, it may be from the guests and members of the general public to attend our luncheon and not necessarily from the working press. i would now like to introduce our head table guests and ask them to stand briefly when the their names are called. of former president of the national press club. todd's gilman of the "dallas

morning news," holly rose in france, a reporter for bloomberg, the secretary- treasurer of the afl-cio workforce management, chief of staff for the afl-cio and a guest of our speaker, bloomberg news and chair of the speaker's committee, skipping over our speaker for a moment, the member who organize today's events, the executive vice president of the afl-cio, a test of our speaker, ap broadcast, the chief research analyst for the afl- cio, and finally a free-lance

op-ed writer. [applause] 30 years ago, working in the coal mines of western pennsylvania, our guest has did not envision standing before the press club as the newly elected president of the afl-cio. richard trumka of went to work in the mines for their same reason most miners do, because his father and grandfather had worked there before him. he worked through college and law school, joined the labor movement, and eventually led the united mine workers union. as the president, he led the union and one of the most successful strikes in american history, against a houston coal co.. this resulted in significant

dances in employer-employee cooperation and enhanced job security, pensions, and benefits. his 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. trumka's accomplishments of the mine workers union included passage of the federal coal act to provide guaranteed health care for retired miners and putting the union back into the afl-cio fall. he served as secretary-treasurer of the afl-cio for 14 years before being elected president in september. last year president obama made mr. trump oka a member of the head -- of his advisory board and he will be meeting with

britain and obama later today. please welcome richard trumka. >> i want that the officers of the press club for the invitation to be with you here today, especially bob carden, the committee member who actually are arranged this. 10 days into the decade, and one year into the obama administration, our nation remains placed between the failed policies of the past and hopes for a better future. this is a moment that cries out for political courage. we are not seeing enough of it.

i spent the first week of this year traveling on the west coast's. in san francisco i was arrested with low-wage hotel workers fighting to protect their healthcare and their pensions from leveraged buyouts that had gone bad. in san diego, i talked with working americans and was moved to tears by their foreclosure and unemployment. everywhere i went, people said to me, why do so many of the people we elect seem only to care about wall street? why is helping bankers on matter of urgency but unemployment is something we just have to live with? why don't we make anything in america anymore? and why is it so hard to pass a health-care bill that guarantees americans held the

lives instead of guaranteeing insurance companies healthy product -- profits? as i travel from city to city, i heard a sense of resignation from middle-class americans. people laid off for the first time 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 that in america, working people are the middle class. we built our middle-class in the 20th-century through hard work, through struggle, and visionary political leadership. but a generation of destruction economic policies has eroded that progress and now threatens

our very identity as a nation. today on every coast and in between, working women and working man are joining the middle class and to protect and rebuilding it. we pray for political leadership ready to fight for the kind of america we want to lead to our children. and again, the forces of greed that brought us to this very moment, but 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 were

striking out on a new economic course for america, of course that will reverse that damaging trend toward greater inequality that is crippling our nation. at this moment, the voices of americans 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 pink slips and givebacks, hollowed out health care, foreclosures, pension freezes, the 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 america and an american economy that works for them.

it creates good jobs, where will the shared fairly, and read the economic life of our nation is about solving problems like the threat of climate change rather than creating problems like the four crosier crisis -- of foreclosure crisis. consigning entire communities to stagnation and a failure. if we are going to make our vision real, for swiss 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. millions of people here and

americans -- and around the world are 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. one innovation and changing the way that we were. on being open to all working people and giving voice to all workers, even when our loss and

our employers seem -- 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 to collect a bargain. we have created a 3 million community growing and working- class neighborhoods. this is one of the signal accomplishments of my predecessor, and john, i am very proud and honored to have you here with us today. please stand out. [applause] we're proud of our alliance with workers center movements that link movements to the afl-cio with hundreds of grassroots workers organizations around the country.

we are also working with community allies to strengthen the voice and a bargaining powers of low rates workers -- a low wage workers and los angeles car washes, some of the worst treated workers in this country. next week, the executive vice president of afl-cio, right up here, will lead the commemoration of the sedans in greensboro, n.c., continuing the great work that she has done over so many years on behalf of our vulnerable in our society. and not far from greensboro, we have been working with unemployed african-american male let's at their working center, desperately trying to keep alive the dream launched in those very places. in san diego last week, i visit a pre-apprenticeship program

formed by local labor movement's to create career paths for at risk youth. los angeles, i saw remarkable community-based labor management training program created by the electrical workers one green jobs. each program demonstrates the tremendous benefits that are possible win labor and business come together to solve problems jointly. when i was there, i met with a man who was once homeless, 19 days away from becoming a journeyman electrician. a young man who said that the yen and gave him a chance to go from no life to the hope for a middle-class life. it did not just teach me to get a job but taught me how to be a man. and then i talk to hotel workers, many of them

immigrants on strike, to keep hotel jobs from falling back into poverty, and people fighting to prevent california's budget catastrophe from cutting not only their jobs but the education of their children. as i did that, i thought my father on strike in the coal fields when i was a boy. i was reminded of this basic truth -- a job as a good job -- is a good job when its workers like to make it a good job. it does not matter if it is in the streets are in a classroom or in a car wash, and that is why unions are needed today more

than ever before. i grew up in a little town in southwestern pennsylvania, and i was surrounded by the legacy of my parents and my grandparents. my grandfather's 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. they and the union they built made those jobs in the middle class jobs, and when i went into the mines, it was a good job. a good job meant possibilities for me, possibilities that my mother moved heaven and earth to make real, taking me from penn state to law school to this very podium. what is our legacy? what is the lead is a of those who are helping the world, shaping the world for our

children and our grandchildren? is our government laying the foundation that young people need right now? do workplaces offer help? do they even offer work? are we building a world that will be crowded? are the voices of the future being heard? in september, i was elected president of the afl-cio it together with the secretary treasurer who is here with me on the left, and the executive vice president. liz is the youngest principal officer in afl-cio history. [applause] i asked her to lead a program about outreach to 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 attitude in hopes with those of a similar survey 10 years ago. the findings were shocking. the revealed the lost decade of young workers in america. lower wages, education deferred, and things were so bad that one in three of these 18- 34-year-old is currently living at home with their parents because they cannot afford to live alone. the desperation i heard in the survey and the voices of the proud hard-working americans bills were made with a sense of urgency -- fills me with a sense of urgency, urgency that should be shared by every last official here in washington and across the country.

as a country and the 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 wall street, it is not your fault. a dead-end job with no benefits is not the best that our country can do for its citizens. what was wrong with our economy? you could say that it is as simple as -- we build a low wage, high consumption economy and tried to build it -- bridge the contradiction with debt. and there is a lot of truth in that simple statement. 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, the nation's policy makers embarked on a campaign of radical deregulation and corporate -- corporate empowerment, ones that celebrated private grief over public service. the afl-cio warned of the dangers of that path, trade policies that rewarded accelerated output, financial regulation designed to promote speculation, and the dismantling of our pension and health-care systems. we warned that the middle-class could not survive such an economy. growing inequality would inevitably shrank the american pie. we were borrowing from the rest of the world at an unsustainable pace. bust would follow bubble 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, housing market collapse, real wages fell, and more children fell into poverty. and the enormous great inequality during that decade yielded mediocre growth overall. this not a portrait of a cyclical recession. it is of a nation with profound on addressed structural economic problems on long-term downward slide. our structural problems predate the crisis that hit in 2007. and they are not going to go away by themselves and 2010. first, we have under estimate --

under invested in the foundations of our economy, including transportation and communications infrastructure that are essential to the middle class society. and a dynamic, 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 of our children and expect to lead in the global economy. we need to provide opportunities for lifelong skills upgrading to work through both private and public sector. second, we failed over a long period of time to create enough jobs at home to maintain our. -- our middle-class, and we allowed corporations to whittle away 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. we need to create millions of good jobs now, by rebuilding our economic foundations, and giving working people the freedom to form unions again and make all of 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 like to commend president obama's leadership in insisting on a viable and strong, independent consumer protection agency which is crucial to real financial reform. the afl-cio's 5-point program will create more than 4 million jobs, extending unemployment benefits including cobra, expanding federal infrastructure and green job development, dramatically increasing federal aid to states and local government facing financial disaster, direct job creation where feasible, and

finally, direct lending of tarp money to small and medium-sized businesses that cannot get credit because of the financial crisis. we need to adopt a tax on financial speculation so that we can fund the jobs effort as the economy is -- recovers. some in washington say that when it comes to jobs, go slow. take half steps. see, those voices are jeopardized in our economic recovery. it is responsible to have a plan for playing ford -- for paying for job creation of 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 do not pay taxes and they do not go shopping. businesses without customers do not hire workers, they do not invest, and they also do not pay taxes. our economy simply does not work without good jobs. we must take action now to restore workers voices in america. the systemic, systematic silencing of american workers by denying our right for 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 rebuild -- reduce the inequality which is undermining our prospects of stable economic growth. and we have to do that now, not next year, not even this summer, but right now. each of the initiatives should be routed in a crucial alliance of the middle class with the poor. but today, as i speak to you, something different is happening with health care. on the one hand, we had the house bill we -- which asks the small part of our country that prospered in the last decade, the richest of the risk, to pay a bit more in taxes so that most americans can have health insurance.

and the house bill rains in the power of health insurers and employers with the 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 white police seeks to ensure that most americans have health insurance -- the bill right fully seeks to ensure that most americans help build. but it taxes the middle class by taxing workers health plans. not just union members health care plans, in fact, most of the 31 million insured employees who will be hit by the excise tax are not union members.

the benefits taxed in the senate bill its working americans who need health care for their families against working americans struggling to keep health care for their families. now this is a policy designed to benefit the elite. insurers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and is responsible employers at the expense of the public. it is the same pattern that got us where we are today, and i can assure you that the labor movement using everything that we of guy to find a health care that is worthy of the support of working men and working women.

[applause] the struggles are the first up. beyond the short-term job crisis, we have to have an agenda for restoring american manufacturing, a combination of fair trade, working trading, infrastructure investment, and regional development policies targeted to help economically distressed areas. we cannot be a rock -- a prosperous middle-class society in a dynamic global economy without help the manufacturing sector. we must have an agenda to address the daily challenges the workers face on the job to ensure safe and healthy workplaces and worker and liberals. -- worker-friendly rules.

we need a review of our immigration policy based on fairness and not cheap labor. and we must take on the retirement crisis. to many employers have replaced the system of pensions that we used to have with underfunded savings accounts fully exposed to everything that is wrong with wall street. today the median balance of 401(k) accounts is only $27,000, nowhere near enough to read -- to secure our retirement. we need to return to a policy of employer-shared responsibility for retirement security with the employees, while also strengthening social security. president obama campaigned on a platform of boldly taking on these challenges. he spoke often about the need to get our economy doing real

things rather than dreaming of private goals. he as vice-president biden to lead the effort to restore the middle class. for the first time that i can recall, we had and the minister of -- an administration that's cease manufacturing and making things here as central to america's future, and speaks clearly about the positive role the workers and the unions in the future. he is laid out an agenda for structural change and has appointed people like secretary of labor held solely is to believe in that vision. -- hilda solis who believe in that vision. he inherited a mess from his predecessor, with ruinous tax cuts for the rich, a financial

scandal, government-sponsored torture, 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, and despite republican opposition, the stimulus was big enough to make real positive impact on our economy, saving or creating more than 1 million jobs already. but the job crisis has escalated. the foreclosure crisis continues. 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 with all the nation watching this week.

watch and be amazed. now more than ever we need a bold this and the 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 weighing us down today. one year into the obama administration and one year into 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 generally 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 greatest achievements -- the new deal, the great society, the civil- rights movement, social security, medicare, the minimum wage, the 40-hour week, the civil-rights act, the voting rights act -- that is what made the united states a beacon of hope in a confused and divided world. but to many people now take for granted government rolls as protector of wall street and the privilege. they see middle-class americans as overpaid and underworked.

as the social security as a problem -- they see social security as a problem rather than the only piece of our retirement system that actually work. they feel sorry for homeless people but fail to see the connection between downsizing and outsourcing in inequality and homelessness. the republicans offered the middle class the false hope of tax cuts. the end up in reaching the rich, devastating the middle-class by destroying institutions like public education and social security that make the middle class possible. are you try to tell me something? >> yes, we are now in your question and answer period. [laughter]

>> we're going to start with a question and answer period. >> i can wrap up and a couple of minutes but not 30 seconds. working people had been waiting for 30 years to tall. >> are you almost done? bubblers yes, i am. not a problem. here is what i had to say. no matter what i say or do, the reality is when unemployment is at 10% and rising, working people will not stand for tokenism. we will not vote for politicians to think that they can push a few crumbs our way and then continue the failed economic policies of the last 30 years. i will be even blunter. in 1992, workers voted for democrats who promised action on the job, who talked about

training and corporate greed and who promised health care reform. instead, we got nafta of and a bold wall street and not much more. we swallowed our disappointment and we work to preserve a democratic majority in 1994 because we knew what 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. politicians to think that working people had it too good, too much help care, too much so security, too much medicare, too much power on the job they are actually inviting a repeat of 1994. [applause] and 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 to lay a new foundation for growth. now was 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 the weekend if they do not believe this. they can go sit with the unemployed. back and talk to college students looking at tuition hikes and laid off professors and no jobs at graduation. they can talk to workers whose jobs are being outsourced and ask these americans what they think about their future. ask them what they think about wall street, about help the insurance companies and the big banks. ask them if they want a government in partnership with those folks or a government that stands up for working people. then speak about the great promise of america and the great

legacy that we have inherited. our wealth as a nation and our energy as a people cancer cure for us and our children, and the words of my predecessor, more schoolhouses and less jails, more books, more learning more leisure and less greed, more justice and less revenge -- in fact, more of the opportunities to cultivate our better nature. that is the america that we look forward to and we are looking forward to getting it now. thank you. [applause] >> we are going to get started. [applause] we only have 20 minutes for questions. please be seated. thank you. the ap is reporting today that

the initial stimulus bill had virtually no effect on unemployment and that it was ineffective in the construction industry. why should there be another stimulus if this was the result of the purse? >> good question. let's go back into our history when the first family's was being thought about, nobody thought the economy would be in as deep a recession as it turned out to be. back then they said that we would need at least $1.30 trillion to turn the economy around. remember that? the republicans stood up and up by and when against every piece of the stimulus bill. they got a bill that was 66% of what was needed. most economists figured that we are saving some jobs but we need a second stimulus. a second stimulus package along the lines that will create many jobs.

or otherwise we stand the danger of a double dip recession, going back because banks 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 some of the financial economy but not the real economy will take over. >> you just mentioned the five- point plan that was issued in november. using tarp money to offer commercial rate loans to small and medium-size businesses. which points of your plan have come to plan -- to pass? which have not? what would you tell them about this plan? >> today's meeting is not about the economy. some of the portions of the plan have already been enacting. extending unemployment benefits and cobra benefits were extending. we suggested a 12-month

extension. the senate gave a two-month extension and said they would come back to look at that. the reauthorization of the transportation bill, the senate is hopefully working on that. the reauthorization of the clean water act, the house is done that and the senate is hopefully working on that. it needs to be more because we have 48 states that are in danger of cutting of spending and it does is precious little good at the federal level to increase spending to create jobs if the state level is decreasing by the same amount. creating jobs, that has not been taken up yet. it will be. and the last one, the tarp money, it has not been done yet.

we think we ought to take that part money that has not been spent and the money that has been paid back, said the three small banks said that they can do an immediate lending to create jobs. we will see some of that happened. it has not been done yet. >> what you see is the major roadblocks to getting that passed? >> week politicians. [applause] and the republican party that is more disciplined than anyone imagined, that is determined to see this president fail, so they will not work for the interest of the company. -- of the country. that audit is health care and the stimulus package. they have no alternative except to say no. that is a tragedy for the same for the country. we hope that they finally come to their senses and start thinking about what is best for the country instead of what is best for the next election.

>> wouldn't more stimulus provide more debt? >> stimulus would help us create jobs. it would not lead to more debt. let me pose this to you. let me do a survey. how many people here can afford to live in the house that they are in? raise your hand. how many people paid cash for the house that they live in? while. -- wow. one person paid cash and the rest of the people paid it on time. we could afford it but we had a paid on time. that is the same with a jobs program. we may have to pay for it over time. and long term, it will not mean more dad but it will be less the more people that we put back to work for it look at what the

chinese did. they spend 9% of their gdp on stimulus and they spent all of that in china. we spent over 2% of our gdp and we have spent some of it in the united states. most of that went out -- not most of it, but some of it. windmill's -- if you buy a windmill, abroad, sixty-two cents out of every dollar is used to stimulate someone else's economy rather than our economy. we create jobs, that creates demand, the man then feels the economy. and i want come back to something i had in the speech. what we had over the last 30 years is a low wage, high consumption economy. to bridge that contradiction, we borrowed. we now know that that is 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 that we produce is distributed of little more fairly, so that everyone can then demand, because one person -- a millionaire with $100 -- one person with $100 creates a lot less demand than on hundred people with $1. what we have to do is make sure that the wealth is spread out more said that we can actually build this economy. the other thing is to regulate the economy. if we only stimulate the economy and go back to the same economy that we had, the same result will happen. the people of 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 act

quickly to create those jobs because there is a lot of suffering. if they do not, i think they truly will face the scorn of the american populace in the election. >> the demand for shorter work time was the tremendous -- the traditional response to unemployment. the struggle for the eight-hour day with a core of labor movement. why are unions not to date demanding a four-hour -- a four- day work week? >> we would like to have that if we get paid for high. unfortunately we are getting a no-day workweek and we're getting paid for nine. when wages started to stagnate -- maybe i should go back a little bit. from 1946 to 1973, wages in this country doubled three

productivity -- and so did wages. we had a good thing going. we built the middle class. the greatest expansion of wealth in the history of man. and the interesting thing during that period of time, income was increasing faster so the wage gap was collapsing. now wages have stagnated. absolutely stagnated. workers went through four or five different strategies. the first thing we tried to do is work longer hours to get over time to make up for what we were not getting in races. when that did not work, we send somebody from the family, another person out into the work force, so at least family incomes held up. when that did not work out -- when that did not work, we took on a sack and a third job.

then you hit a high tech bubble of the 1990's, and people's wages were not going up but look at that 401(k)? look at my 401(k). we got rich. they felt like they could borrow. and they did barrault. and in the high-tech bubble collapsed, -- and then the high tech bubble collapses and then we got lucky again, about housing bubble to cough. -- the height -- the housing bubble took off. we had an economy that forces people just to get by to work longer and more jobs, retirees whose pensions have been taken away from them half to go back out into the work force. we should have a work system where we work fewer hours and make more money. but this economy of the last 30 years has made that impossible

for most americans. it is an economy that has grown to people up, that has taken jobs and turn back time and lower wages. we have people working for wages that today are lower than they were in the 1970's. working longer hours to pay for 2010 commodities with wages from the 1970's. that is why the employee free choice act is so important. we get a chance to make those jobs could jobs -- good jobs, create a better balance in the economy, create a real demand for product so we do not have to borrow our way into the middle class but bargain our way into the middle class. >> speaking of the employee free

choice at, what the prospects of labor law reform in 2010, given the momentum shift against the democrats in general -- and general election year anxiety? >> i hope to see it passed in the first quarter of 2010. it will have some real effect in creating and making good jobs. .

[applause] good evening until i want to welcome all of you to disclosing debate among the candidates for next week's election for the united states senate. this coming tuesday it will be a crucial time in massachusetts. voters will go to the polls in selected person who may well determine the outcome of the long fight over health-care legislation in washington. at stake as well will be jobs, energy, the environment, abortion, whirs overseas, we

have much to talk about. the candidates and this election are seeking to fill a seat that is legendary in american politics. among its occupants had been giants of the past ted kennedy and his brother john to henry cabot lodge, charles sumner, daniel webster and john quincy adams. those are some shoes to fill. this debate is sponsored by the edward m. kennedy institute for the united states senate. we are gathered this boston campus of harvard university. and then ordered determined by lottery, let me introduce the three candidates with us. scott brown, republican candidate is in his third term in the state senate representing the middlesex and north old districts. he previously served three terms

in the house. martha coakley, the democratic candidate is the attorney general of massachusetts. she was elected in 2006 after serving eight years as district attorney of middlesex county. joseph kennedy, no relation to the late senator, is an independent candidate who is a member of the national libertarian party. preparing questions, i consulted members of the media and other peoples whose judgment i trust. the questions themselves are known only to me. to the audience, please hold your applause until the end. we will begin with a series of questions leaving time in each round for a response and discussion. but lottery, the first question will go to mr. brown, then ms. coakley and then mr. kennedy. we will then rotate the order.

the candidates will then have time later on to ask each other questions. let us begin. president obama and democrats in congress are now in the final stages of him bring out a national health care bill. there is a very real possibility that the winner of this election will be in a position to ensure passage of the bill or its defeat. do you want posers -- t want voters to see this as a referendum? >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be her. i want to think the kennedy institute. the health care bill being prepared in washington is broken. the back room deals, we need to start over. we have health care in massachusetts. 98% of the people are in short. we did that. we do not need what is being pushed in washington on

massachusetts. cutting half a trillion dollars of medicare. we know we need to reform pricing and we will do that shortly. to think that we've all had a one size fits all plan in congress is going to hurt what we have, that is a difference between martha coakley and i. you are talking about a health care plan, half a trillion dollars in health care cuts at a time when we do not need it. i would propose allowing the states to do that individually with the government incentivizing it. we can actually export but we have done and show them how to do it. i looked over to being the 41st vote in making sure we get that plan back to the driver board. >> mr. coakley -- mrs. coakley. >> thank you. i would be proud to be that vote to make sure we get that perform we need. we have taken the lead in massachusetts. we are attacking costs to make

sure we provide for transparency and competition to bring costs down. wheat now spent $2.60 trillion per year on health care in this country. we do not get our money's work -- our money's worth. we do not have transparency. we do not have the type of health care we can and should have that mr. kennedy said is a right and privilege. i believe we can do that by doing it incrementally as we are going to do. we are setting the groundwork for a revolutionary play and which we provide for coverage for those who cannot get coverage and make sure that we keep costs down and people can keep the health care they have. costs are going up 10%. that is unsustainable. >> mr. brown. >> as much as out of like to think there be a 41st vote against him which of the glove to be, the reality is we are seeing boats bought.

-- votes bought. it is not about who will vote it down. it will be bought because of the politics. the question is who is going to work to repeal it once it passes. we have an issue going on in government. government is too big. this bill will cost $1.20 trillion. to explain what that number means, every year, our federal income tax is only $1.10 trillion for every single person in america. what that means is an 11% increase on everybody at minimum to pay for this bill. we cannot afford it, we should not do it. health care in massachusetts is going up rapidly and it will at the governmental level. >> we have insurance. we have some of the best doctors, hospitals, and the

country. that is why people come here. not only of this bill going to be bad for the state, my job as senator, i am not going to be subsidizing what we have been doing. we will be subsidizing what other states have failed to do. >> do you agree? >> i do not. i spoke to a woman whose husband is out of work. she does not have health care and has children with rare diseases. even though the doctors preferred her to specialists, insurance companies will not pay for it. massachusetts will benefit with $500 million closing the do not hole. >> it is a bad plan because it is going to hurt jobs at a time and we cannot afford to lose jobs. >> why epaulet lose jobs? >> we have a competing plan. it will compete with the plans

we already have. we have taken great care to ensure that we have fantastic plants. the biggest problem, and martha talk about the $500 million, we should not have to go to washington and take a cup to get handouts. we should be able to fix the problems on our own and we can do that. >> mrs. coakley, can you promise voters that you will vote for this health-care plant regardless of how it has changed? especially on abortion? >> i think -- >> what if the plan becomes more restrictive in the house? >> i said i would not vote for a plan to cut you would become the 41st senator against it. >> i do not believe it would -- that would be the choice. >> you will vote for the senate bill? >> i will if it is reasonable.

" it is not going to be a senate bill. it will be a compromise. regardless of what dirk -- regardless of what version comes out, it is going to be bad for massachusetts. >> mr. brown, you said you are for health care reform but not this bill. if this bill fails, it could be another 15 years before we see an effort again in washington. are you willing, under those circumstances, to be the person that blocks it for another 15 years? >> it is not the kennedy seat. it is the people's seat. they have a chance to send somebody down who is independent and is going to look out for the people of massachusetts. i would like to send them back to the drawing board. people should have insurance. not just to this bill because it

is not good for the country. an additional trillion dollars in costs and cuts. it is not good. we need to go back to the drawing board. nobody has confidence in this bill. >> this morning, the head of the afl-cio said it would be a recipe for disaster if the final health care bill includes a tax on high-end insurance plans. senator obama says he is for that tax. you have support and the president and the other position. " the president also said there was a lot of room to determine what exactly was in those cadillac plans. the debt should include some toyotas or something.

i did not agree with that. >> this is not about cars. it is about health care. the plans we are talking about, it is going to be taxing those cadillac plans. how are you going to pay for this? you are cutting 0.5 trillion dollars from health care and pulled the taxing people at a time when you cannot afford it. we can go back to the drawing board. it will not take 15 years, not on my watch. not a one size fits all for the entire country that hurts states and their individual rights to free market and free enterprise. >> you have all talked about the economy. voters in this commonwealth put jobs at the top of their lists.

people are worried about 10% unemployment. it is also true that in this terrible situation we are in, it comes at the end of a lost decade for american workers. there has been no net job growth since december of 1999. middle-class families when adjusted for inflation have not seen incomes rise. what are your plans not just short-term but the long-term challenge for jobs for americans? >> if i could note that the congressional budget office says that in 10 years, health care plan will be debt neutral. part of the reason we have issues is because we have not had the regulations that kept the economy in check. with the tax policies of the previous administration, which is what scott brown still wants to do, he wants to go back to

those policies that provide for the very wealthy. i support a plan that will provide this -- that will provide tax relief for middle- class families. it will provide for tax credits for college and more lending opportunities for small businesses which will be the engine that gets this economy moving. >> mr. kennedy. >> wages have not risen since 1972. it is not just the last 10 years. we have lost the last 40 years. we need to get the economy going. warren harding did it in the 1920's. we have not done it since. we continue to spend money on entitlement plans. these things drop might from the private sector and to the public sector. year after a year, we see the public sector growing. we see people not getting wage increases. that is what is going on.

until we cut entitlements and stop going to war which is extremely expensive, we are not going to fix this economy. there is no way shape or form. we have a number of brock forsees and wasteful spending. nobody is holding them accountable. somebody needs to stop the wars and stop the entitlement programs and give the money back to the taxpayer. >> the congressional budget office said 10 years. we will be paying for this plan and subsidize plans for the next six years. we eventually break even. that sounds like a great deal. i would rather send it back to the drawing board. i have a history of cutting taxes, holding the line on spending, i have been fighting

against the machine that once you rate your taxes. we can do better in that regard. with your comments that bush and cheney, you can run against bush and cheney but i am scott brown. i drive a truck. it has 200,000 miles on it. you are not running against them. the big difference between you and me is that you want to raise taxes $2.10 trillion on items that you were very vocal about during the primaries. nothing has changed. what is the actual number you want to raise taxes? >> if i may respond. it does not matter how many times you say to 0.1 trillion dollars, it does not make it accurate. >> it is the number. >> it is not the number. i'd support tax relief for the middle class. a health-care plan that will be

self-supporting. your response to health care costs is make sure we'd let the insurance companies not provide for cervical screening and mammograms. that is not a good way to go if you want real reform. we have an energy policy that will make polluters pay. those numbers disappear and we are down to zero. you voted when you were in the senate for over $7 billion of spending in the commonwealth. you voted for $300 million. let's get that rhetoric straight. i am a fiscally responsible attorney general. there is nobody watching that thinks you are a tax cutter. i have never voted for a tax increase. i am fighting the line on taxes. the items you are talking about are quite frankly outrageous.

need not been supportive of women's rights and mammogram coverage, there is basic coverage in everything we are proposing. the health-care bill you are pushing in washington, that you will support, it in fact raises the age of getting a mammogram coverage from 40 to 50. it's set limits on pap smear testing. it cuts half a trillion dollars of -- from medicare for seniors. just because people have good lobbyists and peeking hill, we can do better with the plant we have. we do not need to rely on a plan in washington. >> we can agree to disagree. let us be clear on the backs. you cannot distort my record and not be accurate about your own. i have not proposed any new taxes except for those on the

wealthiest top 2% of the country. that is all i have talked about. let's be clear. i propose that we go corporate and -- that we go forward. >> it is a tax. >> it is not a tax. >> you are in favor of a health- care bill. >> budget neutral. >> you are in favor of the tax cuts. >> ok. >> excuse me. i do not need to be rude. i am sorry. [laughter] >> i hear you all talking a lot about tax cuts to create jobs. there is a second issue out there. but that is the deficit. the truth of the matter is that

just over the horizon are these massive deficits. every year in the next 10 years, the obama and registration says will have one trillion dollars more of the deficit. how are we going to solve this problem? >> the answer here and i have been saying this the whole time, nobody to my right has been willing to talk about spending cuts. >> what would you cut? >> i do not think we have enough time. i am going to cut obama care when it passes. i am going to cut the department of education. every single hack job that is out there. i will audit the federal reserve and will see to it that if there is corruption in the federal reserve but we cut that as well. i will cut the wars. we have people in japan, people and germany that the fed wealthy nations today. we pay for that.

everybody is incorrect when they say that cutting taxes creates jobs. that is not the truth. cutting spending historically is what creates jobs. when you cut taxes and did not cut spending, you get what we had with the bush administration which is what bankrupt our economy. >> we need to do a jfk-style tax cuts for families. we have done a stimulus. she was in favor of the first one and is considering a second one. we are looking at a huge national debt. what if we tried something a bit different? the stimulus bill has not worked. the president said that we are last in releasing the money we have. how can we talk about another stimulus plan on the first one has not worked? let us get back to basics.

let's get the president of the line item veto. it is very important to do that. that is the difference between martha and me. her tax proposals will not help at all. the health care bill will add over one trillion dollars. that is the main difference between us. >> i think the question was about the deficit. let us remember some history. when the democrats left before george bush, you either had to have it in the budget or make sure there was a revenue source for it. that complete and out the window with the bush-cheney administration. we have had on regulated spending. that got us into the problem.

scott brown will stand here and say that this problem must have just come out of nowhere. his solution is to do nothing except make sure that we have some sort of tax cut. not going to work. what i have said and what he knows i said is that we need to get tax revenues up. we need the engine of this economy running. >> how would you get tax revenues up? >> by getting people back to you were -- back to work. >> do you join president obama and his pledge that no taxe increases for families making less than $250,000? >> yes. energy costs and health care costs are all difficult problems. >> you need to start dealing with the reality.

the tax cuts will create an immediate jolt to the economy and create jobs. as jfk called for, across the board tax cuts. that is not a gimmick. there is plenty of blame to go around. i will not be living in the the stakes of the past. i want to address the problems of today. there are clear differences between the two of us on this clear issues. >> let me ask you both this question. we have gone through tax cuts during the bush years. we did not have this booming growth that you have assumed. congress are saying they want to take on the entitlement programs. will you all have the courage to take on the entitlement programs or will we talk and see these costs go through the roof? >> i am the only one who has talked about spending. spending is something that is

difficult to cut. it is difficult to look at the people and say we have to cut programs. it is the truth. we have to do it. the reason nobody wants to talk about cutting spending is because it costs votes. every single time you go out there and say i am going to cut your taxes and raise entitlement benefits, you are lying. we have to cut spending. >> medicare, social security, are you ready to cut them? >> yes. >> a bill has been filed that will be similar to a previous bill. you look at the entitlements and you have a bipartisan commission that looks at everything in makes a recommendation. i look forward to that opportunity to get my input. >> if that came in with tax increases, you would support that? >> no, i would not. i would look at entitlements and

make that recommendation. at least we have the choice. that is important. >> we just spent a lot of taxpayer dollars on bailing out big corporations, billions of dollars on tarpon's been -- and stimulus money. if we have done better regulation, it would not have to have been done. i am not going to say we are going to take away social security for our critics generation or people that depend on it. there have to be ways that we reach our obligations on that. we have to start with where the blame does fall and how we turn this around. >> bottom-line, ms. coakley. what is your position on whether congress should consider and be open to reforming social security, medicare, and medicaid in a way that brings down the cost curve? are you opposed or open to that? >> i believe everything can be

looked at. as i stand here today, if we look at new generations coming in but did not have these entitlements, this is not the first place i am going to look. >> are you going to look there? >> that is where the money is. >> i understand that. this is about more than just the budget. it is about the obligations we have to our senior citizens. >> it is not about blame. it is about solving the problems of today. we have talked about a review of every federal program. we do that to find any waste. we have done it here and we can do it in washington. there is plenty of blame to go around. let's try to solve the problems of today. you of course have to look at entitlements and other programs. >> let us move on. i could love to work through a lot of these more deeply but the clock is working in another direction.

i would like to go to a new question. after the incident with the bomber trying to take down the plane over to try it, the president declared that we are in a war against al qaeda. strong words. how do we win this war? >> thank you. it is coming to our airports and shopping malls. i am glad he has realized we are at war. he was a bit slow in reacting in that situation. one of the main differences between martha and me as she believes that these individuals should be given constitutional rights, attorneys, lawyers, so they can take the fifth and treat them like ordinary criminals. they should be treated as enemy combatants and should be interrogated to make sure that we find out if there are other

attacks coming. that is the difference between me and marquette. we are giving -- the difference between me and martha. he should be treated as an enemy can patent. " through a pellet terry tribunal. we can do better. with my military experience and the training i have and issues of war and peace, i am looking for to that opportunity. >> there is nothing more important than keeping this country safe and keeping our homeland security safe. we need to do that as smartly as we can. we have been at war since 9/11. there is no dispute about that. i have worked every day keeping us save. we are making sure 9/11 never happens again on our soil. we have to be smarter and work

better and use better intelligence and analysis of where al qaeda is and how we will neutralize them. i am surprised at scott because he is a lawyer and he does defense work for jag. he understands what constitutional rights are about. i did not think a constitutional right is a suicide pact. we need to do whatever we can to keep our people save and to what works. we need to make sure we have the right intelligence. >> if we want to secure the people of america, we need to not say why are we at war with the al qaeda text we need to understand why al qaeda is at war with us. it is because we occupy nations in the middle east. if you are a little kid in you have somebody from another country walking up and down your

street with a machine gun, you are going to grow up hating that country. when you turn 15, it is going to be very easy to recruit you to come over and kill us. that is what is happening. the reality is if we want a safer country, we need to not occupy these lands. we need to pull back the individuals who are deployed over there. we need to take some of the money that is paid -- that pays for that deployment and secure our borders. if we focused on securing america and not go over there and interfere in these people's lives, which would have fewer and abuse and would be concentrating our forces where we need them which is in america. >> thank you. i am glad he recognized my service. i do deal with these issues. i do not recall any time one of the cape constitutional rights to terrorists -- -- recall any

time that we gave constitutional rights to terrorists. we need to treat them as enemy combatants to get every bit of information we can through legal means. it shows to me that you did not understand the law when it comes to combatants. >> the reason they started the designation of enemy combatants is so that we would have rules and regulations for our own soldiers to make sure that we treated people appropriately. we will always have the option and it makes more sense to get better information. >> i understand your differences on the legal treatment of prisoners. what i'd like to understand and do not is how you could win the war on the ground. >> i agree with the president. that is another difference. i support his effort to finish

the job in afghanistan. we need the tools and resources to get to the men and women and keep them safe. the president decided what he needed to do to finish the job. that is to make sure the taliban does not get nuclear weapons and export them around the pearl. how do you do it? the support our troops and president. and like martha, in a time of war, we are at war and airports and shopping malls, i am scared that some of the policies i have heard in your treatment of giving enemy combatants constitutional rights. i want to know when the next strike is to win to happen. we're not going to fight it by the policies you are pushing. i support the president and and proud to do so. >> in response to that, we have had over 200 trials and have been successful and holding people accountable when they

have been designated as enemy combatants. they made that decision, presumably, the attorney general can do that. i did not agree with president obama decision to send troops to afghanistan. as a side note, scott selectively picks and chooses what is the right policy. >> how do you think we succeed in afghanistan? >> i think we have done what we are going to be able to do. " did you think we should come home? >> i think we should plan a is its strategy. >> how will we succeed? >> i am not sure we can. we wouldn't be leaving that the taliban was harboring terrorists. i supported that goal. they are gone. let's focus our efforts on where al qaeda is. >> would you send troops into yemen ?

>> no. that's the point. we have resources at our disposal. we have the cia and allies that work with us. they should be getting the appropriate information on individuals who are trained to represent a threat to us and used the force necessary to go after those individuals. >> one brief intervention and then we move on. >> that may explain what the mission is. to make sure that taliban and allocated to not join forces and get nuclear weapons. -- to make sure that taliban and allocated to not get nuclear weapons and spread them to the country. >> it is not need to think that we have the troops to send everywhere and they are the best way to go after people that are terrorists who disappear into the night and get on planes with bombs and there shun's -- bo

mbs in their shoes. >> when you catch these people, then you want to give them constitutional rights. >> that is not what i said. >> you said he should be a lawyered up. we should have taken the time to interrogated him properly. >> we apparently have information from him. the two of us did not know what it is. >> we are going to change format a little bit. we are going to allow each candidate a chance to ask the other two candidates a question and get a 1 minute response. i will start with ms. coakley. i somehow think it will be a continuation of what they have been talking about. >> in massachusetts, you supported legislation that would

allow hospital employees to deny hospital care to rape victims if it was their choice. you have also received the endorsement of the massachusetts right to life organization that said you will be a vote for right to life in the senate. do you accept their endorsement? >> first of all, thank you for your question. i have a very big tent. i appreciate everybody's support. this is about everybody. i welcome every place support. you have many special interest groups rallying around you. i did vote on a bill to allow women who were raped to get treatment. i am proud of that vote. we both have the same position on abortion. roe v. wade is the law of the land. i am against partial birth abortions, you are not. you wrote an editorial and

anybody can find it online. you criticize partial birth abortions because it is not allowed. we have a difference that i cannot believe federal funding of abortion should be allowed. i believe in a strong parental notification law. you go as a social crusader. i want to be a job crusader. i want to deal with issues that our important to us. to think that with my two young daughters think i would not allow the opportunity if there break to have the immediate attention to go -- >> this that and 32 your time is up -- >> your time is up. and i wrong that the bill to filed allows for emergency

personnel to deny care if it is within their decision? >> you are absolutely wrong. >> what does that and then it do? >> i am not in your courtroom. i am not defended. let me answer your question. the amended you are referring to allow hospitals that have religious preferences to provide abortions. -- >> and contraception -- >> i would like the chance to answer the question. the bill passed and i was glad to vote for it and would do it again. >> is that a correct position to take? >> to allow women to get emergency contraception. >> they can be turned away. >> it is important that -- it is a -- >> given the time constraints,

we are moving to one question. would mr. kennedy pose a question to either one of the two candidates. >> thank you. a very simple question. we have a health care bill in front of us that will cost $1.20 trillion. the total amount of money that is raised by all tax that comes in is at $1.08 trillion. are you willing to increase taxes on everybody 11% to pay for this health care bill because that is what it costs and it will not be able to be done by just taxing the wealthy. >> no. i disagree with the premise and the facts in your question. i think everybody appreciates that health care needs reform and it is complicated. we can stand here all night and to argue about it but what it requires is getting down and

figuring out as we did in massachusetts as we go forward on the national level. we cannot afford not to do health care. what we can save by early prevention and screening, how we pay for the services, and so on. >> the numbers i am giving you are numbers from the government tax foundation. >> and the congressional budget office says it will be deficit- neutral in 10 years. we will see the kinds of things we want out at this. we policy people who now to not have insurance get it. -- we will see people who do not have uinsurance now get it. our system is upside down. it does not take care of the people it is supposed to.

we can do it and get better results and save money. it will not happen overnight. >> mr. brown, you have a chance to ask a question. we have many differences. i happen to think you are wrong about policies. one is the issue on terror. you want to provide constitutional rights to enemy combatants like ordinary criminals. i do not. simple question. sheik mohammad will be tried in new york at taxpayer expense. you supported that. if he is found guilty of killing almost 3000 innocent men women and children, should he get the death penalty? >> he will. >> do you agree that the fact that he should get the death penalty? >> yes, because that is what the

federal law says. >> you have said that you do not support the death penalty. >> i said i did not support it personally. i would not -- he is being tried in federal court because he was not tried in a military tribunal. it is the attorney general's decision on where to try him. he has done that successfully many times. they have made the decision as to where to go. it is theirs to make. if he is found guilty and i believe he will be, he will not be walking down the streets of manhattan, he will face the death penalty. that is what the law of the land says. i would support that. >> he was treated as an enemy combatants. >> then why did they not bring him -- >> he was interrogated and they found a valuable information.

it is problematic. >> let's move to the next round. i will ask a few more questions and then people have -- and then we will have closing statements. if you could answer a couple questions. some argue that you have been campaigning as a moderate republican but you are actually quite conservative on some issues. roe vs. wade. you said that is the law of the land and you respected but you have been endorsed by right-to- life groups that are campaigning for you. would your preference be to see that overturned? >> no.

the have a long history of service -- i have a long history of service. i live in a house full of women. to have people twist my record around? >> do you support roper says wait? >> that has never been an issue. >> climate change. you per quoted as saying -- you were quoted as saying that climate change may be a big fraud. do you believe that global warming is caused by man-made activities or are you skeptical? >> that is not an accurate quote. the climate is changing all the time. it is a question of what we do with regard to it. >> let me quote it back to you. the question was did you think the global warming king was a big fraud? you responded it is interesting.

the globe is always heating and cooling. >> that is what was reported in the newspaper. >> what newspaper argued talking about? >> i will tell you what my position is. >> the climate is always changing. it always has. whether it is man-made or natural is the question. it is probably a combination of both. how we address it is key. we need to make sure we do a bunch of things. conservation, wind, solar. when was the last time we built eight nuclear power plant? the difference between martha coakley and me is that she is in favor of a cap and trade scheme that will make energy costs skyrocket. i do not care how it is changing. i want to make sure we can address it. >> there are some who wonder

whether if you have been complacent as a front-runner. in looking back, the you think it was the right decision to insist on three people in the debate given the fact that john kerry said he could do it one on one. >> i think it was a very good decision. i can -- i think that joe has added a lot to the debate and discussion. i am familiar with the dates and massachusetts. people who are on the ballot should be able to get up when it is a public-sponsored debate and have voters judge them. we have had plenty of opportunities. there are a lot of ways that voters can compare us. in a public forum, it makes a lot of sense. >> do you have any second

thoughts about your campaign? >> absolutely not. campaigns are not dress rehearsals. we had a tough primary. we worked every day on that. we are taking nothing for granted. we worked very hard. i took christmas day off. voters did not want to hear from me. to suggest that i am taking this for granted or not working hard, look at our policy papers. i do not know what is went to happen on january 19 but i am asking for voters to vote for one of the three of us and i am working for a heart to make sure we get our -- i am working very hard to make sure we get our message out. >> you have run a tough campaign. you are in a situation you are pretty far back. if you are not to win, the you have a preference between these two candidates as to who you

would like to see win? [laughter] >> in all honesty, the most important thing that we do here as a third-party candidate is get the message out of neither of these candidates is willing to talk about spending. if they cannot talk about spending, which cannot have any intelligent discussions around the economy. my answer would be whoever can actually start talking about cutting of spending. neither one of them has been willing to do so. " i would support would be the person who whenever they decide to start being realistic and talk about spending. >> is there one closer to your model? >> i honestly think that scott at least talks about cutting taxes which is part of the way there. my issue with scott is that last year, he had the opportunity

when we had the referendum to cut the income tax. he has been calling for across- the-board tax cuts, he had the opportunity, he publicly came out against it and it was voted down. that is $3,700 that could have gone out to everybody. one year but later, he is calling for the exact same thing that he did not want to have one year ago in the same economic conditions. how do voters trust him? i do not know. >> one final question and then you have a chance at closing statements. this is more personal in nature. talking to voters in people and the press, there is a common refrain. people sense the new senator ted kennedy very well as a human being. he was senator for a long time. he had a lot of connections. they have a lot of respect for the three of you. they do not sense they know you very well. they have had a hard time

penetrating that. can you tell us beyond what you have said in your advertising in to reject some insight into what you would like the voters to think when going into the polls? >> i think that is a great question. we are constrained by these forums. my husband and sisters are here tonight. i come from a big family. my father owns an insurance agency and did not have much use for politics. he would be proud of the work i have done. i am driven by the work i do. i am passionate for victims of domestic violence, children, keeping them safe. those who know me well, i cannot take myself too seriously. i can actually be funny, believe it or not.

i enjoyed my life outside. i love to ski and cook. i feel blessed that i can work every day on behalf of the public and have a great personal life with a tremendous husband. i am very lucky. >> thank you. >> i think that it is best to state that i am very close to my family. my father is a minister. i grew up in an adoptive family. the best thing to understand is that when i called my father to tell him what i was calling to do, his words were "o nh, no, im very proud of you." [applause] >> i do not get anything out of this. this is a pay cut. this is very difficult for a third-party candidate to do. the reality is message has to

get out there. i would risk everything i do to make sure that somebody is actually supporting these people of the state of massachusetts. when i look at the taxes that i pay at the end of the day, i see that they have to be cut. i support a family. everybody else here does, too. >> i want to thank you both for participating. i also want to thank you for having us. i am hopeful that people will to to know me better than the media has portrayed me. there is a lot more. it is difficult to talk about. this race has made me reflect. my parents were divorced. my mother was on welfare for some time. i have come from nothing and worked my way up. i have two beautiful daughters and a loving wife of 22 years. i have been serving this state that i love where i have been raised.

i will die here. the thing i have loved about this race is the fact that i have been able to travel around the state and meet great people and know what their needs and hurts our. it has made me appreciate and what the state even more. i hope the people appreciate that fact and appreciate my service not only as a legislative leader but through my military service. i hope that will give me a chance to go to capitol hill and fix what is wrong. >> thank you. we now go to closing statements. the order has been determined by lottery. >> thank you. i am hosting -- i am asking voters to vote for me for u.s. senator. we need to send somebody to washington who will address these difficult problems. i have done that as your attorney general. i know that the economy to regulation. i know that we need to get people back to work.

i intend to do that. i appreciate the kind of ideas that joe kennedy has brought. we have all been spending too much money that we cannot have on stuff we do not need. that is true of us individually and as a government. that does not mean there are not important things that we have to spend our money on. i brought back $1 billion as attorney general for consumers. that is my first priority. make sure that we use our money wisely and keep our people say. >> thank you for coming out and being such exports. thank you to the viewers for participating. i am honored to be on the stage. i am honored to even be considered as the next senator from this great state. there is nothing i'd rather do more than represent you in washington as i have done here in boston -- in massachusetts.

i understand the differences between us on the fight on terror. i can bring their expertise to washington and help. regard to taxes, i have been fighting that battle on beacon hill. it is happening in washington. washington is starting to act like massachusetts, taxing before sitting. i think we can do better. i can go down there and bring the conversation back. it is broken. it is broken here and in washington. it debate is cut off, that is not good. that is not what our founding fathers would want. >> thank you. this election is about the

economy and the future. this is about big government candidate against a small the government candidate. what you need to ask ourselves -- ask yourselves is scott will spend money on war, martha will spend money on health care. who do you want to spend money? i am the only candidate that will go there and cut spending. i will repeal obama-care. i will bring that money back to the people of massachusetts and the rest of the country. i will audit the federal reserve. i am the only candidate that is willing to cut the spending. you have to ask yourself, who do you want spending your money? do you want it to be the government or did you want to make those decisions yourself? >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, this concludes tonight's final debate before the election next tuesday. as we leave, our t like to

tha -- i would like to thank the university of massachusetts at boston for hosting this event. i would like to thank our media partners who have been covering this. i but like to urge all of you -- i would like to urge all of you to go and vote. this is an important election. i would like you to join me and that thinking the candidates who were here tonight and so devoted to -- i would like a tha joinn m you to join me in thanking the candidates who were here tonight and so devoted to public

service. [applause] senate majority leader harry reid said today he could've chosen his words better regarding a 2008 " about president obama is raised and electability. his remarks are next on c-span. in a few minutes, stupack talks about his abortion amendment in the house version of the bill. te