back of the child seat to the floor of the vehicle which, as i understand, there are some limitations of based on -- on implementing that in the u.s. i think there are some design issues, but the thing we also need to think about the other side of it. we can design most effective child restraint but we need people to use it. we need to understand the barriers or facilitators between why parents would or would not want to keep their children rear-facing. i think we are starting to see more children remain rear- facing for longer than one year. there is nothing magical that happens in one year by mechanically, so extending their rear-facing and getting the social norms to change -- that is typical to have children of age 2 it even age 3 refacing.

as well as understanding the sociology. >> thank you. >> i would echo that. we still see a significant degree of premature graduation from rear-facing to forward- facing among quite young children. part of it is human nature. when you see the back of your child's head in the rearview mirror, it cannot wait -- you cannot wait to see the child turned around. parents tell us they're worried about the child asphyxiating. it is understandable they would like to see their child's face in the rear-view mirror. increasingly, with the educational outreach, the child seat designs are going to higher and higher wages, so we are moving progressively as a society in that direction, but are education reference needs to be more engaged as well and to make a social norm.

>> now i would like to move onto older age children and talked about booster seats. i have two questions associated with that. one is addressing the research that the insurance industry has done, and the first question is that the research that the insurance institute did look at booster seat fit. has the fit of booster seats been associated with better outcomes in crashes? >> we do not have good evidence that would compare benefit and the outcome of a crash. >> the follow-up question to that is, following on to what dr. arbogast mentioned for optimizing the rear seat, we know that 4 to 8-year-old should be in booster seats, but when we

look at height, it is probably older than eight years old. is there some way that we can optimize that rear seat, either so that children that are 8 years old to fit in the adult belt system, or some way that makes it easier for parents to know? because eight years old this kind of like the state laws and accepted information, but they may not fit in the adult belt until they are 12 years old. would it be a disadvantage for adults sitting in the rear seat? >> i will go first. i think you had a couple questions in there. one might be what guidelines to give to parents to know at what age their child should move out of the booster. with the publicity we have done with our ratings, we say over and over again, we talk about the fit. where the lap belt should become

aware of the shoulder belt should be. i think you do not want to complicated a message in a broad publicity campaign, and it is difficult to write laws that have something to do that is as complicated as fit. we do not use the age module , which again is not every child. ideally, the bottom line is that parents should look at the fit. but in terms of doing brobased publicity, i think you lose something when you have too complicated a message. in terms of the back seat and the belts, we are involved -- i know there are conversations involving the people on this panel and others to take a look at whether there is a way to do similarly what we have done for

boosters for older children and even adults using seat belts in the rear seat. my guess is we can have a much better system that would work for children as they graduate from booster seats as well as adults. i think we all think we could do better, and we are all trying to figure out a way, i think, to have a research program to move that forward. it is complicated to figure out, but, you know, i think we could come up with a system where you would not have to make such trade-offs. personally, and i think i speak for a lot of women, a lot of women are uncomfortable in belts in the backseat. the comfort level with children and adults is an issue. if a seat belt is not comfortable, it's more likely it will be placed behind the neck or under the arm.

>> i think there are a number of issues with rear seats that make them quite different from front seats. the design for one thing in the front seat -- most vehicles today have only two seating positions, so there is a lot more room, a lot more space for people, personal space. in the rear seat, we usually try to compress three people into that space, and that makes it quite difficult. we also have to accommodate child seats. they have to tip, fold, slide. people are coming up with all sorts of challenges for rear seats and it makes it very difficult for a manufacturer to create something that will meet all of these different requirements. that said, we are constantly looking for ways to improve the rear seat, and we have some projects going on i can't really talk about, but it is something that is certainly on our radar. because we also feel that child

restraints, particularly booster seats, are a band-aid approach, and we would rather have a more holistic approach. >> thank you. mr. collins? >> thank you. dr. mccartt, in your presentation, we noted the use of -- you noted the top covers of pickups, and the stamp -- the sample might not be statistically submitted. any reason why you are seeing the lower use in pickups? >> if you have any other vehicle available to use a pick up, it would probably not be your choice. i think it is probably rare. again, in a family that has other vehicles, to use a forward-facing child restraint in a pick up. >> i think we have also seen

lower rates of age-appropriate restraints in pickups as well, so there is a lot of similar data that supports lower adherence to best practices in pickups. >> i think i can speak for the technicians here in the sense that it is often hard to get a good installation. the tethers are anchored in a location that they are hard to manage. it is not -- it is not the vehicle of choice for a parent transporting a child, and they are trying to accomplish a lot of things in their back seats as well, even if -- if they even have a back seat. i do not think child seats are the first thing on their minds. >> i think city hit on a point. when you look at the tether's coming the anchors are in all different kinds of places. they are may be difficult to

use. when we look at the use of the lower anchors, especially with the others, i think part of the difficulty with parents is that it is not, despite the goal of latch to standardize things, it is not really standardized or easily interpreted by parents. >> one last thing, that if you look in the back of a child seat today, there are more things dangling, all kinds of hardware. there is the lower attachment, top latch attachment. you are talking about parents with very limited experience installation on their own. in this country we do not install tethers rear-facing. it is really a lot to ask for parents, and that is why we would like to refer people to the network of inspection stations and technicians out there for assistance as needed.

>> coming back to where this question began, which is where pickups, as i recall, restraint use is lower among adults in pickups. >> thank you. >> mr. sinclair, during your presentation you pointed out -- >> ms. davis, can you pull the microphone a little closer? >> yes. you pointed out the lower u.s. rates for african-american and hispanic children. what do you attribute the lower rates to? >> we have tried to figure that out and did a series of listening sessions in september. much of it is economics more than anything else. partly it is language that is affecting the hispanic population. a lot of it is access. the number one thing that we took away was oftentimes

families are faced with the choice, low-income families in particular, the choice of basic needs verses what would be construed by some as being the luxury of a car seat that might be two or three different types of devices. the income issue is really there. we do not provide reimbursing for child seats unless your child has a defined medical need, under medical-under medicare, for example. -- under medicare, for example. it is pretty clear on the county level, the resources are under considerable pressure, as we can all imagine, from an economic position. we have been able to provide low-cost or no-cost seats to parents, particularly in these vulnerable populations. we still do some of that, but it is becoming harder and harder. that is a long answer to a short

question. we need to do a much better job of reaching these people at the community level where they live and work, with appropriate educational outreach. we're trying to do something that we have doubled a little bit. we need to do a lot more with the, in particular, hispanic population, with the overall growth that is already occurring making it a bigger issue for us. >> we conducted a study in the low-income hispanic population around philadelphia and found a few things. the way they wanted the information, the educational information delivered, was different from how we were doing it for the general population. so we created photonovella that convey the importance of booster seats. also, face-based organizations were highlighted. delivering information to their

community faith organizations was placed where the community was looking for information. i echo the need to get down to the community level and understand regardless of what subgroup you are talking about, where they go for the information. how do they want the information delivered. i think that will allow us to increase usage up to the 80, 90, and hopefully 100% that we are waiting to get to. >> chairman hersman, the technical panel has completed its questioning. >> thank you very much. member rosekind will lead the questioning for this session. >> thank you. a great job, just a super success story here. not only a great success story, but you can quantify it. 9300 childrens lives saved in less than a decade.

but there is clearly a lot to be done. incurrent fatalities, 40% are unrestrained. what i would like to do is post this to the whole panel. if everyone has a point, feel free. if you feel like you're ready to let someone else, do that, too. do you feel there is consensus about the information that is out there? not that you agree, but if i were a new parent with a six, seven, or 8-year-old kid, is there consensus if i am out there looking for that information? >> i think there is a lot of information out there, and one of the important things that i think the safety community has done over the last 10 years is to try to make sure that the messages they are getting from their pediatricians, from their community organizations, is similar. it is organizations like safe

nhtsa and other organizations. one of the unique things about child safety is parents only pay attention when it is important to them, so they are getting message -- they're getting the message. it is not what is important to them, so we need to keep with these messages as each of these cohorts of parents kind of that age with their children. because they are not ready to hear about booster seats when they have a 2-year-old. they're focused on other things. so we need to keep the message is consistent, and at present because there is a different population that wants it today, and was listening to a yesterday. >> if i can chime in, i agree with what kristy just said.

but to get your question directly, i would say no, there is not consensus. ford, in our owners manual, we say 12 years old it is when a child should be out of the booster seat. we believe in the five steps where you put the child in the seat and make sure their knees break over the seat. make sure they can set all the way in the back, that the shoulder at lap belts fill properly -- fit properly. my own kids were 11 before they came out of the booster seat, even though they were not too happy about it going to school. but -- so i do not think there is consensus. >> i would agree with that. even today we are talking about keeping children longer in rear- facing, log in forward-facing, longer in boosters. you want laws and regulations

and the message to be the same. that is the macro level, but at the micro level, the complexities of installing and using properly specific child safety seats -- there is just a lot of variation. so we may be getting the message out there about what type of seat a certain age a child should be end, but when it comes to using those seats, it it would make life a lot easier for parents thinking about latch particular if things were -- if there was less variation. >> one of the things that is great about these forums is there is a great chance to talk about this stuff. how would you fix that? how would you go out and get the consensus on some of these issues so there is one message, developmentally appropriate for not just the kids but the parents. where would you go to do that? >> some of it i would say

through regulation. not that we could write into regulation today, but i think in the child safety area may be more than for older groups, laws are a very powerful way. once there is consensus on what the best practice is, to the extent that they can be captured and regulated in laws, that this kind of where it all starts in this area. again, as opposed to older groups. parents want to do the right thing and they trust government to tell them what the right thing is to do. >> my long-term vision would be that you would need an add-on device for may be the first two three years of life, and it would be rear-facing. beyond that, the protection for

the occupants would be provided by the vehicle. parents would not need to have all these additional items that installed differently, and there is compatibility issues. it is a partnership between those who design child restraints and those that design vehicles to figure out how to do that. how do we take what we know about restraint concepts for adults and what we know about protecting kids and figure out how to provide that in the vehicle? it does not matter if you are picking up your son's buddy to go to practice, the restraint is there for them to use. you do not have to worry about bringing something additional with them. >> we are going to get back to both of those in just a second. what do you think are currently the most effective distribution channels for getting information out there? you mentioned some of them. i'm curious about the ones that you highlight as most effective.

there are clearly a couple of populations than the more. who else is out there that we are missing that we may not have data on, groups that are not being addressed as effectively as possible? >> a couple of thoughts, based on some of our recent conversations. word of mouth seems to be extremely popular and reliable and something important. trusted people in the communities are certainly the way to go. also one avenue we need to pursue is new technology. a lot of people no longer have land lines. they are using cell phones, an increasing proportion of them. many safety communications occur via text message. text for babies, for example. using all the social media that is now becoming so -- i think we need to be smarter and not think the traditional way.

brochures really do not cut it anymore. we have been tied to the old way of doing business for a while, and we have collectively made some strides. we still have a long way to go when you think about the way people get information nowadays. it is not like it used to be. >> any other thoughts? by the way, that is great because it is great to highlight the current, but the question is, what are the social media, all that kind of stuff. you have some challenges to confront, new mechanisms potentially, a clearly the technology is based. any other thoughts? >> i think we cannot ignore the health care providers, particularly in the first few years of a child's life. you are going to the pediatrician or whatever then you you get your health care, fairly often, making sure that those individuals are delivering the message, and that

this is really a health issue. this is not kind of a negotiable issue about raising children, this is the most important decision you can make for your child. this is the leading cause of death, some making sure that the health care providers are delivering that message in a consistent way. >> i wanted to make sure that we got to regulations, but this really is for everybody. do the current regulations meet the needs? where are the gaps? what is coming? you raise the representative -- a regulatory issue. again, while there are some successes here, there are some pretty significant challenges. can any of you speak to the current state that we need to be?

>> one thing i would say is that we believe the regulations for boosters should include a goodness of fit guidelines, just as we have done. we think that basically our system should be incorporated into the regulations. that is one pretty major area we would point to. >> mr. sinclair is knocking. i think you're going to give him homework. the rainbow map that you are shown, we do not have consistency, especially as we go to the older age groups. >> i think that is an important thing to highlight. i know from my colleagues that are working at the state level, many of those state laws are constantly in under attack to get repealed or lessen the -- or

ened in some way. we need to make sure the law includes that of children up to their eighth birthday remains constant. when you provide the numbers and of relate it to x number children would have sustained an injury had there not been this law. i think that becomes very real for the legislators and the parents and the constituents in those areas. >> it may also be a case where incentives make a difference. we have had a booster seat incentive program, section 2011, that has helped to spur an additional c laws to meet the standards. it was not a whole lot of money, but a little money goes a long way at the local level. if we had that same basic effect of primary seat belt laws, we're

up to 31 seat belt laws right now. we would have 31 stay raw -- state laws, they would have the last two out of the room. i think that is one factor of state governments. they can be receptive to the notion of incentives, particularly when they are under considerable the rest. >> we are not the only organization doing research, and which kinds of vehicles, which kinds of seats are easier to install and make the installment better. i think it's premature to say exactly how the regulations for latch might be, but i think that is part of the bowl. the research, is to try to standardize -- of the goal, the research, to try to standard days -- to try to standardize more. the ease of use ratings with

nhtsa. if there is one system that is easier to read it -- to use as a better result in terms of ease of fit, that could be accomplished through regulation. >> i should note that lahood announces a correct fit program. that is the primary situation for parents -- what see do i buy? parents cannot quite -- they have a hard time picking the right seat. if there is some independent source, and i believe certain manufacturers do that. the sun and the to vichy -- aissan and mitsubishi have

special department handles that. >> what about research? there is a lot of activity going on. there seems to be the need for more when there are no symptoms in validating them, etc. one is you have a great story because you get side space guns to provide. how great. part of the question is, what is going on that needs to be continued or emphasized further. what is missing? >> the biggest thing, and it was reflected in my comments, is the need for child-specific crash surveillance. we have seen in ovation from the child seat manufacturers. we have higher weight limits child restraints. we have seen in ovations in the vehicle. side-impact structure has changed. we are seeing avoidance technologies. the data that we collected with state farm 10 years ago is becoming old, and we cannot let

our decisions and our understanding of what the risks are two kids or the benefits to kids be based on that old data. usage practices are changing. so the parents we studied 10 years ago have different practices in restraining their kids than the parents today. so having that underlying data set that you can continually check into nc, are there any new emerging hazards, -- that you can continually check into and see, are there any new emerging hazards? maybe we need to go back and look at that. we need to be monitoring in a prospective way with the right numbers of cases and the right depth of data. >> i would reinforce that. i was asked earlier whether our

goodness of fit, you have been able to show a relationship between booster fit ratings and real-world crash hysteria. well, in most crash data bases, you do not know for sure that a us ad was in a booster, verso child restraint, much less which booster? that might be going beyond what any system could do, but i think that the effort to develop an ongoing system is critical because of the poor quality of information and police-reported crashes on the types of restraint used in the injuries that they resolved. >> one thing that is complicated in reaching out to people of risk in terms of unknowns.

some states report one hispanic fatality when we know they have a considerable hispanic population. that is one area where we would be able to better address the needs of people and better define the scope of the problem. if we could find out some way through research, whether it is improving the data collection system. it does limit our ability to really address the broad scope of the problem affecting some of our diverse populations when we have this large number of unknowns. >> another area of research that i think deserves some attention is understanding the long-term outcomes. a lot of our research to date has kind of focused on the acute injuries. so what are the injuries that were sustained in the crash. the issue of, for example, concussions in children is

gaining much more attention. how are these kids six months, 12 months, after they sustain these injuries. none of our current crash data bases particularly focus on that issue. that is an area that deserves some research and moves us beyond simply counting things -- fatalities or even just the acute injuries that are realized immediately after the crash. >> so there is a panel right after this on solutions that worked. we are not going to preempt them. if there is an innovation you would love to see now or in the next few years, what innovation would you identify that would really make a difference in this area? as far as any of the things we have talked about? the you get one? >> i have one. it turns out that for families

in particular, folks do not have reliable transportation. they may own a car seat or need to transfer the quiet -- the child to a clinic, school, whatever. they do not own a car, so they are forced into providing alternative transportation, whether it is a neighbor, friend, a taxi, bus service. it is asking a lot for someone of limited means to carry two they have the car seats around to a job and see your daughter and the rest of it. specifically they said, "could add device be invented that could be an easy-fold appropriate restraint device that could be used on a global basis so that it -- on a mobile bases so that you would not have to carry around that 30-40 lb

item with you. that was us agreeing to the degree to which they do not have personal transplantation. at their appropriate size and other factors, only to find out that in a great number of cases people do not actually have a car of their own, so it is more complicated than we might have thought originally. >> i am an engineer so i will come up with an enduring solution. i think -- with an engineering solution. i think my wish would be universal availability of integrated restraints because i think it addresses the issue sandy just raised. parents, grandparents, care givers, whoever is responsible for transporting that child, knows that every vehicle has a way to keep their kids safe, then i think we overcome many of the issues facing us.

it cannot be an option parents choose when they buy a car. it needs to be in all cars. >> dr. mccartt? >> it is hard to come up with a y's.er vision than chrikrist in the short term, i would probably wish for ways of regulation for booster belt set, or a more standardized latch system to take some of the guess work out of it for parents. >> i see you are taking a lot of notes. >> i have a terrible memory and i had to write a few things down. i am a physicist so i will come up with a non practical solution. i share kristy's vision to have a vehicle seat that we make at the ford motor co. that

eliminates the need for something. i do not think it will happen anytime soon because it is extraordinarily complex. if i have to dream, in the short term, i dream fine on the car seat. not necessarily made by apple, but you bring it to your car and it knows how to attach itself. it knows what attention to put in the shoulder belts and how the bells should go around the children, it tells you if it is not right and adjusts itself. that is my dream. >> those are all terrific. there are people who will be watching this, taking notes. last question -- and let me just preface by saying -- and there is a lot of stuff at the board that we talked about with safety culture. that means attitudes, behavior, not just education by regulation, etc.

just a long-term limited . i say that because the seat belt use of child restraints is part of that. this panel really highlights culture change. when you look at the numbers, it is just tremendous. i would like from each of you very quickly, rather than be giving the take-home messages -- if you have to look over the path of what has been done, how do you identify the big success of the culture change for all of us? what would that be? you can make a comment about where you think the role of education, design, the collective nature of things, or those factors play a role in helping change come about. i am going to take away saving children's lives as number 1 for all of you. i will let all of you come up with what you think. we will end on this note.

whatever you say to each of you, the number one success of the culture change that has taken place -- what would that be? >> i think the data that kristy shows in how many people are restrain their children properly is a great success story, and it comes from all of the education many parties have had a hand in at ntsb. pediatricians organizations like children's hospital, philadelphia, and i a chess -- i think that is also -- that highlights all the different organizations that have to come together to keep it going. it is a team sport. we all have to pay our roles, including our parents. >> i think the only thing i would add to that is how phenomenal we have been at getting kids into the back seat. i think that shows that when there is a consistent, clear

message that education -- laws have played a role in that, too, but a large part of that was education. >> i think the biggest success is when i walk into the office with my son's elementary school and there is a row of booster seats sitting there. there was not when my eldest child was at that elementary school, and i think that it is the norm, not weird for a kid to bring in a booster seat to school or his friend's house. i think we collectively should be proud of that accomplishment. >> i think we have changed the norm, but i think it's out of the age of the child -- it is remarkable what everyone has it done in this room to make it happen.

statistically, according to our survey, it is rare. 99%, 98% of toddlers and children are restrained. what we see again is the children who are dying in crashes high and large, are unrestrained. i think we should be very proud of what we have done, but clearly we have not been able to forge the same kind of success with the older kids. when we start to see those unrestrained rates drop, when we start to see the overall restraint use continue -- and i would say not just for children and car seats, but we have to think about children who are big enough to wear seat belts. before they start to drive, while they're driving, all kids are at great risk still. we have made incredible strides with your little people. we need to make the same stretch of all the people as well. >> thank you very much. chairman hersman? >> i have a question with respect to the work ford is

doing. i commend for for taking the initiative in the active restrain system. is it to be used in place of the passive restraint system, or is it an enhancement to the current child restraint systems? >> the inflatable dolls? >> inflatable belt is to be used when appropriate -- the inflatable belts? >> the inflatable belts is to be used inappropriate. it could be used to attach a child restraint to the vehicle. the main -- the integrity is maintained and it can be done. its main benefits will be seen, however, for children who are booster-seat age and above because the children in child restraints are not going to have the airbag portion inflated for them. it will just be inflated around the seat that they are in. is that clear?

>> my follow-on is, customers are going to likely see this as a replacement for the more traditional child restraint system, so that then probably makes it more important that it be very effective. >> we will not sell this as a replacement for child restraint systems. we are developing educational pamphlets for parents when they come in to dealership. we will be developing a course for child/passenger safety technicians. but it will not be a replacement for a traditional time restraint system. >> thank you. once again, i commend ford for taking the initiative. you described it as the reason being it is because a family

company. i am also fully aware that your current ceo is a strong supporter of safety as well. >> that is true. >> member sumwalt? >> thank you. i have been in mailing someone in my office to try to help me find this figure, and we cannot find it. i remember from a meeting we had a couple of years ago, one of the most important meetings for the state where we said that it is something like 80% of child deaths in automobiles occur in child seats that were installed but in properly restrained. does anybody from either side of this room have a figure like that? >> member sumwalt, i think what you might be referring to is when child passenger safety

technicians evaluate installed car seat, they find a 80% or so are improperly installed, but they may not be gross errors, they may be minor errors. it is not that children are killed in car seats, it is just that they identify some is used. >> thank you. all i had to do with e-mail you instead of email in my office. >> children who died in crashes with a child in a child restraint, we found for the most part the crashes were devastating, that there was no survival space left for the child. the instances of misuse to the extent that it could have contributed to the death were very small. it was actually sort of an affirmation of amazing protective ability of restraint. >> thank you. the chairman did get the figure i was looking for.

that is the sad thing pretty good thing is that the people are being conscientious. the sad thing is that 80% of those that are installed are not installed properly. that is a shame, and so what i have wondered is, how do we go through the motions of making sure there are people -- is one thing if a person says i am not going to mess with a child seat. i do not think that happens because there are laws in most states that require -- well, that was boosters seats, i think. anyway, my point is -- how we can we better inform them how to do it? before you leave the hospital with a child, you have to -- the child will not let you take the child home because they do not want to assume liability can we have volunteers that work at the

fitting stations? can they volunteer their time there? they are volunteers themselves? you are certified to do that, and there are 35,000 or so in the country. why can't those people work in the hospitals to make sure the child seats in the parents properly know how to install a child seat? >> as someone who works in the hospital, i can, in part, answer that question. child safety in cars and in the home and in other venues is so important to our hospital that we have created a safety store. it is a place where parents, employees, community members can come in and purchase safety devices. but to address your specific question, they can receive instructions on how to properly use it. the store was funded by kohl's

foundation. and it has been a wonderful resources for both our patients and our employees at a place to get exactly that. you are at the hospital, you can go there for bike helmets, you can go there for safety gates come and you can go there for child restraints. we actually have a quarter of a car that was designed and built for us by ford that allows us to demonstrate child seat installation to these families. so it can be done. other hospitals have demonstrated the value of this, and it is something that i think you have hit the nail on the head, it is important to encourage. >> thanks for giving me a concise answer. the question took a long time to hit the nail on the head, so thank you for figuring out what i was trying to ask. >> i think members sumwalt raises a good point.

we do not want to miss the forest for the trees. the message that we have is that we have had great experience with restraint use, especially when we have laws to tell parents what to do, we have clear education campaigns, and that is exactly why these fitting stations were created. that is why) semaphore they go to the hospital, they go to the feeding station and they get that car seat checked. -- to the fitting station, and they get that car seat checked. very often before you leave you actually have a maternity nurse who is talking to you about proper positioning for your child and things like that. i think it is a much more integrated -- when we talk about things like this use, it is talking about the tether that is not attached to the right place. so we know, just as dr. rouhana talked about -- i think he

called it an i c or something. let's make sure we get it right. you may be off a little bit, a little pitchy, but let's get that fine-tuning done. by and large, most parents are using car seats well. we just need to make sure that we get the details right. i did want to ask you a question, dr. rouhana. i did not want to leave this. when dr. arbogast talked about integrated equipment for children in the car, i wanted to ask -- this has been tried before, and i think it's important for us to learn the lessons of things that have happened before. we say this is where we want to go in the future. when those types of things like integrated booster seats were offered in vehicles, why didn't

that proliferate? why wasn't it something that we see as standard equipment? because those types of things were offered and have been offered. why aren't they widespread? >> honestly, i do not know the answer. they were offered when i worked at general motors. we offered them, ford offered them, a number of manufacturers offered them in the past -- integrated booster seats and child restraints. but i think perhaps they are only useful for a certain phase of your children's lives, and that may have something to do with why people with older kids are not going to buy them. i guess i do not have a good answer. when we offered them, people did not buy them in the numbers that were feasible. >> i wonder and have wondered if

the market was sufficient at the time to really sell the idea to people. i am not sure. but i have seen volkswagen years ago had a built-in booster seat, and it fold right back into the sea. even if you do not have a child of that age anymore, -- right back into the seat. even if you do not have a child of that age anymore, is still usable. it is still available, but not as standard equipment. >> we do not currently have one. remember, it goes back to what is the function of the rear seat. unfortunately, there are many functions other than just holding the passenger. there is holding cargo. that creates complexities. when you put an integrated booster seat and it changes the softness of the seat, people complain about comfort.

there are many factors involved and make it difficult to -- as abraham lincoln said, we cannot please people all the time. >> i would like to bring up some slides from an earlier presentation. before we move to the next panel, i want to make sure we identify the problem correctly. in mr. sinclair's presentation, he had a graph from 2000 to 2009. following that graf, he had a chart and it was fatalities in different age groups, 1-3, 4-7. while he is pulling back up, are we all agree on what the appropriate restraint uses are for ages 4 to 7? is it a booster seat?

>> i think it is more complex than that now. restraints with the traditional heart is built in, i do not want to hazard a guess as to it -- with the traditional harness built in, i do not want to hazard a guess as to the right now. it is one of these things that is individualized for the motor vehicle and for the child. i do not think it is quite that simple any longer. >> i think we need to think about usage as well. what is the product that at 7- year-old, for example, is going to want to ride in every day. it is a balance of we probably all would be better off in a five-point parnis, but we do not choose that for comfort. so we need to think of not only the engineering solutions, but

what is going to encourage proper restraint on every trip, every time. >> we would all be better off in a five-point harness facing backwards, but that is not the way we get to choose to ride. any luck with that? >> maybe mr. sinclair's second or fourth slide, potentially? >> i apologize. i do not have the slide list in front of me and they were not in front of me. -- they were not listed. >> overall fatalities, chairman hersman. >> that would be pedestrian, bicycle, other types of injuries. >> i'm trying to understand whether the fatality numbers are normalized. what you have is different spreads of ages, so the less than 1-year-old, that is going

to be less than one year, and then you have one to three. i think it is up now. i'm just trying to figure out, when we look to age 14 and see that is a high number -- but it is six years rather than one or two. i am trying to understand -- >> i was going to suggest dr. mccartt's slide. >> i think it was my first slide. >> hours were primarily fatality. >> what i am trying to take this back to is dr. arbogast had slides that shows that we have two columns that are low because we have done a little bit more education, have laws, and then we have those older tweens larger, and the challenge was to get those back down to the other

two. what are the numbers telling us as far as the total number of those fatalities and the causes? so when we go into the next panel, we are going to try to figure out the way forward. what i want you all to articulate is, why are we seeing those higher numbers for whichever chart you want to pull up? we can talk about some of these numbers here. why are we seeing those higher numbers for the older kids? >> i would like to weigh in on that one. >> ok. >> i think that those kids are too small to be in vehicle belt systems. it is a matter of many different types of injuries that can occur -- neck injuries, chest injuries -- because the adults do not fit right when they are not big enough to be in them. >> in addition to that, when you look at the next slide i have,

when you look at fatally injured children, the percent unrestrained at all goes up. apart from the fact that older children who are in restraints, some of those should be in a booster seat, there is a larger percentage of them not restrained at all. i believe if you go beyond that age group into preteen, you see a downward decline in restrained use. we are not doing a good job keeping children restrained as they get older. >> there is something associated with a lack of concern as a child gets older. they become more independent. parents want their children to reach those milestones. they are very vigilant at the younger age is because the children are more vulnerable. they are completely dependent on us, whereas when they are older,

we want them to grow and show what they can do. there is something that is happening in this country that they make a decision to allow them to ride unrestrained which they would never do when they are so little. i do not know if it is the hectic lifestyle people have or other explanations, but we need to focus more on what is that allows them to make the judgment that is ok to let that child ride unrestrained, often on short trips. research has been done on the dangers of short trips. one thing that has to be driven home to parents is that every trip is a potentially dangerous trip. we have to raise awareness about that. >> i think another issue that happens between preteen and teenage children is the availability of space. in a child restraint or even in a booster seat, they are kind of confined to a particular space.

once you take away that add-on child restraint, they are free to move forward, lean forward. they are more involved with the vehicle interior. our data and others points to the danger of head injuries. all that movement puts their head closer to things they can hit. so i think understanding the position is that children get in as they ride -- and i think those positions are more varied for those eight-plus children. they just have more space to move around in, and i think that is leading to some of the increased injuries. >> one thing that might help someone with the older children who would be in a belt back seat aggressive belt reminder systems which could then -- effective in the front seat to get those last people bubble up -- buckled up

-- i would guess that would be at least as effective in the back seat. that is something we have not talked about, but i think that would help. >> i call my kids aggressive back seat belt reminders because they are aggressive in reminding people not wearing their belts. the 50th percentile 11-year-old is what hits the 4-9, not an 8- year-old. we will leave that potentially to the next panel. we might be able to have a discussion about that. you had mentioned, mr. sinclair , chairman hall and his push on the fitting stations.

i know behind every good chairman there is a great staff. elaine when steen is in the audience today, and she was the one who was behind jim hall's leadership. it was elaine's work on the air bag study, pushing the fitting stationsyou all have been a fantastic panel. thank you also much. dr. rouhana and dr. mccartt, you all have been experts at both ends of the age spectrum. thank you for joining us, and we very much appreciate the information you have provided. hopefully it will help us to do our jobs better as well. thank you very much, and we're going to take a recess until 3 :25.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> welcome back. our final panel for today is moving forward. solutions that work. it will focus on how to accomplish our goals, both in aviation and highway safety. ms. davis is a safety advocate in the office of communication and a certified passenger -- a child passenger seat technician. she will be leading the panel. it will highlight the efforts that have been most successful in improving child safety. we're very interested in finding out what works and what does not work. so all of us can get the most

effort to increase the numbers of young children using child seats and older children who are using seat belts. ms. davis, please proceed. >> thank you, chairman hersman peter i am also joined by a transportation research analyst in the office of research and engineering. and dr. price, a senior human performance investigator in the office of highway safety. our first presenter is dr. baldwin. dr. baldwin is the director of the division of unintentional injury prevention at the national center for injury prevention and control, within the cdc of prevention. dr. baldwin -- dr. baldwin, you may begin your presentation. >> thank you. madam chair person and members of the board, it is my pleasure to be here to help frame the way forward and put a capstone on what i think has been a very productive conversation. the purpose of my brief remarks is to make suggestions on how to make child passenger safety --

it goes without saying, for all parents traveling with young children, with a focus on air travel. ipod to run my recommendations in three ways. first, i will emphasize the value of a public health framework and an ecological perspective to understanding a problem and facilitating behavior change. second, i will underscore the importance of behavioral and social science theories. i will look at the health belief model while drawing in construct from others. finally, i will alabama line 10 at lessons learned from other change initiatives that can inform -- i will outline 10 lessons learned from other change initiatives for child safety. amanda is a journalist and lager. this resonated with me. she said, if common sense were a reliable guide, we would not need science. despite our best efforts to

instill and enable a cultural safety for parents traveling with young children, we're not where we need to be. if our vision is all children traveling in age-appropriate safety seats on all flights, what more can and should we be doing? i think the solutions reside broadening our view of the boards of intervention and going to school on previous behavior change initiatives. at the cdc, we use this four- stage model to guide our work. it is the dna, or operating system, everything that we do at cdc, regardless of illness, injury, or disease considered. we moved from traditional surveillance to risk and protective factor in a vacation to the development and implementation of programs and policies. finally, we aim to bring proven evidence-based interventions to scale. it is cyclical and iterative, where new research and forms new programs and policies.

our goal is the widespread adoption of a science-based practice. more recently, we are viewing these solutions to the public health challenges we face as rooted in the social ecology. in other words, the factors depicted on this slide in direct with one another to create or reinforce health. it is not just an individual choice or genetic predisposition. each ecological level influences the other to create situations that are either health- sustaining or not. this is probably too abstract, so let me get concrete with a meaningful examples and then tie it back into today's discussion. this graphic shows the percentage of u.s. adults by state who are obese. it compares 1991 to 2007 to 2009. you can see that in 1991, less than 15% of the population in most states had a body mass index over 30, or an individual being about 30 pounds overweight

for a person who was about 5' 4". today, it is between 25% and 30% of the population that is a beast. what changed in the last 20 years? -- it is 25% to 30% of the population that is obese. what changed? consider the cost and availability of fresh foods and vegetables. changes in portion size that many fast-food restaurants. the amount of exercise or a lack of exercise that most americans do every day. government subsidies of certain crops in industries that underwrote the u.s. food supply. and of course, what we choose to eat. those are just the tip of the icebergs of the social ecology of the obesity epidemic. i am sure you can think of 30 or more other factors if we had a chance to brainstorm. as we think about what can be done to increase child passenger safety seat used on airplanes, i

encourage us to think about influences across this ecology. for example, the cost of purchasing a ticket for a child, the challenges of transporting a safety seat through airport security, especially with other carry-on baggage. the incompatibility of some safety seats for air travel or a difficulty in properly using them in airplanes. parental knowledge about the importance of their use, including for protection under conditions of severe turbulence. and the lack of a normal or expectations that they are used. my recommendation is that we map out opportunities across the apology to make a difference. we should act on those factors that can have an immediate and far-reaching impact, well minimally disruptive in the implementation. we should act on multiple levels simultaneously. let me shift briefly to talk about an individual level theory developed in the 1950's to help

explain and predict health behavior. i didn't can be used here to inform our messaging design. -- i think it can be used here to inform our messaging design. it assumes all rational beings, and it posits that a person's health behavior's are determined by their beliefs and perceptions. four perceptions are most essential. i will explain each construct by its application to child passenger safety seat used during air travel. perceived threat, how likely apparent believes in the seriousness or severity of them not properly restraining their child. proceeds susceptibility, how likely a parent believes in the risk of a plane crash or severe turbulence with their child being harmed by them being in their lap. i will talk about benefits and barriers in the next slide. while i am espousing the model, my overarching interest is in convincing of the utility of the erie to inform practice. it helps us understand how a program or message may or may

not be working. there is a balance in our decision making, and unconscious evaluation that we're doing and redoing that is essential to the house believe model. perceived benefits, a parents believe that an actual increase the safety of their child, but there are other benefits, too. many have been mentioned. for example, a parent a more comfortable with a child in their own seats, and maybe a child would be better behaved, to be a perceived barriers, a parent's evaluations of obstacles of having a child in their own seat properly restrain the cost is probably a factor. so are some of the other inconveniences i mentioned earlier. we know the calculus of mandating the use is not simple. requiring the may shift mode of transit which may put children at greater risk in cars. not surprisingly, our role is to exit 20 benefits and eliminate or minimize the barriers. we understand the benefits and barriers deliberately and target

them directly in our research. for some researchers, sticking hard and fast to construct in one theory i and one theory only in message in program design is critical. i am not one of those researchers. we know the value of mixed model programs. i thought about showcasing the theory of plan behavior or social conative theory, too. because of lack of time, let me highlight two constructs from the social cognitive theory that i think are silly and for our discussion. first, outcome expectations is what you think it is. a parent's expectation of how their child would do it properly restrained. second, outcome expectancies. this is the value a parent places in that outcome. for example, the importance of protecting their child. in cdc's work in child injury prevention, we made a dealer -- a deliberate decision to leverage this in our messaging, amounting to the parent's core value of seeing their child reach their core potential.

my overriding message is that theory works, even when you pull for multiple theories. because i wanted to put a lot out there to talk about, i created this list of 10 things to increase the likelihood of behavior change. these are supported by the academic literature and my own practice. they're listed in random order, although i think all are is a joke. tailoring. it is important to tailor our messages to unique audiences. a young20-something parents in california may respond to a different message that a grandmother in arkansas. and the message targeting a parent will be different than the message we used to engage health care providers to the culture. it is not enough to have messages in multiple languages. as we heard, different cultures may respond differently to different messages. know that going in, especially as we become more diverse as a country. we also need to be mindful about the literacy level of our materials. fiore. fiore appeals rarely work.

when they do work, they will not likely need to sustain behavior change, especially with those who need to hear our message is the most. multi-channels, gone is the era of the brochure and fact sheet. we need to be creative, using new technologies like facebook, twitter, text messaging, among others. multi-level. i have spoken at length about thinking broadly about the ideologies of an issue. theory. as i have shown, theory can inform and strengthen our program. there is no substitute for evaluation before, during, and after a program to identify what is working and what is not. and of course, changing key messages as needed. needs assessment. it is critical to start where people are. the best outcomes are cheap windows or targeted by the message are involved in its design. -- are achieved when those who were targeted by the message are involved in its design. i will hold off on talking about

latency in the next slide. finally, knowledge. knowledge may be power, but it will not necessarily result in the behavior change you want. in many instances, we need to create environments, whether through a policy change or not, that support the behavior you want to see. but change, big change, as possible. we have seen big gains in the use of age appropriate child passenger safety seats, especially among our youngest children, and seat belt use in the 1980's. as you know, seat belt use rose from 15% in 1984 to 85% in 2010 in the united states. in some states of michigan, is even higher. progressive legislation, including enforcement, education, and technological change all had a role in a changing this norm. for the most part, putting on a seat belt is just what we do before starting our car. who would have imagined in 1984

a 70% increase was possible? i did finished reading it a book about change. they argue that change succeeds when we script the critical moves. not everything we do is going to move the needle. what are our critical moves a must have been to increase child passenger safety seat use? focus on price spots. i am is big believer in replicating with other successful people or programs are doing. what are our bright spots that we can replicate and scale up? we heard one earlier this morning from virgin atlantic. tweak the environment. sometimes it takes environmental change to support the outcomes we're looking for. what are big environmental changes we need to see? finally, rallies. there is a silent majority of parents that can help us change

this behavior. building on a parent's natural instinct to protect and support their child, how can we use their voice and actions to change this norm? mark twain once said they had it cannot be tossed out the window. it must be taken down the stairs a step at a time. after all the presentations, i look forward to hearing your ideas about the steps we must take together, parents, air carriers, manufacturers, and the federal government to make the right choice. thank you very much. >> thank you, dr. altman to our next presenter is dr. durbin, a pediatric emergency physician and clinical epidemiologist. he is a professor of pediatrics at the children's hospital of philadelphia and the university of pennsylvania school of medicine. he is an attending physician in the emerging -- in the emergency hospital and at the center for prevention at the children's

hospital of philadelphia. please begin your presentation. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to participate in this panel today, representing the american academy of pediatrics. the academy is a nonprofit professional organization of more than 60,000 board certified pediatricians dedicated tuesday it tainted suboptimal social health, safety, and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. we maintain over 50 expert committees focused on specific aspects of child health and development, which draft academy policy and advised the board of directors and leadership on timely issues. i have served on the committee on injury, violence, and poison prevention, which is charged with drafting and executing the academy's policies on child restraint systems to automotive

safety, aircraft safety, and many other injury prevention issues. we're proud to have little long- term sustained campaign, starting in the 1980's, to bring attention to the tragic raids of preventable injuries and deaths due to the lack of proper restraints for children in motor vehicles. it is now supported by dozens of other organizations and buttressed by numerous state laws and has saved thousands of lives and prevented and all the injuries. although it is not a testing are standard setting organization, the academy publishes official recommendations and best practices for child restraint system used in the commercial aircraft in the form of policy statements. these have been reference a number of times already. there on this slide. the academy currently recommends that all children ride in a rear-facing car seats until the child reaches the maximum size limits. at a minimum, children should right rear-facing until they are at least one year of age and 20

pounds. then children should be placed in forward-facing car safety seats and they outgrow the limits, which is at least 40 pounds, the average rate of a 4- year-old. b. release and annually updated car seat guide to help parents make informed decisions on selection and use it. it has informations on the importance of child restraint systems and alison number of child passenger safety issues including latch, air bags, recalls, and installation tips. for 2010, products highlighted in the guide included 13 of 27 infant seats to accommodate children up to 30 pounds, which is the 75th percentile for a 24- month-old, meaning that 75% of the children at that age would be lower than that weight. 28 of 33 convertible car safety seats could accommodate rear- facing children up to 35 pounds, which exceeds the 95th percentile for a 24-month low. 19 of 34 convertible seats could

accommodate four-facing children up to 50 pounds, which exceeds the 95th percentile for a 5- year-old. the marketplace does provide families with many products to allow them to meet or exceed the current recommendations for usage. additional aap recommendations indicate that older children should use a belt and booster seat until they can properly fit and use the vehicle safety belts. there has been much discussion about size limits already today. finally, the aap redmond all children under 13 should ride in a rear seats of an automobile and all older passengers must use lap and shoulder belts at all time. as we heard this morning, under current federal regulation, children younger than two years of age are the only aircraft documents were not required to be restrained or secure during takeoff, landing, or conditions of turbulence. the current practice of allowing infants to be unrestrained is inconsistent with all the

protection recommendations of the american academy of pediatrics. the academy recommends that all children, including those under age two, should be restrained in the appropriate child safety seat for their weight and size during takeoff and landing as well as during turbulence. to protect children from but until injuries or deaths, the academy has recommended aircraft restraint requirements comply with automobile requirements, including requiring a rear-facing seat for children under age 1. the academy encourages airlines and the faa to strictly enforce the current requirement that children over the age of two are restrained in their own seat. the policies i have discussed so far today were published in nearly a decade ago. in the intervening time, a number of studies have been published on child passenger safety, in particular, and this new evidence has prompted the aap to revisit our policy statements. the committee is currently in the final stages of revising recommendations for automobile and aircraft restrains for infants and children. early in 2011 -- early in 2011,

we will publish one policy statement outlining recommendations for both aircraft and automobile safety. the statement is still in the approval process, so i can assure the new recommendations at this time. but the aap fully intends to share our recommendations with the ntsb, the faa, and safety advocacy organizations so we may all work together to implement these new recommendations. i was also asked to speak briefly about how the aap dominicans with our member pediatricians, parents, and the public about issues like child passenger safety. the aap makes significant efforts to help physicians educate parents and provide up- to-date, appropriate information regarding car seat choice in use. our top priority is ensuring that these messages reach parents, pediatricians, and the public. almost exactly a year ago, the academy launched the healthy

children website with recommendations and information to help parents and the general public understand and promote child health and development. it featured information tailored to a child's age and development, starting with infancy and extending through adolescence and young adulthood. child passenger safety articles are the most visited pages on the site. searches for the term of car seats alone account for 10% of total traffic to this site. as i noted earlier, the academy releases and annually updated car seat guide to help parents make informed decisions on car seat selection and use. when the 2010 guide was released last january, the website car safety page risk -- received almost 100,000 page views that month. the car seat guide averages over 63,000 individual visits on a monthly basis. one of the most significant opportunities pediatricians have to share recommendations with

parents and families is through an anticipatory guidance at well child visits. the aap recommends discussing child passenger safety with parents at every well child visit from birth to the teenage years. it is the only topic that is recommended to be discussed at every well child visit. studies have shown that this type of direct counselling has proven to increase car seat use. finally, the aap reaches out to pediatricians to provide updated information about child passenger safety, including publications, educational sessions, annual conferences, continuing medical education courses, online materials, and much more. you may be sure that we will be utilizing all these tools when the new child passenger safety recommendations are released. thank you. >> thank you, dr. durbin. our next speaker is mr larry desina, a senior associate for

trans analytics. he has over 30 years experience in child safety research. you may begin your presentation. >> thank you. thank you very much to the ntsb. i would also like to thank the national highway traffic safety administration for much of the research that i do. my presentation will primarily be about strategy's to reduce the percentage of unrestrained young children. i want to first start with -- we did some miss use studies in 1996, and the child safety seat misuse rate was 80%. a few years ago, we did the child safety seat missy's 000ject again with 4,01 vehicles in -- with 4,000

vehicles in seven states, and misused was still very high, but seeds were much a different in 1995 versus what they were in 2004. that is a little bit of a caveat, but ms. use is still alive. many of the -- but the misuse is still alive. many of these slides has information that was provided in the last session. i did these before that session. this is basically saying this is the unrestrained young children out there on the annual survey, and there are differences in non use with age, race, and ethnicity groups out there. remember, on this data, the ages t 93%to seven, this is no restrain properly. that 93% of the white population

also includes children who are not in booster seats and are just restraint. i want to talk a little bit about what is out there and what we know about why children are unrestrained. some studies we have done and some of the literature reviews on other studies out there have shown that there are many reasons and characteristics of folks on why their children are not restrained. socioeconomic and demographic variables come into play. income levels, race, ethnicity, age, and sex, the age and weight of a child not given. these are factors that many studies, your observations that is, through asking parents, through focus groups, have come up with reasons why their children are unrestrained. these are primarily booster seat aged children. their behavior factors as well. this information was also brought up by some of the previous speakers in the last

session. there's a perception of risk. if mom wakes up and the alarm clock said he will be in a serious car crash today and she is not normally putting her booster seat aged children in the seats, maybe she will. some colleagues college and immortality perception going on. they just do not -- some colleagues call it an immortality perception going on. they just do not think anything will happen. there is also are rare in this -- an awareness of the best practices. some people think the child restraint law is the best practice. but it is not the best practice as the american academy of pediatrics mentioned. and restrained drivers. when drivers are unrestrained, the chance that the child is an unrestrained is higher. there is the safe and compassionate -- and there is the space incompatibility of the belt system. there are driver excuses.

to busy, the child is uncomfortable. there is a litany of all these sorts of reasons for why people are unrestrained. i want to cut to the chase and get recommendations from the studies i have done. let's start with laws and enforcement-related issues. enforce existing child restraint laws. make sure the officers actually track these citations by the age of the child. the click it or ticket program is a great job of doing child restraint law enforcement, but they do not track the age of the child. so we really do not have a grasp on how many of those tickets are related to the booster seat age child. they have never been instructed that they need to write down the age and the ticket. publicized child restraint law enforcement activities. this has worked marvelous with

seatbelt activities, and it can work with a child restraint law enforcement. use designated child restraint law enforcement details. many law enforcement agencies just cannot really do it on their regular routine time in the community. they need, over time, times were they can be designated officers to run the child restraint law detail. studies that we have done have shown that it works. train the officers in the best practices. obviously, some of the officers who have children under 10, they're well aware of the child restraint issues out there. but many officers do not have children, and they are not aware of that issue. so they need to be trained and best practices and the law. it is not hard to educate the judges and prosecutors about the loss. some focus groups have told us that the judges think is trivial to come into their court with a

child restraint law violation. the other thing that needs to be going on in the enforcement world is evaluating the effects of stronger child restraint laws. that is important, because maybe there is -- there is a recent study showing higher seat belt fines increase seat belt use. maybe the same thing works for a child restraint laws. recommendations for education. this has been mentioned. focus on best practices for properly securing children. many folks do not know the best practices. increase the perception of risk of injury. i am not saying it needs to be to the level of dr. baldwin and the fear factor, but certainly some studies have shown that showing crash tests with an appropriately restrain -- with ina properly restrained children

can give people an idea what happens. some focus group studies have recommended testimonials, have a story showing the parent with a child who is injured or killed because there were not in a booster seat. for diverse groups, and some of these comments were made in the previous session, education is critical for the diverse groups were less likely to restrain children. message delivery, the education role should be filled by health- care providers and child safety advocates. this was also brought up. for diverse groups, used culturally sensitive, a bilingual messages within it the reading level. in philadelphia, there are many state-based operations going on to increase safety in the city of philadelphia. there are even some studies showing state-based seatbelt

studies have been effective in increasing the seat belt use in the congregation. this could work with child restraintss as well childeat giveaways -- as well. see giveaways' work. it increases booster seat use. these things have been shown to work. and the last slide, and again, some of this has been brought up, who are the messengers? who are the people who should be delivering all this information? in the enforcement side, obviously, the officers. many officers in focus groups will tell you that enforcement is education. some people moan at that, but it is an education. child passenger safety technicians, health-care providers -- seems obvious. child care providers, a

preschool or elementary school teachers. i know a lot of studies have shown it is tough to get into the elementary schools because the curriculum is so packed all the time. it is perfect for booster seat age. community groups. there are mothers of preschool groups. law enforcement officers in a non-enforcement setting. ems and firefighters do well giving the message. and of course, the media. tv, radio, and billboards. in pennsylvania, there are several billboards on the turnpike's about booster seats. i cannot be the only one that notices that message. >> thank you. our next presenter is ms. walker. she is the training manager and technical adviser at safe kids world wide. she is more than 20 years experience in the traffic safety field, predominantly in the areas of child passenger safety, bikes, school buses, special

health care needs, a teenage drivers, teenage passengers, and pedestrian safety. >> thank you. thank you, madam chairman and members of the ntsb. we appreciate this opportunity to be here. i am representing safe kids buckle up, which is a program of safe kids world wide, which began in 1996 under the sponsorship of general motors. and for the years since they have begun their partnership with us and sponsorship, we have 600 coalitions and chapters operating around the country at the grass-roots level. and our coalitions and chapters do a fabulous job of determining what works in their communities. so what works in a tucson, arizona may not work in a tallahassee. our coalitions are fine-tuned to know what works in the schools there and in the faith based communities there and with the law enforcement communities. we rely on them consistently to

do the messaging that we want them to be able to share with messages about child passenger safety. since 1996, we have checked almost 1.3 million car seats. that is million. 21 million people have heard our messaging, and we donated more than 450,000 car seats to low- income communities. i want to talk a little bit about the practical elements of child passenger safety, both in their plan -- i just have one slight on the this, and again at the grass-roots level in the community. we want kids in car seats for a number of reasons on airplanes. one of them is that we want those kids riding to and from the airport in their car seats. and when they arrive at their destination, it will be there, and it is likely that they will use it. traffic crashes do not take a vacation. many families think they do. we want kids to be able to have their seat that they're familiar

with when they get to their destination and then returning home. we want them secure in turbulence. i have been on many flights were young children are just sitting on someone's lap and not even held tightly as the rest of the airplane is a bond third-down -- is bunkered down. we want the children to be comfortable. when you put a little 2-year-old in a seat belt, they swim in it the seat. they fall asleep, get up, stand up. they pull hair of the people in front of them. they kick the people beside them. they do all the things that make it uncomfortable for the child and uncomfortable for the traveling public that share the seats with them. we have seen better behavior on airplanes from the kids in car seats. i would much rather sit next to a child in a car seat and a child wrestling with his parents during a five-hour flight as they're standing up and giving the parent great agitation. some of the things that i want

to talk about are what happens at our destinations where families show up to find out what they're doing right and wrong with their car seats. that is an inspection station. every single one of our inspection stations uses a checklist. last year, we did over 67,000 car seats just in one year, and we have documentation on that. trans analytics is now summarizing that data, and we will have a report on that data next year. what we're looking for when parents come in is the selection of the car seats that they have chosen. you have already heard about the number of seats that are out there. you have heard about the variables of if it is an infant seat or a convertible seat and how long the child should ride in each type of sea. what parents do not know sometimes they're picking the car seat based on the fabric

because it matches the nursery theme or matches the interior of the car, not necessarily what is the best product for their child. they do not know which direction to place the child in. oftentimes, we find that child who should be rear-facing is forward-facing. a technician can communicate with parents on a one-to-one basis and let them know how important is to have the child facing the correct direction. we heard about parents not want to see the backs of their children's heads. and we know that as a fact, they put mirrors up. they do child care while the child is rear-facing. we do not want that. we want them to be safe drivers, paying attention to the road. the location of where the child is seated in the vehicle is very important. we are seeing children on the back seat. but many parents have heard that there's only one save seating position, and that is the middle of the back seat. that is wonderful if you have only one child. but winning a cheap -- when you have three children, who gets

the best seat? the back seat is best regardless of the location, and we want parents to feel comfortable not creating a middle back seat, which some cars only have one back seat, and they are creating a third seat by switching belts around. installation of the car seat is a problem. in a lot of cases, parents do not read instructions. there are labels on the car seats themselves that make it pretty easy to follow, but they need some help with that. that is what our technicians do at a one-to-one basis. and then the system or the child is to be tight and in a position where the child can be comfortable as well as secured in the harness system. when we want to talk to new parents, one of the best places to go as childbirth education practices. this is when parents are most susceptive to learning about the new baby. if they make it to the hospital and have not actually learned

about car seats yet, there's an opportunity there for the discharge nurse to talk to them about using a car seat. if there were a discharge policy available in every hospital that needed a check mark that the child was seated in a car seat before they left and then there's talked to the parents about the importance of car seats, we might see better usage. we like to talk to children's groups that are intended by mothers, and we have found that parents have to be aware that something is wrong with their seat after the child is a year or so old before they come to a car seat inspection station. we get their attention when they realize that when they turned the corner and the car seat rolls over, maybe that is not such a good thing. and we can and then talk to them about what they have done incorrectly without scolding them or making them feel inferior. that is a really important part of what our technicians do. in 2009 at our inspection stations, this was an average

that came out of our quarterly reports, we had 514 stations going of the same time with 34,520 hours of service, 2847 technicians who checked the 54,440 seats just that our inspection station. this is not a big events with a tents at a parking lot, but these are actual inspection stations. there can be two types. there is a mobile fitting station, and we have 137 of these mobile vans that can travel to rural and urban populations where there are no fixed stations. fixed stations can be those places where firefighters are, police departments, hospitals, health department. but these are mobile. they can pick up and go on a dime and reach populations that have not heard the message about child passenger safety. we're grateful to have those

137. again, these came from general motors. what are some of the barriers to proper child restraint use? i would like to point out a concept that i have which is the take a minute concept. parents are so distracted that they do not want to stop and even pay attention when they are at the inspection station. they're talking on the cell phone as they pull up. they do not want to get out and actually spend time learning how to do their car seats, in some instances. they want someone else to do it for them. in which case, they will be back. if they do not learn how to do it -- i have to admit, that is a mistake we made in the early days with inspection stations. it was step away from the car and let us take care of this. now our emphasis is on the education, not installation. we want parents to understand how to do this when they are at the car wash so they do not panic that they do not know how to take care of their children. parents sometimes have wrong priorities. they're spending so much time

and in such a rush that they have not spend time paying attention. i wanted to bring attention to the fact that we lost 49 children last year in 2010, because children were left unattended in cars or they entered cars that were unattended by adults. this is a topic we talk about at inspection stations to make parents aware of that, so that they're not caught in a bind of making a decision to run into the store and forgetting that they have left a child. we look at kids of all ages. we already talked today about kids of older ages and how important it is to not just focus on kids in car seats and booster seats. we have a program for kids that are 7 to 10 with our cub scout pack program. we have our program that deals with kids 11 to 12. and then we have a soon-to-be released program for kids or 13 to 14. or coalitions are promoting these programs every day in their communities around the country. what i would like to see in the

future is more inspection stations. right now, there are about 62 million kids under the age of 14. there are 4300 inspection stations on the database, but it is certainly not enough. the need to be in areas that are underserved and minority populations. we would like to see continuing education for our technicians. they do a great job. many are volunteers. continuing education for the public, ongoing, consistent, easy messaging. it is not easy, because these messages are complicated. we will like to see a continued effort to make vehicles in child fortraints more intuitive t consumers. that is happening on a more frequent basis. then better national data to measure our success. thank you. >> thank you. our final presenter is mr. campbell, a principal at david

campbell and associates, a firm consulting nine areas of infant and juvenile products, including proceeds. he is president of angel guard products inc. prior to these positions, he served as the vice-president of engineering, research, and development for a century products brand. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here on behalf of the general products manufacturers association, representing the company's manufacturing these child restraints. we're looking to provide the protection for children we're talking about. i have been asked to talk about innovative child restraint designs featuring enhanced protection for children. changes manufacturers are making to make the installation of child restraints easier for care givers and parents. challenges with the compatibility of child restraint systems in automobiles. as i do that, we will start out

with the first one, innovative child restraint designs. it is helpful to look at what has happened over the past few years for perspective. a lot of what is going on is building on the work that has already been done and adding for enhancements. we have recommended practice that we work with vehicle manufacturers for a number of years to address known combat ability issues that were leading to installation difficulties for parents -- unknown compatibility issues that relating to installation difficulties for parents. second, rear-facing to 30 pounds. that is something that we heard about. to keep children rear-facing to one year, that is what we had to do. we had to raise the weight rating.

the common rear-facing child restraint was rated at 22 pounds in the past. the industry went to work and started to raise the rear-facing rating to accommodate those children that are 12 months of age. it brings along the benefit that can also accommodate some older children who are not yet 30 pounds. if you look at the smallest 3- year-old, 33 pounds. and could still sit rear-facing. however, that is a much taller child. that enters into some of the issues we talk about the need for keeping kids rear-facing, but we cannot ignore the weight but also the physical size and the needs we have for both. harness rates have increased from 40 pounds to 65 pounds. children are getting heavier at younger ages. to keep them in harness seats, we had to raise the wage rating. 40 pounds, children of 2 1/2

years of age can outgrow a harness of 40 pounds. what do they have left? a booster seat or vehicle seat belt. the industry again heard the message and made changes to raise the way to 65 pounds, and even higher for some children. latch and tether has been implemented. dedicated and bridges has been a real benefit. the emphasis and position of the tethered with the belts is also a benefit to the children. rear-facing reclining in adjustments and other features have been added to make installation easier and enhance performance. that allows you to get the best- practice recommended ankle for children reared-facing. those are some things that have been done in the past few years. recent engineering improvements and lurking improvements are improvements in adult fit. we heard about the iihs evaluation. manufacturers have taken that information and have responded to that range and are working

hard to accommodate that broad range within the system. harness design, we are now seeing improved and easier to use harnesses for children. there are enough harnesses out there that will readjust themselves each time you put the child in and snug the restraint system. they automatically put this in -- position the shoulder belts. we now have seeds that have steel components of bending under the load of the crash. we're using energy-absorbing materials and outside support services for the head in the seating area of the child restraint. side impact protection has been a big area of focus. increasing the size of the support available for children. changing the materials, so there between the child and the

incoming vehicle. providing rotating seats for loading. we have infant seats that you can rotate toward the door. you to place the child in, security arnaz, and rotate them back into the right position. there's also expanded in forward-facing restraints. portability is important, having a seat that you can take with your child. seeing those booster seats at the office of the school was a success story. being able to move that restrained with the child, there are travel vests now that can actually be moved with the child. the restraint stays with the child, so we're promoting the ability to use that. recognize lifestyles. appearance to entice children to use. you might want to buy one because it looks great in the car, but that does not necessarily mean my kid wants to use it. i might buy one with a cartoon

character or whatever. but there are also new seats on the market that actually create and use those characters and entice these older children to want to be in that the seats. because they do not want to be in a baby seat. emerging initiatives. a side impact testing, many manufacturers are doing some side impact testing. it might be sending they have developed and begin to implement on iran, because there's no side impact standard. there has been a significant amount of effort going on in this area including the addition of energy-absorbing materials. manufacturers are testing and stimulating the is, which are much more severe tests than the regulations. they want the structural integrity to withstand that crashed. changes are being made to installation. a child restraint can be easier

for care givers and parents. i will start with some things that have happened. we're going to build upon this. a stay in car base for infant car seats, so you can put the base in and have complete access. you can take the car seat in and out with you because it is also used as a travel system. for the rear-oot facing child restraints to provide the best practice recline. ease of use requirements. they have identified a number of things in their ease of use requirements that make it easier for parents to utilize a child restraint. they are asking for more information on the product to show correct use and how to install the seat. color coding is another thing. for rear-facing, we use blue. it is similar to what your best. forward-facing, we use red.

i use blue for the rear-facing installation and red for forward-facing installation. we use color coding to help communicate and call attention to the correct elements to be using. build-in a shoulder belt lot offs or lack of shoulder belts. that has been added, and then makes a much easier than using a switch of all retractor. tension indicators on the tether and shoulder belts, there are new designed other elements that allow you to put them in the system. it changes color when you attentiont-ension it. parents have a visual indication -- it changes colors when you tension it. parents have a visual indication of that. and then there are the shoulder belts to keep the kids always secure. and makes it much easier to use.

recent an emerging improvements. from a design standpoint, the convertible car seat with a stay-in card base is one enhancement that has come along recently. latch and other storage accommodations. when latch first came out, there's no place to put these belts. when you went to use it with a vehicle seat belt, you have got all these extra belts. now we are seeing accommodations built into the products where they are secured. accommodating the vehicle seat contours'. we all like to have a comfortable seat, and the condor has an effect on child restraints. the child restraint needs to sit down in a flat area of that cushion. in may not be as easy to secure without that. manufacturers are paying attention to that. the latch system, latch compatibility. we are looking at how the latch connector interfaces with the vehicle seat and surrounded

upholstery and how to put it on and disengage it from the vehicle. we have a group looking at compatibility, much as we did on vagal seat belts, and working to address those interface issues so makes it easier. -- much as we did on seat belts. we have new attachment systems. most of the attachments on the u.s. products today are tether belts. we have some push-on connectors. we recently had a company create a new push-on connector with an automatic retractor built into the bell. your attached, pressure down on the car seat, and you get automatic tension. higher weight on latch systems, we have some manufacturers that are recommending higher weights for the use of their labs. single pull adjustment systems. we have a company that made a better mousetrap. they had a belt in the center of the base. the pull on it in one place, and

it titans everything down for the parent. it is a nice improvement. -- and it titans everything down for the parent. electronic monitoring and feedback. we have a company that recently introduced a car seat with a base. it tells you when you have the proper recline with an electronic digital screen. it tells you when you have the proper belt tension. a gives you that feedback when you have done it right. belt tensioning. we have some better build in. and we can add to a child restraint to allow you to tighten the belts. we're seeing those build into child restraints now. before you had to put your knee on employ on the bill. this takes the place of that. belt designs. making it easier to adjust the how itaying attention to

fits. it makes a big difference. finally, we have an industry activity on the latch in third straight at mec -- lance anchor strength recommendations. challenges with compatibility on child restraints in automobiles. i will start with what has been done in the past few years. dealing with the compatibility issues that we are aware of. latch and tether has contributed and offers a secondary method of attachment. believe in or not, in some cases parents find they cannot get a secure installation with latch and tether. they actually move to a vehicle seat belt. car seats tether linked and location, it is a son the

committee -- it is something the committee is looking at. in some vehicles, in a be further away. the parent may not have a solution. we're working in that area of compatibility. current challenges, to other locations and lange. the tether it -- and other .ocations in linength they could be too far. connector access. getting the anchor on the vehicle and separating the upholstery in making sure that you are on is a challenge. the center line of the latch position relative to the center line of the adult seating position is something that is an issue for us, and we're looking into that. it can end up with a child restraint unsupported on one

side because the vehicle seat cushion as tire on one side and lower in the center. -- is higher on one side and lower in the center. with the system, it positions the child off center of the vehicle occupant seating position. again, it is an area of compatibility we're looking into. shoulder belt -- >> excuse me, could we ask you to wrap up your presentations in? we want to have enough time for questioning. >> sure. >> the d rings. the backlist boosters really do not have a lot of opportunity to change that position. head restraints is a new emerging issue. neck restrains, contours', and the roofline can be an issue with larger children. it will be coming down on the outside of the vehicle and may

interfere with the child restraint. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. campbell. i would like to turn questioning over to dr. braver. >> i am very grateful to everyone on the panel for coming today. we really appreciate your time coming down here. my first question is to dr. baldwin of the centers for disease control. you talk to us above the components of the health education program. what are your views about the importance of evaluation of this program? >> this cdc evaluation is an absolutely essential element in effective program design and implementation. as i mentioned, certainly

before, during and after, we have adopted a number of best practices that we think are important. so, for any program that is administered with cdc dollars, it is a benchmark of ours to have at least 16% of those dollars go to program evaluation. the director is very interested in the issue of scale ability, and to a certain degree, a third-party evaluator evaluating programs across multiple intervention cites allows us to think more broadly about lessons learned and large scale ability. there are certainly pleasant out there about best practices on how to do that. not just evaluation at the end of the program, but six months, 12 months after i think is absolutely essential.

>> could you comment on what you think are the essential components of an evaluation, what agencies are trying to do when they want to see whether their programs are accomplishing their objective? >> sure. material distribution, those are considered process evaluation metrics. they're absolutely essential, but in terms of constituting a gold standard and whether or not the education activities are being affected, no it does not. i think you could say is a necessary but not sufficient element of a successful evaluation. >> you alluded to this briefly, but i wonder if you could expand a little bit. could you talk a little bit about conventional measures and

trying to do mass out -- such as posters, brochures, website, public-service announcements. how effective are they compared with other approaches? >> i think they are -- i think design is absolutely essential in material design and distribution. turning to consumer products, the better design products typically have better reach and market penetration. i think, separating ourselves, using new technology, a social media, facebook, a twister, others, texting four babies and other programs that were mentioned, i think those are practices we can use to distinguish ourselves given the number of messages that consumers are receiving these days. i think using those new technologies, taking advantage

of things like blogging, monte blogging, moms like me, those types of sites are in essential given the type of activity that they engender. >> this raises another question. to some extent, the kinds of people that go to the website or go to a blog for parents, in some ways, you're kind of preaching to the choir. i wanted to try to turn our attention to the adults in this country who have low reading skills. we have a lot of parents with low educational levels. i wanted to, you know, hear your thoughts on how to reach, you know, those groups. >> help literacy is a major public health challenge. i think at -- health literacy is

a major public health challenge. i think anytime we can develop materials that target low literacy audiences, it is essential that we do that. i think it is good practice regardless of reading level. it is needed to be culturally sensitive. i think that is critical. there is a disproportionate burden that native americans and alaskan natives have been in a motor vehicle injuries and deaths. i think that is another population that we need to think about targeting that is disproportionately a vulnerable. >> i am now going to turn this over to dr. price. >> thank you. i would like to ask dr. durbin a question, but i am open to other responses. i am the mother of three children, two of whom are ages 6 and four.

i can tell you that my 4-year- old is just dying to get into his booster seat and my 6-year- old is dying to get out of her boisterous sea. we talked earlier today about how the -- her booster seat. we talked earlier today about how older groups such as teams are particularly at risk and groups we want to focus on. our pediatricians and speaking directly to children, or is that part of how you work? do you have innovative ideas about how we can focus directly on children to try to influence them? >> that is a great suggestion. in my own practice in emergency medicine i would say that i routinely begin to treat patients at age 3, mostly for the entertainment value, because the way they describe themselves and why they are in the emergency department is entertaining. but clearly at that age, children -- you can have a

conversation with a child. i would assume the most pediatricians in primary-care practice engage their patience as part of their routine anticipatory guidance. as part of the child safety practices that you read about in the prior panel, for a period of time we ask children questions we asked parents about when they allow their child to make a decision about where to sit in the vehicle. the median age was a four-years old. we found that stunning. it is clear that parents began to have a negotiating relationship with their kids at about that age. i would say that safety is something that is non- negotiable. in my own practice, in my aunt's house, in my practice and what i try to -- in my own house, in my

practice and what i try to do encourage my colleagues to do is say that there is no negotiation in vehicle safety. there are lots of things that can be negotiated. that is one that cannot. parents can establish clear rules, particularly around safety, and do it in a way that is supportive and will have better health outcomes for the children. a lot of this is for older kids, young adults and teenagers, but that type of parenting practice gets established at a younger age. >> i will turn it over to ms. davis. >> we were just talking about reaching children and giving them the safety message. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about some of the

programs you have specifically geared toward giving them the safety message. >> i would be happy to do that. our coalition has a network in the communities which are often times made up of their boards. the local boards can have police officers, firefighters, nurses, doctors, ups, fedex, you name it, anybody in the community that has an interest in children is on the board. we have found that these people at the local level can get their foot in the door at the local schools. if i were to call from washington and say, "i am interested in coming to your school and doing a presentation ," i would have difficulty and be met with a stone wall telling me, generally, we do not have time for that. but our coalitions have a unique responsibility and accountability to their

communities. many times they're working out of trauma centers at a local level and they have to do education. they look for materials that are crafted and tested to be used with kids in schools, church groups, sports camps, at boys and girls clubs. there are a whole variety of places where we meet kids right where they are and do the education. so, oftentimes with older kids, we have a program called "say this generation," that is for a 11-year-old and -- "safest generation." that is 411-year-old and 12- year-old. -- 11-year-old and 12-year olds. there were five stations set up around a parking lot. we brought people in to run the stations. the first game was a really race where students had to run to a scanning a round the car to

look for kids, toys, and that's to make sure that the environment around the cart was saved. they had to get into the car, put the seat belt on, put it on correctly, and it turned into a fun and games for kids to practice doing it the right way. another game involved guessing right and wrong answers and telling us why it was good practice to use the seat belt or be ejected from the car. was it safer to be ejected and that kind of thing. one of the best ones we had was a station on figuring out how many air bags were in the car. they had to read the owner's manual. they had to get an adviser. they had to look for symbols in the car and look for air bags. we have to be a really creative when we are reading these kids, 11, 12, 13, 14.

they are not reading brochures. they do not want to lecture video. we have to be clever in how we do that. so we use our coalitions. they get into the schools. they get into the camps. they are invited and, by the way, they do not have to beg to get there. but we come up with materials and ways to do the education that are fun for kids, tested on kids, and evaluated so that we know we are doing the right thing with kids. >> i'm going to ask a question. panel members are invited to a chime in. feel free to weigh in. i guess i am going to ask you, if you ran the united states, what is the optimal allocation

of funds aimed at increasing child restraint use? what would you like to see done and how would you like to see the funds allocated? >> as you probably can guess, i really think enforcement is a key proponent to increase in child restraint use in the united states. those funds can be part of other grant programs that are out there, or there could be slight increases in the amount of enforcement dollars that go to each state. >> we want an amount. no, i am not asking for an amount. i am trying to think of priorities. we heard from dr. baldwin about the need for a multi-pronged approach. you have mentioned enforcement. what are the other effective countermeasures you would like

to see as high priorities? >> i also think education of health care pediatricians and in hospitals is very important. in the communities, especially in the diverse groups, in the neighborhoods that have community centers, where divers groups can get that education. >> if i could just add to that, i strongly endorsed the approach that the cdc uses for the way they approach public health policy relevant research, starting with surveillance to define the nature and magnitude of the problem, intervention development, determination and evaluation. i would say, from my perspective as a researcher and from having some experience in establishing

large scale surveillance systems that are child-focused, a disproportionate amount of resources have to be developed up front to ensure that you have a sufficient quality and quantity of data on which to base the rest of the programs. i would encourage the establishment of effective surveillance systems that then would lead to all of the rest of the downstream research and information development. that system would be in place presumably to measure impact. so, i do not know how to create the budget for this, but i would emphasize the allocation of opprobrium resources to establish a child-specific -- appropriate resources to establish child-specific materials and a quantity and quality of data on which to base the system. >> this is something that has been weighing on my mind.

people keep talking about pediatricians and the importance of health care providers. it is a great model. it gives you a chance to really individualized health education, but i keep thinking about how busy pediatricians are and how many barriers they face. they are taking care of sick children. their time constraints. they have resources constraints. i know that we're trying to get the word out to pediatricians. have you had a chance to do an evaluation of the extent to which the efforts work to get pediatricians to give the counseling two-parent? do you know what percentage of parents are doing -- and the counseling to parents? do know what percentage of parents are doing a follow-up? >> with the development of the revised policy statement, it is being done within the context of a program to try to maximize the

effective implementation of that policy when it is available. there is anecdotal and some small-scale survey data from the organization to suggest that while pediatricians are viewed as an important source of information, a particular child passenger safety, there are various practice variations in the manner in which that is delivered to patients. child safety is the only topic that is recommended to be addressed at every health supervision visits throughout childhood. so, it is clearly viewed by the academy as a principal priority for pediatricians to address with families. i mentioned that the new policy statement is issued next year. there has been substantial effort expended to date that i am aware of in trying to consider the most effective dissemination means, and

evaluation is part of that conversation. i am optimistic that as new requirements are released, we will be able to get a better sense of measuring how effectively pediatricians are delivering that information to their families. >> can i weigh in on the previous question really quickly? i want to offer up a suggestion that one of the things we can do in vehicle safety in the near term, and it was mentioned twice in the previous discussion about a rainbow patchwork across the united states, and booster seats lost -- booster seat laws, it seems uneven to me and unfortunate that a child in that state? -- a child in state x vs. a child in state y are exposed to different risks based on differences in state laws.

>> that includes the panel's questions. >> thank you very much. we will read the final panel. >> thank you to everyone on the panel for taking an enormous amount of time out of your obviously busy schedule to come here and help us with this enormous problem. it is extremely helpful to hear from the people who live it, every that, and do it every day. thank you very much for that. we are here about the need for some enormous improvement in the -- we heard the amazing success story about an increase in overall health years from 15%-85% in i do not remember how many years, but that 70. increase is amazing. that final 15 points is going to be far more difficult than

getting that first 70. we heard a lot from mr. campbell today on the technology, and improvements in technology. i have enormous confidence in the ability of a lot of very smart, innovative people to come up with the technological improvements we need to attack this challenge. how do we encourage standardization in a way that makes the seats bit better in the different kinds of cars and parents understand how to do that, without compromising the innovation? sometimes standards and innovation are in tension with each other. the biggest challenge will be the cultural change. that is one i see as a huge challenge. how do we accomplish the cultural change? it will be difficult but it's doable. an example that comes to mind is drunk driving. today, there is a definite

downside that people see to drunk driving. it is not considered cool anymore. that is a considerable change that came about because of mothers against drunk driving. a lot of people did a lot of things at many levels to accomplish a huge cultural shift so that it is not only not popular but it is really a bad thing to do as a whole. but having said that, like anything else and safety, it is a journey and not a destination. we heard today about some of the laws that are out there that people are trying to repeal today. we know it is a continuing activity, a journey, not a destination. we also know that if you keep doing what you have been doing, you will keep getting what you have been getting. my question to the panel is going to be, without denigrating on the effectiveness of what we have done so far, how can we

think out of the box to go after this last accomplishment to reach where we want to be in a way that is not more of what we have been doing, which has been amazingly successful, but which we may be reaching the end of the marginal effectiveness of some of those things? what can we do? let me start with a question tailored to the automotive side? thinking out of the box, what approaches are going to be most effective in increasing age effective use of child seat belts? again, taking advantage of all of the amazing things that have been done so far, but it is time to think about how to get those final, more difficult points, and reach for improvements, especially in the cultural area. >> there are several things that

need to be recognized as you think about that point. one is that your audience is always changing, because parents are only first-time parents once, but you also have new parents constantly coming into the it marketplace. whatever you do, you need to recognize the fact that your audience is always changing. recognizing that we also, in some cases, it is not the young families buying the car. young families often by the second hand vehicle because they are not ready to buy the new one. the people buying the new do not have a need for that message.

you constantly need to recognize that their new parents coming into the marketplace, recognize where they are getting their vehicles, and target the message to them. parents buying a new car at a dealership may have some expectation, but parents buying a second-hand car may not be buying it from the dealership. so they may not have the advantage of that. i would say look the need to design the best possible solution. >> thank you corporate -- thank you. one of the things that comes to mind that i did not hear about today is mass media appeal. i can remember times when my son, if i forgot to buckle my seat belt, my son would remind the. where did he get that? from sesame street. there may not be as sesame street-type of mass media in outlets. i would challenge us to take

advantage of mass media outlets like sesame street that do have an amazing influence on our kids. >> just building on your thought, as long as the message being delivered through the mass media is tailored to the desired outcome -- we always have to remember that it is not a one size fits all sledgehammer approach here. we have to be thinking about the specific target and the specific behavior we want them to do under specific circumstances. then target our message, our intervention to that scenario. it is likely that what sounds like it may have a greater reach, a mass media campaign with a simple message, will in fact, most often times, be ineffective because it is not exactly what the right people needed under the right

circumstances to do the right thing. so again, just building on the model the grant proposed, that sort of behavior change model is critical to ensuring that the limited resources we have to innovate and try to do something to get that last 15% is going to have the greatest chance of being successful. >> i would like to say just one more thing. you have to evolve the message. we now have children who have been through infancy, toddler seat and booster seats. they know nothing different. they have been restrained their entire life before they graduate to the vehicle seat belt. as that becomes the norm, the message now needs to change. we need to evolve with time. >> of like to offer of that, especially getting that last -- i would like to offer up to that, especially getting that

last few, the education and outreach is going to get us there. the people that need to get their children in age- appropriate, i do not believe will respond to mass media campaigns. there have been improved best practice laws across the country, and i think we need to build on enhanced enforcement. >> any other thoughts from the panel on the one? -- on and that one? >> i would just like to mention that we would like to see parents take up the reins. we know that kids are dictating at a very young age where they sit in the car, whether they're going to use restraint. we would like to give parents the tools to feel confident that they can speak up and give their

older kids direction. these are kids that are used to using the restraints, so it is not a stretch for them to know that this is going to be a continued behavior that parents will expect. for some reason, parents are just not doing it, and and i think we need to do a little bit more work with parents as opposed to just put in an advertisement somewhere and thinking we have done our job. >> what would you say is the message for delivering that message? that is a fascinating concept pic. >> well, you reach parents where they are, at the pediatrician's office, at the dmv where they are helping their child get a learner's permit, at the schools, at the mall. if i had the answer to that, i could rule the world and tell you what it would cost. it is the type of thing that we have seen parents to be, i

think, are a little afraid of their kids. they do not want to make them angry. they want them to like them. to do a better job of giving them permission to be parents. >> that is very illuminating. thank you very much. let me shift mode now and ask whether we can learn from the very successful automotive experience. we still, as i said, have a long way to go, but how can we learn from that huge success story we have enjoyed in cars and build on that to be able to increase the use of child seats for children under age two on airplanes? >> as a researcher and a spokesperson for the aap, our

research in child safety over the past 10 years, to me, illustrates the importance of having the proper data to infuse into the conversation. i think there is a notable lack of that, particularly when it ones to children's safety aircraft. with the absence of evidence and data, we get opinions, well- intentioned, but it is never as good as clear, hard evidence. so, again, i think the experience that was highlighted in the last panel, where we had specific quantity and quality of data on which to base decisions, a relatively large amount of good things happened in a short

period of time. there might be data forces available that can simply count the number of young children that are getting on airplanes. as a pediatrician and a researcher, it is unconscionable to me that we cannot simply counted the number of children reliably who are getting on and off commercial aircraft in this country. it seems to me that any short- term or long-term solutions in aircraft safety must begin with collecting good quality, a child to specific data. i believe that in the area of motor vehicle safety, a lot of the rest of it will happen. data is what brings many stakeholders together who often have competing interests. my own 10-year experience of being in the middle of the child

passenger safety stakeholder community was that it was the data that provided the voice of reason and a common denominator that could bring regulators, companies, a safety advocacy groups, and researchers to gather to and form -- together to inform a constructive conversation. right now, we have people looking at the same data and drawing polar opposite conclusions. that tells me something about the quality of the data. because they are very smart people drawing opposite conclusions from the same data. in my experience, that says something about the quality of the data. >> it also says something about how quickly and comprehensively the industry responded when they realized airbags were harming children.

they redesigned airbags because of that and that was because of the data. >> there was good information on the mechanism by which it was happening, what its consequences or, and that could lead to intervention. >> that is very helpful. any other thoughts on that point about how we can take our automotive successive -- successes to other vehicles? >> stopping short of demanding that children under the age of two be inappropriate seat on an aircraft, it was something the chairman said that sparked my thinking in this area. it is an empirical question, and we have had success in other venues using changing the default option. right now, we are using an opt in option, that is to say, you have to choose to purchase a seat for your child to fly.

there has been a success in organ donation by changing the default option. would you like to donate your organs? if the default option is yes, the percentage of people is quite high. if the default option is no and you have to choose to donate your organs, do not will be to this number, but i believe individuals choose around 12%. there is an analogous example in when we choose hotel chains. the default option for when we are in the same room for multiple nights initially was, please put this card on your bed if you would like your sheets not to be changed. now the default option is, please put this card on your bed if you would like the sheets changed. perhaps when purchasing a

ticket, stopping short of requiring appropriate child passenger safety seats to be used, perhaps the default option would be that you would have to choose as a parent not to purchase a ticket. again, it is an empirical question. i would be happy to have a dialogue with others about that. >> that is a fascinating concept. thank you. any other thoughts on that issue? recognizing that this panel is the only thing left between people and their dinner, i do not want to go too far, but let me just ask in a macro sense, what are some of the biggest barriers to improving child safety today, and how can we overcome some of those barriers? but this has already been said, but i would like to wrap it up by looking at some of the obstacles and how we can overcome them. >> i know, for us, we are

seeing a shrinking work force. we are seeing larger responsibilities for those folks who we have relied on in the past to do it our our region the community. because they are asked to do so many more things, volunteering to go out and check people's car receipts soared to community education or programs -- car it seeks for community education programs, volunteering has become more difficult and people are not putting in the hours they once did. i am not sure how we fix that, but it is something we recognize as a problem. hospitals are downsizing. workforces are downsizing, and those are the people we have relied on in the past to do a great education in their communities. >> thank you. any other thoughts? >> i have one additional

thought, and that is related to -- i just lost my thoughts. parents want to ignore the fact that they may be the parent to is facing a child that has been injured in a crash. it is not going to happen to me. it is ignoring the fact that it does happen on a daily basis, but it does not happen to me. when you walk into a store, all of the child restraints are based on federal law, so they're all equally safe. they're buying based on fabric, price, innovative features. i think it is the denial part of it. they really do not put the value ,n the car's seat and having it

installing it correctly, taking the time to do it correct, because it is not going to happen to them. >> that is a good point. although it relates to the issue as to whether there is some denial and the aviation side because people figure, it is so safe i am not likely to have a problem and if i do, we are all going to die. i just wonder if that is a consciously or subconsciously a factor that is playing a role in people's minds when they think about what to do on an airplane versus what they are so used to doing in a car. any other thoughts on barriers and how to overcome them? >> there are liability issues for some of the messenger groups. some of them might have some hesitation in wanting to give a message to new parents, parents with kids, so i do not know if

that does a lot thing of states, but maybe there is a liability component out there. >> as a lawyer, i was fully expecting that we would not get through this whole day without blaming lawyers and some how. that is a good point though. that is a reason people are afraid to make innovations because it is a tacit admission that something was wrong before. that is a very good point. >> i might just offer one note about the extent to which economics are a barrier. they are for many families, and there is some public research suggesting that if child seats were made available as durable medical equipment through medicaid, it would be cost savings to society and the actual cost save -- costs saved the lives -- costs of lives

saved or injury averted would be enormous. i think letting this be considered durable equipment covered by medicaid would be an outstanding allocation of resources and we would see benefits. there in that last group -- they are in that last group and this is probably one of the most promising ways to get them to change that behavior. there is evidence that if you make the seat available, people use it. if there was one key mechanism by which these seats could be made available to large segments of the population, i think that would make a big difference. >> that is certainly an interesting notion. there was a high fatality rate aviation in alaska.

the faa paid to equipped planes to have ways to navigate better, and it reduced crashes significantly in alaska. that is a fascinating point. any other point on a question? last but not least, in addressing the barriers, the question is who are the key players the need to be involved? some of your answers as suggested that, but who are the key players and what role with the play in helping to overcome some of the barriers we have been talking about -- what role would they play in helping to overcome some of the barriers with been talking about? >> re-of 34,000 active

technicians working in the field right now -- we have 34,000 active technicians working in the field right now. i think n.h.t.s.a. has done a fabulous job with their grant program, making money available to states to allow development programs that are state specific, that work with the communities that are most at need. i would like to see them continue to have funds to be able to offer incentive programs to states to do the right thing. >> thank you. anyone else on that one? >> i think a lot of people need to be involved. i tried to make the argument that it is a multi-sectoral federal, across state and local government. it strikes me that an action plan, if you will, bringing

those sectors together to come up with a mutually agreed upon game plan may make some sense, to make sure we are all working off the same sheet of music. >> thank you. >> again, borrowing from the experience of child passenger safety, some of my most favorite professional moments over the last decade have been sitting around a table in a conference room with government industry, autumn manufacturers, safety advocates and -- government, industry, automobile manufacturers, safety advocates and other groups, and looking at information, and together, trying to ponder what to do with the intermission. it is a complicated problem that not just one stakeholder is going to solve. we all know that. i am not as familiar with the airline industry, but i assume there are similar types of organizations in the airline

world as there are in the motor vehicle safety world. i do not know to what extent those organizations routinely come together. i gathered from some of the earlier presentations today that there are natural alliances between some of them and that some of them have potentially adversarial relationships. that is the same as it is in the motor vehicle safety world, but again, we have overcome a lot of that in the last 10 years because we had something of quality to look at and react to. perhaps the data could be the glue that brings everyone together. i am hopelessly our research nerd, so to me, that is what brings people together, because it is real and it gives us something constructive to talk about. >> thank you. before any handover the microphone, i want to thank the panel once again for -- before i

hand over the microphone, i want to thank the panel once again for a very illuminating discussion. >> one quick comment with full urbin, iion to dr. dick durbi think the ntsb should take his line, safety is not negotiable. i'm going to get a bumper sticker or something made. i think that is critical. for all of the technology and everything else, this gets to the human part of it. that is where you have to start. safety is not negotiable. >> i am the meanest mom in our neighborhood because it is not negotiable in my car. i do think that we have had a culture change when it comes to

6-year-old and their boosters see it. they are very comfortable carrying those into school or day care, but i have a 10-year- old who is still in a booster seat because he is not tall enough. the cultural acceptance is not there. even my 8-year-old, we took some kids to the movies last weekend, and we were rounding up some boosters see it, and it might boy's friends got into the car friends got into the car and said they do not sit in booster seats anymore. i said, in my car you do. they got in and sat in a booster seat. in my car is not negotiable. i think the job i do gives me a little bit of credibility with my kids, because they know in

annoying about safety on everything. i am not just picking on them when it comes to sitting in a booster seat. my 10-year-old is in fifth grade. he may still be in a booster seat in sixth grade. that is not too cool with his friends. i think we do need to raise the bar on what is acceptable. dr. baldwin, you talked about portability. i think we had a discussion about making it easy. you talked about the airport. on a previous panel, we talked about people who do not on their own cars and have to carry car seats around. traveling with parents on an airplane trying to carry child seats through an airport, it is hard. you cannot do it by yourself. just as we provide assistance to senior passengers, i think we

have to think about, if you want to ask a parent to carry a baby, a car seat, a diaper bag and all of that, and maybe you have two and you are having to try to hold somebody's hand and all of that. i could not do it. if my husband did not go with me, i could not go. so i think that in addition to having a requirement, we have to think about how that requirement will affect people as they try to operate in real life. we do have to do better in real design. we talk about the child, the lap-held child on the airplane. there is a reason we restraint things on an airplane. it is not just to protect a coffeepot or your baggage. it is to protect the people around you from getting hit by the coffee pot or your baggage.

restraining a child is not just about the child. it is about the people in the environment around them too. i think there is a lot of complexity associated with some of these issues. i think i heard today that our re a lackncerns of restraint, in proper restraint, and out of position restrained use. understanding those issues and how we get the solutions, i think the vice-chairmen really pulled that out, but i do think there is a lot of practical work to be done. i think this forum as a jumping off point, not the culmination. we are going to need to talk with you in an ongoing way about what happens next. and we have heard that older children and tweens are a

problem. we need to understand why there are a problem, and we need to get better data before we can recommend how to address that issue. i think we will need to have more discussions and get more information, but this has been very helpful, to me, to have this conversation with you all. i know that our staff has been working very hard over the last few months with you to try to make this a good use of your time. we look forward to following up with you. if there are no other comments, on behalf of my fellow board members, i would like to thank the speakers for their participation in this forum and for their commitment to child safety. i know we still have some out in the audience. today's discussion has been excellent. we appreciate it. we have about 150-200

participants on the web cast watching today's proceedings. it is also going to be recorded by c-span for broadcast at a later time. i would like to recognize the ntsb staff. i think we have a slide of the staff who have participated in this event. over two dozen staff from our agency as well as outside participants worked very hard. for some, it might seem like the safety board looks set things like a glass half empty. for us, there is no such thing as good enough. that is a label we are fairly proud of. there is always more we can and should do when it comes to making transportation safer. it was in december 6th years ago that i took a course to become a certified child passenger safety technician. unfortunately, after my second day in class, i realized i

needed to go, and reinstalled -- and reinstalled the family car seat. it was kind of a surprise to me because my husband and i are both college educated. it should not require a four-day course to learn to properly install car seat. to that end, manufactures, automakers and aircraft designers need to work together with the child safety community to make sure that seats are more compatible with vehicles and aircraft, and that the installation is more intuitive. we know that education can improve use rates, but it has to be carefully designed, and we have to be realistic about what we can achieve. to be effective, education needs to be targeted and not a one- shot deal. for example, we cannot do a

public-service announcement and assume that everyone has received the message. we cannot put the website and assume that people will visit it. we need to tap into all of the sources of education, pediatricians, mass media, as well as industry and public service organizations, since thousands of babies are born each day in the united states. some of the best ways to get out the message are programs that deal not only with perception, but address the barriers that get in the way of people doing the right thing every time. we need vigorous enforcement of child seat loss in vehicles, particularly since we know that these -- child seat laws in vehicles, particularly since we know that these influence behavior. n.h.t.s.a. has done a particularly admirable job in encouraging child safety and

innovation. faa to take athe similar look at things. safety for our small travelers should not be considered optional or a luxury. this concludes our forum. we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> secretary of state hillary clinton is scheduled to talk about middle east policy shortly. she will be joined by the deputy israeli prime minister at an event hosted by the brookings institution. we will have that event for you live starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. a look at the u.s. capitol here, where it is getting near sunset in washington, d.c. the senate has been in today and vermont independent senator has been speaking for the past four hours on the proposed tax cuts and unemployment benefits deal that was reached this week between the house, the white house and congressional republicans. senator sanders has been joined throughout the day by other senators holding similar views, including the ohio democrat sharon brown and louisiana democrat mary landrieu. just a reminder, you can watch

this speech and the entire session any time at our online library. just go to the homepage at c- span.org. >> only the eighth federal judge in u.s. history has been convicted and removed from the bench. watch the impeachment, trial and final vote online at the c-span video library. search, watch and share any time, all free. it is washington your way. this month, for the first time on television, c-span american history tv is showing interviews from the american -- from the nixon library oral history project. also airing this weekend, from the harry truman library, discussion of the containment .roblem after world war ii t

then, the head of rare books the library of congress on the federalist papers. see the complete schedule online at c-span.org/history. you can also have our schedules e-mail to you. american history tv tells the american story every weekend, only on c-span-3. >> students, as you work in your documentary's for our studentcam competition, here are a couple of things the judges look for. >> i want to see you and your personality. that helps your video stand out from all the rest. >> i want to see a real investment and care in the topic that you will be telling us about. be sure to be interested in what you're telling us. if you are not interested in what you are presenting, chances are we probably will not be either.

>> won the tiebreaker, for me a lot last year was the requirement -- one tie-breaker for me last year was the requirement of using c-span video. >> for all of the rules, including deadlines, prize information and how to upload the video, go to studentcam.org. >> yesterday, the british house of commons approved a plan to raise the cap on student fees. during the debate, thousands of students protested outside the parliament building in london. the liberal democrats who are now part of the conservative coalition government opposed the fee hike during the general election, but now face criticism after some sided with the government plan. this debate is about one hour and 20 minutes, but first, some background from a reporter covering the issue. >> adam bolten is sky news

political editor and joins us at -- adam boulton is a sky news political editor. what can you tell us? >> clearly, the most shocking incident was the one that took place a mile or so from the scene of the main demonstrations. a breakaway group, and managed -- a breakaway group managed, more by luck then by planning, to attack a car carrying the prince of wales and his wife to a royal theater performance. a window of the car was smashed. pate was thrown at it. the prime minister -- paint was dramatic. the prime minister has said that the people responsible will feel

the full force of the weight of the law. he says that there were quite a lot of people amongst the demonstrators who were prepared to confront the police, and it was not as damage to government buildings and the treasury building. the new supreme court which is under historic renovation had some things as mashed as well. >> there is an independent authority to acquiring into the case -- inquiry into the case. one demonstrator was hit on the head and has bleeding on the brain. >> the image of the prince's car being attacked was on the front page of a number of u.s. newspapers. was that a watershed moment of public opinion in the u.k.

it was the source of this been protest on a legitimate issue. the cost of tuition at university -- merry little salmon -- little sympathy for violent behavior toward prince charles and his wife. the vandalism has shocked a lot of people including a lot of the students who have joined what they thought was a peaceful demonstration. there is some demonstration -- some criticism of the police actions to block in the demonstrators and not allow them to march or lead the court -- leave the court. in political terms, there are

separate issues. there is the civil unrest, where most of the public is unsympathetic to the status. there is the wider issue of government increases in student fees. those are controversial. over the coming years, a lot of people are going to feel the consequences of that. it is more than just do this. >> how much more expensive will it be for coniston is in the u.k.? it will be quite a lot more expensive. at the moment, the tuition cost is capped at $3,000 -- 3,000 pounds. that is small by american standards. that will triple to a maximum of 9,000 pounds, which would be paid for by a government loan

company. but they have tried to make this regressive. no one earning less than 21,000 pounds per year will be asked to repay anything. also, there will be additional help for students coming from the poorest families. >> a political reporter from sky news. thank you for joining us. >> with permission, i wish to move the motion standing in my name. the terms of the motion are narrow in terms of an estimate. i think you ruled yesterday evening that you would like us to entertain the based on the wider issues involved.

they are aroused strong feelings inside and outside the house. the instrument we are discussing is a central part of a policy that is designed to maintain high quality universities in the long term, which tackles the fiscal deficit and provide a more progressive system of contribution based on people's ability to pay. let me briefly go over the sequence of events that have led to this the -- this debate to day. the government asked the former chief of executive of bp to conduct a report to prepare the way to an increase in tuition

fees. following the earlier introduction of these -- of fees. i have been asked by the speaker that both sides should keep their comments brief. i will take conventions what i have an argument. order, order, order. >> i apologize for having to interrupt the secretary of state. there are some opinions on this matter where passion is aroused. that is understood and expected. what is not expected by any democrat is that the secretary of state should not receive a fair hearing. the right honorable gentleman will be hard.

if members are making a noise and expecting to be called, that is a triumph of optimism over reality. >> when i became secretary of state, i invited lord brown to make to adapt haitians that he had undertaken under the previous government. i asked him to see how we could make the existing system more progressive, more related to the ability to pay up future graduates. he undertook to do that. we have done further work to develop the progressiveness of the system. the iss was able to conclude that the package we have produced is more progressive than the existing system and the more progressive than the brown report. briefly, what that means is that it is just under 25% of future

graduates will pay less than they do under the current system that we inherited from the labor government. the second request i made of lord brown was to ask him to look at the alternatives, particularly the alternative of a graduate tax. like many people coming fresh to this issue, i thought the graduate tax was a potentially good idea. i wanted it to be properly explored. the conclusions he reached were the same conclusions that the report reached under the labour government and the same conclusion that the chancellor reached when he had responsibility for this policy. the conclusion was this graduate tax has many disadvantages. . it undermines the independence of universities.

in the words of lord brown, it is unworkable. i am surprised that the leader of the labor party, after all this experience and all of this independence has chosen to drive his party down the cul-de-sac of this- -- i will take the minister's intervention after reading him a comment from what i would have thought was one of this political allies. he is normally favorable to the labor party. i will read it. labor, he said, has been seduced into sentimental, sloppy thinking that defends the entrance of the affluent and not the fluid. -- not the fluent.

to subscribe students to a life of a crippling debt is not understandable. >> crucial to the government plus a case has been the advocacy of the national scholarship -- government's case is the advocacy of the national scholarship fund. the chancellor is still criticizing the left, right, and center. the institute of fiscal study told us it provides a financial incentive for universities to turn away students. how is he going to fix that? >> the scholarship system is still open to consultation. in order to achieve an objective, which i hope he shares, which is to ensure that

people from disadvantaged backgrounds a teen access to education, something they miserably failed to do under a labour government -- the ifs is looking at one of a series of options. under the scheme we propose, those universities that wished to progress beyond the 6,000 pound cap, would be obliged to introduce the scholarship scheme without the detriment that he identic -- he indicated. >> the teaching grant is to be cut by 80%. it is justified by the government's assessment of the scale of the deficit. in the evident -- evidence to

the committee, there were tens of billions of receipts from privatizations. what estimate that he put on those receipts and to what extent are those receipts taken into account in his estimation of the deficit? >> given his history in the cabin and and the package we have inherited, his intervention is helpful in directing us to what is the heart of this debate, which is how we fund universities and where the money comes from. that is exactly what i wish to deal with. i intend to move on. i will take other interventions later. i will move onto the financing. what lord brown recommended in

terms of finding universities -- this was a report that came from the labor party and the government -- it was a recommendation that there should be no cap on fees in universities and a specific proposal for a mechanism that gave universities an incentive to introduce these up to a level of 15,000 pounds a year. that was the report that was given to the government. we have rejected those recommendations. we have proposed instead that we proceed as a statutory instrument. the introduction of a fee cap of 6,000 lbs in exceptional circumstances. i will now explain the basic economics of that problem in light of the problem of intervention that has been made by the former minister. i will not give way.

i will give way later when i have finished this point. the opposition spokesmen on this matter sent around a message to mp's yesterday when he sketched out the basic economic framework within which these decisions had been made. he said the fee cap would be increased to 9000 because the government chose to make a disproportionate cap to the university teaching budget with an average cut of 11%. i will finish this point. big coal. -- the whole point is that is government is not making average, across the board cuts up 11% in every government

department. we have chosen, as the last government did, to have some protected government departments, health, school, penton, eight -- pension, aide. the consequences are that there are larger cuts in unprotected departments. there was a study that tells us that in the wake of the last budget, the labor budgets was planning to cut on protected department by 25%. >> i am grateful for the gentleman who has been good enough to refer to my letter. he knows full well that i happen analysis done after the budget. it does not stand up to scrutiny. >> neither have the decisions

taken by the chancellor or the speech made by the writer. could the secretary of state health by identifying which other major spending programs have been cut by 80%? >> 80% the rise from the following. most major government departments have had to take spending reductions of something in the order of 25%. i wish to ask him and his colleague what that has meant to the universities and university funding in general. that we develop this point. and i will take an intervention. what were the options for a

department taking a 25% cut of the time he was going to introduce? 70% of this department went to universities. he could have chosen to make the cuts elsewhere. we could have made the choice to cut apprenticeships, to cut skilled level training, modest levels, to deal with the problem that we inherited of 6 million adults in this country who do not have the basic literacy of a 12 year-old. we could have cut back. but we chose not to cut back. we were left with a decision of how to make cuts in the university budget of approximately 25%. there were various options. i will finish this section and i will take an intervention.

there were various options to do it. we could reduce radically the number of university students to 200,000. all of the evidence suggests that the increasing diversity participation is the best avenue to social mobility so we rejected that option. we did not cut large numbers of university students. we could have made a decision, which would have been easier, less visible, and less about until. -- and less provocative. we could have chosen to reduce student maintenance. the affect of that was to reduce the support low income students receive when they are at university now. we rejected that option. we could have taken what i would call the scottish option.

we could have cut funding to universities without giving them the means to raise additional income to a graduate contribution. he certain consequence of that would have been that within five or 10 years, the great english universities would still be great world-class universities. universities like bosco -- like glascow would be in a state of decline. we rejected those options. >> does he began to understand and appreciate the impact of scottish university's of raising university fees in england? >> we will not be following the

advice of nationalists in government and reallocating priority to cut schools. that is what has happened in scotland. >> i am sure that we can all agree that all of those students who would benefit from a university education should be entitled to go there regardless of financial situation. my concern is that by increasing the tuition cap, participation level from lower income and middle income students will fall away. what assurance can the government give that this situation will be monitored going forward and that corrective action will be taken should participation levels seem to be falling away? >> of course i can give him that assurance. of course the policy will be monitored.

it will reflect the evidence that emerges. we have put in place a series of measures not merely to protect low income graduates, which we have done through the threshold. we have also put in place a series of measures designed to help children from low-income families go to university by increasing the maintenance to duringels that it was act the previous government. >> i am grateful to my honorable friend. i wonder if he can say something about how he sees the future of english students a relative to scottish and welsh students? should we be looking at family of similar set of dances across the united kingdom in years to come? >> i believe the government as a whole believes in devolution.

students in --the government in scotland, wales, and northern ireland has to make its own decisions. a system of graduate contributions will happen throughout the u.k. that is for them to decide. i will take one more from the back. >> i thank the honorable member for giving way. can i point out that despite its talk of supporting people on low incomes, i find it hard to stomach. in my constituency, the education maintenance grandpa -- -- maintenance grant, 18% of

bangladesh children benefit from that. if you take this one minority group, they will be prevented from going on to higher education. coupled with that the future jobs fund. they are still waiting to hear. >> before the secretary of state replied, an enormous number of members wish to speak in this debate. interventions from now on must be brief. secretary of state. >> of course i fear what the honorable member says about the educational maintenance grant. the system of education we inherited is enormously wasteful. large numbers of people we seem to be -- we seem to -- received the ema and did not need it to

stay in school. the purpose of the premium is precisely to address that problem of giving support to pro bowls in high areas of deprivation. -- students in high areas of deprivation. i will take an intervention. >> we have eliminated much of the other alternatives to raising funding for universities. i hope that nobody opposite is seriously arguing that we should drastically reduce the number of students, that we should drastically reduce maintenance, or that we should look troth funding from university. the only practical alternative was to retrieve income our universities from high-earning graduates once they have left.

that is the policy we are pursuing. as of today, 50 university vice- chancellors have come forward and endorsed this approach of extracting university funding in the long term. the members opposite who are following these arguments closely, they say they acknowledge that universities will continue to have high levels of income. but they say we are replacing public funding with private funding. this is ideological. it is a debate point that i am happy to take on. 60% of the universities in different finding strange -- funding streams come from the government. it will be reversed in the

future. or is it% of domestic funding will come from the public sector -- 40% of university funding will come from the public sector and 60% from the private sector. i have approached the director and he is approaching all of the members to insure we have a significantly higher level of employer support for apprentice ships, for other sources. >> there is still far too much noise in the chamber. secondly, when the secretary of state indicated he is not giving way, members must not continue spending. that is the situation. >> i hope that not too many people would regard additional

funding from employees somehow -- employers somehow ideological contaminated -- ideologically contaminated. >> under the tfee scheme introduced by the labor party, all the universities might end up being able to charge -- what guarantees can my friend get that 6000 will be the limit for most universities? >> that is a pertinent question in light of the experience of the lack government, which had a -- last government, which had a

two-tier system. there are several ways this will happen. in a university that wants to go beyond 6000, will have to pass tests for access to low income families. these colleges providing accredited courses will drive down because of high quality teaching. if necessary, if universities teach by the principle of operating on a competitive basis, we may have to introduce additional measures -- >> we are going to leave the british house of commons to take you to the white house. president obama and former president clinton our meeting. >> manufacturing is a huge

multiplied to create new jobs. in my opinion, this is a good bill. i hope my fellow democrats will support it. i think the republican leaders for agreeing to include things that were important to be president. there is never a perfect bipartisan bill in the eyes of a partisan. we all see this differently. i believe this will be a significant net plus for the country. i think people are breathing a sigh of relief that you are agreeing on something. do not minimize the impact of the on the planet release our working families or the payroll tax --unemployment relief for working families or the payroll tax relief.

we need to get the $2 trillion that banks have in reserves in the economy again. we need to get the money from corporate treasuries out into the economy again. you know how i feel. i think the people who benefit most should pay most. that has always been my position. but not for class warfare reasons but for rebuilding the middle class in america. we have the distribution of authority we now in the congress. i think this is a much better agreement that would be -- that would be reached if we waited for january. it will have a much more positive impact on the economy. i would like to say one other thing on another subject just to be recorded on the record. they do not need my support on this. we had some good republican support and the first president

bush. i think the start -- s.t.a.r.t. agreement is important to our national security prison it is not a radical agreement. we agreed in principle on this same reduction. there was no way he could get it through the russian system in his second term. so we did not proceed because it cannot be ratified there. i am not sure the senate would have ratified it then. i think they will now if there is enough encouragement. the cooperation we will get from the russians and the signal that will be sent to the world on non-proliferation while all these other things are going on to threaten -- to increase non- proliferation -- these weapons are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and

expensive to secure the material that goes into making the weapons. this is something that is profoundly important. it should be beyond party. they worked hard and i hope it will be ratified. >> a lot of democrats on capitol hill say this is a bad deal. president obama could have gotten more. what is your message to them? >> my message is, i do not believe that is true. in january, they will be in the majority. this will dramatically reduce their incentive to extend unemployment benefits, to support the conversion for more

tax credits. i read all the economic studies. every single unbiased economic studies says the best thing you can do it your point to take a tax cut passed to grow the economy is to give a payroll tax cut. hong kong had a stimulus. they gave almost 10% of the low income working people two months free rent in public housing. in most important thing that they did was payroll tax relief. all of the people who study this believe it is the most important thing. i do not believe they can get a better deal by waiting. this is what nobody is talking about it is important. i do a lot of this energy work. these tax credits have made us competitive again.

i did not see a single story that credited senator harry reid's election with the fact that three weeks before the election, two new plants were announced in nevada. thousands of people are making wind turbines. both companies are owned by chinese interests. they said they are here because we decided to compete with them in the future and gave them tax credits. i do not believe there is a better deal out there. >> you mentioned the republican congress taking office in january. what was your advice to president obama today about how to deal with the congress and the opposition party? >> i have a general rule. whenever he asked me about and whenever i say should become public only if he decides to make it public.

he can say whatever he wants publicly. >> here is what i will say. i have been keeping the first lady waiting for about 30 minutes. i am going to take off. >> i do not want to make her mad. please go. >> mr. president, is there anything else that can be done in your opinion to loosen up the credit markets that have been so tight. if people cannot get their hands on capital, how can they beat the entrepreneur is they want today. this is something the republicans have thought all along. what is the next step? >> let me run through the numbers again. we are not talking about high risk. that is what the financial regulation bill tries to stop. it charges the by to regulators -- we know they need to have more leverage than the

traditional community banks. let's start with the community banks. if they loaned money conservatively, they can loan chilly -- lone $10 for every r they have in the bank. if they have mortgage issues are resolved, most of the mortgage debt has been unloaded to fannie mae or freddie mac or has vanished. what i believe is going on it is, first of all, the business community is not coming forward as aggressively in the small business community. the small business incentives --

there are measures to get the small businesses to give loan guarantees. it appears to me that the community banks are somewhat uncertain about how the financial reform bill, which i supported, applies to them and what because of compliance might be. the two things that bill did was to require federal regulators to monitor every month, the big banks, and required them to set aside a certain amount of capital. that bill said that if this happens again, the shareholders and executives have to eat it. there are other things regarding credit cards to deal with. it is really important just to do an aggressive 100%

information drench. i would do it bank by bank by bank so that everyone knows what they have to do, how much it costs, and how quickly this can be resolved. then it is important that the community banks and the people who might borrow from them understand where the small businesses of america are, where the manufacturers are with the various loan guarantees and credits and deductions that are available under these laws. we too often assume that when a lot passes, people know it has passed, what is in it, and how it applies to them. that may not be true in this case because there has been so much debate about it. there was a debate that occurred in the context of a campaign rather than in the context of, let me tell you how this works and how you can get a loan. that is what needs to be done

over the next three months. the money is there to get this country out of this mess. i also believe the same thing of big companies. we should analyze the situation of every company that has $1 billion in cash. we should ask them to be honest about what it would take to get them back into the investing business. these companies clearly have a preference for reinvesting in america or they would have put his money somewhere else already. it is an amazing thing, 1.8 trillion dollars -- $1.80 trillion in corporate cash. those are the things we have to do now. i cannot answer your question. the bankers i talk to in

arkansas and in small places that i visit around where i live in new york say they know they need to ramp up the activity. they say they have to get the green light about how they are going to comply with the loss. he might be able to use your program to do it. he might be able to bring some bankers on and work through this thing work -- work through this for people. but some democrats are saying the president did not -- >> some democrats are saying the president did not go in and fight hard enough. some are saying he should be a one-term president. has he damaged his credibility? has he let tea party down? >> i do not think so. i respectfully disagree about that. a lot of them are hurting now. i get it. i did 133 events for them.

i believe congress in the last three years did a far better job than the american people thought they did. i went to extraordinary efforts to try to explain what i thought had been done and the things i thought were most favorable to them. results are what they are. the numbers will only get worse in january in terms of negotiating. the president -- if we had 5% growth and unemployment was dropping like a rock, you could have a mexican standoff and say, it will be you and not me who the voters will hold responsible. that is not the circumstance we face. the united states had suffered a severe financial collapse. these things take longer to get over than normal recessions.

we must first make sure we keep getting over it. we do not want to slip back down. in order to make it happen over the long run -- i was asked a question. we have to go beyond direct investments whether they are stimulus projects or tax cuts -- to private growth. i personally believe this is a good deal and the best he could have gotten under the circumstances. i disagree. >> you made a number of effective calls for the health care plans. have you been asked to make any calls for the democratic members on behalf of the health-care program? there are comparisons being made between the 1994 collection

and the 2010 election. do you think they are analogous situations? >> all of you will be under enormous pressure to develop a story line. there are some parallels and some that are different. i will let you do that. i am out of politics except to say i care about my country. i want to get this economy going again. i believe it is necessary for these parties to work together. for example, the story line is how well we work with the republicans. we play political kabuki or a year. we had to government shutdowns. we cannot afford that now. people did not feel it in 1994. we cannot afford that. we have got to pull together and both sides are going to have to

eat some things they do not like. we cannot afford to have the kind of impact we had last time over a long period of time. we do not want to slip back into a recession. we have to keep this thing going and accelerate its base. this is the best available option. as soon as the election was over, i took a foundation trip to asia. i just got back from the west coast doing mike bennet with out there meeting people who support -- doing miny annual trip to tsa people who support my foundation. >> i get the feeling you are happier to be here, and giving

advice than govern. >> i had quite a good time govern. i am happy to be here. when the bullets are fired are unlikely to hit me unless they are ricochet --i am glad to be here. i think the president made a good decision. i want my country to do well. after the 1994 elections, i said the american people have put us both in the same boat. we are either going to grow or sink. i want us to grow. i had a long talk with the prime minister today. he has done a remarkable job of being a loyal prime minister and not being involved in the political and polyol -- imbro

lio that is going on. he at some outsiders to come in who are incredibly technology -- incredibly knowledgeable. we are going to have our commission meeting next week. we may move it to the dominican republic. the best thing we can do for the people of haiti is to prove that the donors are committed to the long-term reconstruction process. whoever gets elected president, the best thing they can do -- everything understands they had to have this election under enormously difficult circumstances. even getting identification cards was difficult.

what i can say is it was a calm day. they will try to get a recount that will have support across the political spectrum. $70 billion were released. we will be hiring more people immediately. we are born to improve -- going to approve a lot more projects. >> do you think your appearance here today will help sway votes among house democrats? the reason i ask is the courts --as it is because a lot of them are ansy about the president ulation.of triangu

>> i told president obama that he should read a lecture that franklin roosevelt game in 1926 before he was the vice president and nominee and before he came down with polio. he discussed the dilemma of the progressive movement in american politics. i have an enormous amount of respect for the democrats in the house. i have already told you that i regret so many of them law. some of our best people lost. i get where they are coming from. i can only tell you that my economic analysis is that given the alternatives i can imagine becoming law, this is the best economic results for america. i think it is enormous relief for america to think that both parties might vote for something

that they can both agree on. there is no way you can have a compromise without having something in the bill you do not like. i do not know if i can influence anybody. some of the places where i campaigned the people one -- people won and some places i went and campaigned the people lost. the difference between now and when i became president when we immediately went after the deficit is quite simple. when i became president, it was after 12 years in which the a collective debt of the country had risen from $1 trillion to $4

trillion. it was the first time in american history where we were ever running structural deficits of any size. we were having to pay too much money. it was costing us a lot to borrow money in the public sector. we were taking 14 cents of every dollar on the debt at the time. it was crowding out the opportunity of the private sector to borrow money and raising their costs. that sparked the recession that we had in the early 1990's. what happened this time was totally different. this time, there was a collapse of the financial system that took interest rates to zero. i know there is a lot of alarm now. interest rates went up on bonds. is it because of the increase in

the deficit in the short term? is it because of the economy? that does not bother me. we have to get out of deflation. the biggest problem we have right now is deflationary. i am a depression-era kit. i do not like deficits. we had a surplus when i was president. i like balanced budgets and surpluses. if i were in office now, i would have done what the president has done. you have to put the brakes on the contracting the economy. you have to hold it together until growth resumes. when growth resumes, you have to have interest rates higher than zero. if they get too hi, you would be alarmed. but you should be alarmed that interest rates are -- should be encouraged that interest rates

are going up. i do believe we will have to take aggressive and disciplined action to eliminate the structural deficit again. if america were out of debt on a normal basis and we did not have to borrow money from our major trading partners, we would have more economic freedom and economic security. i want to see what comes out of this. i expect to support the vigorous action to eliminate the deficit and get us back to balance. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> do you think the american people want a president to compromise with the opposing party? is that a message you think democrats are going to have to ask that?

-- have to accept. ? >> a lot of the hard-core conservatives believe the republicans gave too much. if you recall in "the washington post," it was pointed out that they got the tax cuts, but most of them were taught it to middle-class working people. that is what the payroll tax cut is. and that the american people support them both. there are some conservatives who do not believe in the economic theory digest -- theory that i just advance to you. i think that is healthy, too.

everybody has got to give a little. i think the one thing that always happens when you have divided government is that people no longer see principled compromise as a weakness. this system was set up to promote a principled compromise. it is an ethical thing to do. in a democracy where no one is a dictator, we would all be at each other's growths -- time.s throats all the >> what is the political fight worth having? >> i think it is worth fighting against the real appeal of the health care law. i can give you four or five things up front that i think should be done to improve it. i think it is worth a ferocious fight to avoid the repeal of student loan reform.

it is the best chance we have to take america back to number one from north 9 in the percentage of those who get for your college degrees. i think there are a lot of fights worth having. i presume the republicans want to fight those to since they ran on bad -- ran on that. this holds the promise that after the fights are over, we will be able to find principle compromises on those areas as well. to me that is worth doing. the economy first. we cannot go back into a recession. we have to keep crawling out of this mess we are in. this is a good first step from the substantive merit and the psychologically it gives to the american people in general and

the small business people and community bankers. they can start doing things that will help us get better. thank you. >> former president bill clinton holding what was a joint press conference with president barack obama, who had to excuse himself during the question and answer portion of this press conference. recent news reports have been comparing the two presidents in terms of how they have handled opposition from republicans. president clinton talking about the nuclear treaty between the u.s. and russia. also unemployment benefits courtly in front of congress and the tax cuts and the urge to invest in businesses. we go back to the british house of commons, the session we left off earlier. the remainder of the session is

about 30 minutes. >> a lot of people cannot realize that 15,000 pounds is the same as 21,000 in 2016. the government also all figures. what is the change that has led the deficit prime minister and many ministers to say this is so fair, so wonderful. i will tell you. on the government's own figures, & of graduates will pay just -- tip% of graduates will pay just 88 pounds less -- 10% of graduates will pay just 80 pounds less. to see ministers sell their

consciences for 88 pounds per year is a tragedy. relay.he government's it is to ease the pressure on the low income graduates. they only needed to make minor changes to achieve that aim. it is nothing that justifies doubling or tripling the debt of the majority of graduates. the iss said yesterday that the graduates in 30% of the poorest household will pay more. the graduates will get hit harder than the ones that go into the highest paid jobs. that is what london economics

says. let me tell you, that is what somebody else said that i think we should listen to. remember the former higher education spokesman for the liberal democrats. in an e-mail that i have received, he told his colleagues the following. there are those claiming the current proposals are progressive. this is only the case if by progressive humane that middle class graduates will pay more than -- progressive graduate will pay more than lower class graduates. it is a scheme in which graduates with large lifetime earnings will pay less and graduate with small lifetime earnings will pay more. this cannot be regarded as

progressive. the new proposal includes a real terms it does job. it is more progressive than labor schemes. i am paying tribute to the right honorable gentleman. i am making a substantial comment. the honorable gentleman has not been listening. i have been talking about the changes that were open to his party to make. mr. speaker, it is the average graduate going for technical jobs that get hit harder than the highest earning a graduate. we will need a fair system of

graduate distributions -- graduate contributions in years to come. >> he wants except the comparisons between the existing the system proposed is more progressive than the current scheme. >> know, graduates from the poorest households will pay more. at all levels, people will pay more than they do over the current scheme. but i must make some progress. this can only be judged by how much graduates pay. over the past few years, a proportion of students from a poor background have increased. there is much more to be done. even more to be done in a

selective universities. the progress that we have made was not an accident. it to great efforts by the majority of universities and we constructed the ladders of opportunity for more and more of those bright, talented young people. all of that has been kicked away. >> this is exactly the point that i wish to make. what participation has been widening, there is evidence that the poorest children are not going to the better universities. by increasing fees further, there will be -- they will be less likely to go to university. >> i am sorry that the secretary

of state cannot give way. in one that is showing the integrity and courage that he is in standing up is to deserve a hearing from his own side of the house. in his remarks, the hon. gentleman is in very good company as i will show and a moment. >> the higher education minister was recently asked about the impact of aiming higher. he said that evidence from colleges, schools and academies showed that the provision was associated with higher than predicted payments and greater confidence among those that they were able to achieve. greater confidence among orders

that they were able to achieve. what is the higher education member doing? he is closing it down. >> the labor government put 230 million pounds in. the rest of the money is not yet concerned by the new government. does that not mean that the hundred and 50 million pounds [inaudible] >> my hon. friend is absolutely right. the scheme, which i will come to in a moment, is dwarfed by the cuts. it is dwarfed by the stopping of educational maintenance award. that will stop for young people

going to college this jewelry. they have never just been about getting young people to university. many people have been able to get other qualifications. they made a difference. the government is shutting it down. the whole house knows the work. i do nothing there is anyone outside the astonishment who has done more. they supported this policy in 2004. but now, he says that there is no doubt that such a significant increase will be a serious deterrent from those of this.

the double whammy is inequitable. that is a fitter legacy for any politician. i hope members will think on that. we got -- in my right hon. friend, thanks for giving way. we have seen the participation of people going into higher education last year and increase but a percent sign. how can his proposal to anything other than to bring that figure down and deter people from going into university. these proposals will make it more likely that they will go to university. they say that this puts them

from going to university altogether. >> it is the view of the organization that has done more work on this than any other. if you'll forgive me, i will not take any further interruptions. i have been speaking for longer than i intended. mr. speaker, on this issue, we got a bit of a brick through. the government admitted the scholarship scheme. the government liked this idea because it helped save money. it cost the university is money because i have to match funds. it is a limited plan of 18,000 pounds. in case some do not know, what about the millions of working families? >> i look forward to the next

election were john smith will get 18,000 pounds off of their fees. others get no help at all. this will punish the very university is that of the most to what vs patient. they would have had to find matched funding. cambridge, which took just 20, would only have to find 120,000. where is punishing success and rewarding failure.

this does not make sense. all of the sons are here. every day, they are trying to deal with criticism. they had to rush out yesterday. -- thirds of part timers would not benefit from their scheme, so change yesterday. me, the business secretary said but it was an empty document. house has been told that universities might charge £9,000 in "exceptional circumstances", but nowhere in the guidance does the term "exceptional circumstances" appear. the business secretary does not tell the director of offa to limit the highest fees to

exceptional circumstances or ask him to tell us what exceptional circumstances are. the truth is that he came to the house making a fine promise about the £9,000 and the exceptional circumstances but he has done nothing to bring that about in practice because he knows he will not be able to enforce it. that is not the right way to handle the house. if i had more time, i would speak about the objections of the british medical association, the teaching organisations and the fact that the universities that train teachers have no idea how they will be funded. let me end by saying a few words to those ministers and back benchers who are

struggling, even now, to reconcile party loyalty with a desire to do the right thing and support future students and our universities.

>> what does my honorable friend consider to be a reasonable percentage of time to spend on

this debate relative to the amount of time given by the previous government to the debate about whether this country should go to war with iraq? >> all i say to the honorable gentleman is that sometimes governments are wrong, and sometimes one needs to have the courage to say so. i am doing that today. >> summarising this debate so far, one has to accept that the secretary of state for business, innovation and skills, my right honorable friend the member for twickenham (vince cable), though very wise, does not know for certain that he is right, and that the right honorable member for southampton, itchen (mr denham), though equally wise, does not know for certain that he is right. does not the house need an opportunity to assess the results of whatever policy we adopt today, and not do something that is purely irreversible? >> my honorable friend is entirely right. there simply has not been an adequate evaluation to allay the very real concerns out there. i am going to talk about the pledge. i did not sign just one pledge, i actually signed two: the national union of students

pledge in this very house, and the leeds university union pledge at the university. i do not regret signing either, but that is not the sole or, even, most important reason why i shall vote against the government today. i shall vote against the government today, because i simply cannot accept that fees of up to £9,000 are the fairest and most sustainable way of funding higher education. before i became a member, i opposed the labour government introducing fees in the first place, and i opposed the labour government introducing top-up fees. i said at the time, as did many honorable members including courageous labour back benchers, "this will lead one day to huge increases in fees and become a never-ending path." sadly, that has been shown to be

absolutely correct. >> will the honorable gentleman give way? >> i will not give way, i am afraid, because i have taken my two interventions and the honorable lady will have the chance to intervene on other people. i do apologise we do need to look at higher education funding, but we must look at it as a whole, within the education system and with apprenticeships and further education. rushing through this single vote today will do none of that. on the current proposals, i have said all along, and look to the minister for universities and science, my right honorable friend the member for havant (mr willetts) as i say it now, that there are indeed many progressive things in the proposals. the levels at which graduates will have to make a contribution, the measures for part-time students and the £21,000 threshold are very welcome. i fully acknowledge all those things, but we need to debunk a myth. all those positive things, which are in the proposals and are progressive in terms of the graduate contribution, do not need to be tied to a huge increase in fees.

that is simply a non sequitur. it is simply not true to say, "you cannot have one without the other," and that is the crucial flaw in the government's argument today. the secretary of state knows, and we all know, that there is much confusion about the proposals, but is that not another reason to have more time for the government to try to convince people? he and all ministers who support the proposals today have to accept that they have not won the argument, and rushing things through, given the concern and anxiety about how it has been done without proper parliamentary scrutiny, is simply a recipe for bad policy. the idea is that, when we finally get to the proposals in the white paper, they will deal

with the deficit, but that is questionable. in the proposals to be put before the house in the white paper in the new year, huge amounts of money will go from the treasury to the universities, but the difference is that those figures will have been moved from expenditure and put into a different column. that is the reality. the higher education policy institute report states that the proposals will increase public expenditure through this parliament and into the next, and that it is as likely that in the long term the government's proposals will cost more than they will save. it is smoke and mirrors, so i am afraid that the argument to

increase fees to £9,000, albeit backed by progressive elements, is certainly not enough to persuade me. it is not enough to persuade many of my liberal democrat colleagues or, indeed, colleagues and friends from our coalition partner. so, i say one last time, having done so over the past week, that it is not too late. there needs to be a re-think and a proper review of how we come up with the best system for higher and, indeed, all post-18 education. that should be done properly. it should not be rushed through; it should be done with proper parliamentary scrutiny. to liberal democrat colleagues who are listening to the

argument and say that we need to get this issue out of the way and get the pain over with, i say, this will not finish with today's vote, because there will be amendments to reverse the proposal when we do reach the white paper. i say to this house and i say to colleagues, for the sake of the liberal democrats, for the sake of this government, for the sake of parliament, please vote against these proposals tonight. i stand here with some trepidation in the sense that, in 2004, i made a speech in a similar debate and many of my colleagues howled at me and did not agree with much that i said. in those days, my committee-the select committee on education- had carried out an inquiry into top-up fees and had come out in favour of them. of course, the majority was only five. there has been for too little presentation of alternatives. i attempted to bring criticism and ideas during the past few weeks. the prime minister agreed with me that if graduates could make a greater contribution, the contributions should be related. i find much in the government's

proposals to welcome. retaining the cap on fees is an improvement. the raising of the threshold from 15,000 pounds to 21,000 pounds is also an improvement on the system. however, i did not believe that it would be fair for today's students to have to make payments from a substantially lower threshold of 15th thousand pounds while the most recent graduates will be able to earn at least 21,000 pounds before beginning their contribution. i truly appreciate the movement that the government chose yesterday in announcing the annual operating system to

existing students and graduates, not just those starting their studies. this measure should not be underestimated. it causes repayments for over 100,000 graduates and it cuts the contributions of two 0.5 million graduates by hundreds of pounds each over the course of this parliament. but i would wish that when the new system is in place -- [no audio] >> i appreciate him pointing at what we're

proposing. isn't it incredible that they introduced the principle of graduates paying? >> what amazes me is that they were not prepared to raise that threshold in any of the last six years. but there is another failure since the opposition. i would now like to address this. it has not been addressed for too long. back in 1997, it was concluded that the cost of higher education should be shared among those who benefit from it, the student, the state and the employer. for the last 13 years, the government has ignored the conclusion that employers should also point does contribute to higher education. not only our employees --

employers not required, but there is no method to facilitate this. i would like industry to develop broader proposals. this would even prove to be more tax efficient. mr. speaker, in the weeks since the review was published, i have consistently sought proposals to make them fairer. the government has responded constructively and listened while others failed take out a fair alternative. in this way, we are making things fairer and even though there is more to do, i am confident that the ministers will continue to engage in those issues. that is what i will join them --

mr. speaker, i urged -- i told my constituents that i would fight for higher education funding and that is indeed what i have done and it is what i will continue to do. >> we have more british programming for you this weekend with prime minister's question time. david cameron responded to tuition hikes and he reaffirmed his commitment to the troops in afghanistan. that program is under way on sunday and every sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> middle and high school students, and she worked on or documentaryca for orm competition, here are a few tips from our judges. >> one thing that i look for is you, the student. i want to see you and your personality and that helps make your video stand out from all the breast. >> what i like to see most in

the entries are a real investment and care in the topic that you will be telling us about. be sure to be interested in what you're telling us. if you are not interested in what you are presenting, chances are that we probably will not be, either. >> 1 tie-breaker last year was the requirement to use c-span video. i want a video were people have looked at the content and asked what makes the most sense for telling the compelling story that i am trying to tell? >> for all the rules including deadlines, cries of permission and how to update -- upload your view, go to c-span.org. >> secretary of state hillary clinton is expected to talk about policy tonight. she is speaking at an event hosted by the brookings institution. we will have that live for you starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this month, for the first

time on television, c-span3's american history tv is holding an oral history project. airing this weekend, from the harry s. truman library, america's containment policy after world war two. then, the head of rare books and special collections at the library of congress on the federalist papers. see the complete schedule online at c-span.org/history. american history tv, telling the american story only on c-span3.

-- connecting with policymakers and journalists. during the week, watch the u.s. house and our continuing coverage in the transition. on sunday, newsmakers, q&a and prime ministers questions from the british house of commons. you can also watch programming any time at c-span.org. it is all searchable at our c- span video library to read c- span, washington your way. >> a month after general motors returned to the sock it -- the stock exchange, the ceo discusses how he is staring. the washington economic club hosted this 1 hour 5 minutes of the event.

>> can i have ever bought his attention, please? we can start. thank you. over the last two years, as i have served as president, we have had distinguished speakers and i have tried to be as dispassionate in introducing them as possible even though some of them were my friends. i will probably not be so dispassionate this morning because he was my business partner and a very good friend and so i probably will be a less dispassionate than i normally am. dan joined us in 20003 and became a member of our most important business. he provided enormous value and

really helped it grow. when dan told me that he was calling to be the ceo of general motors, i was not happy. i asked if he knew how much money he was leaving on the table and he said that he did. i asked if his wife knew how much money he was living on the table -- he was leaving on the table. [applause] [laughter] he did this out of a sense of patriotism. i doubt that there are very many people that i am aware of who have made as big a financial sacrifice as dan didn't to serve his country. we have never disclosed this, but it is a extraordinary amount of money that he walked away from. as an american taxpayer, i feel it was a lot of money.

[laughter] money is not everything, but -- then began live in minnesota. he went to the naval academy and graduated the class of 1970. he subsequently served in the navy for five years and when he left the navy, he went to work in the petroleum industry in england and got a master's degree in the london school of economics. he worked for five years at at&t and then he joined a company called mci. he became the head of that position. he joined carlisle in 1987 and then replaced bill as the ceo and ultimately rose up at mci. he was recruited to be a partner in new york through a leveraged

buyout and replaced don arms felt as the ceo. -- don runs fell -- rumsfeld as the ceo. he became the ceo of xo and served as the fourth company that he had run as the ceo. he left that enjoined carlisle in 2003 -- ended joined carlisle in 2003. -- and joined carlisle in 2003. he was elected to the ceo position in august 11 of this year. i doubt that there is anybody that i am aware of -- as a

result of that, the u.s. government has been repaid $23 billion and so i refer to him as our $23 billion man. he had an extraordinary tenure in such a short period of time. he has shown his extraordinary skills as an executive and a ceo. i doubt that this could have been done in a short period of time unless dan had been there to shepherd it through. he has shown the extraordinary skills i saw at carlyle and we are very pleased that dan was here today. >> i had a thought while david

was speaking. i want you to remember this. when i need my ultimate reward, invite david to the funeral. [laughter] this is a pleasure and an honor to be here today. it is hard to be unemotional about today. there are so many of my friends here and i have deep ties in to this community, having served in various positions at mci. i was at the fountainhead of many of the changes the ec from the fountain head.

paul was on the board at aol/time warner for many years and then of course the carlyle group, which is great. i played squash with many quite routinely. [laughter] my college roommate is here. he is a dear friend. he knew me when i had hair. which, even my wife cannot say. [laughter] jim and i lived together for two and a half years. of course, my wife, who i could not have embarked on this venture without her. how many veterans are there in a group -- in this group? raise your hand. thank you for your service. [applause]

thank you, david, for the kind introduction. it is great to be here. i flew in last night, and yes, i did fly commercial. i am not that dumb. [laughter] i chose the enhanced pat down of the entire body and i told the tsa agent to take his best shot. 18 months ago, gm was pretty much flat on its back. in june of 2009, we filed for bankruptcy protection. that is old news now, but if you would, think about it for a moment. general motors, the icon of american manufacturing.

one time, the largest holder of the vehicle market. it went bankrupt. it was unimaginable until it actually happened. 39 days later, thanks to help from the u.s. taxpayer and others, and gm was relaunched. critics gave us very little chance of success. many thought that we would remain on the public dole for decades. others simply left us for that. 16 months later, after emerging from bankruptcy, this new gm was relaunched as one of the most successful initial public offerings ever. i spent many decades in business, most recently in private equity. it was my job to assess the

company's prospects, management, and make bets on their futures. i can promise you that a two years ago, there were precious few in this country that gave gm a chance or willing to bet on its future. three weeks ago, people by the hundreds of thousands and did just that. they bet on general motors. they saw a company with a new business model focused on three things. designing, building and selling the world's best vehicles. they saw a new company with a competitive cost structure, improved capacity utilization, leaner inventory, improved brand equity and customers willing to pay higher prices for great

vehicles. all of which resulted in improved earnings and great cash flow. they saw and automotive company competing in a growth business. it is hard to imagine, not too many years ago, one that was better positioned than any other company in the world. they saw a new company with a strong balance sheet. they saw a new company positioned to break even at the bottom of the market. 2009 was below the auto industry and we actually made money. here to fore, the company would break even at mid cycle and it would only make money at the high end of the cycle. if we achieve a mid-cycle

profit, we were very well positioned to move forward. new investors saw a company being managed by a mix of new talent that was intent on change and a team of highly skilled insiders who were running key operations around the world. most importantly, they saw great new products on the market place like the cadillac srx, which took nine market share points in one year. it is a beautiful car. it is the fastest selling brand in america. it is either number one or two in asian countries and it is there really strong subcompact

car. finally, they saw a lot of people beginning to believe in the new gm, a company that has learned from its past and is committed and committed not to make the mistakes of the past. at gm, we are building a culture that values speed, agility, and competitiveness and will continually of that its business model to the rapidly changing world that puts the customer first. this may not seem revolutionary to you, but trust me, it is. [laughter] what does this mean? it means that we are going to set the pace for new cars like the chevy crews.

the cruise was a rich -- originally in a sudden that features things that we will start to differentiate on. 10 air bags. its competition has eight. we have on star -- on-star. you will see dramatic changes in the internet application to automotive and automotive safety. we are bringing customers the newest design and technology like the extended range of luxury vehicle. ovolt is like nor the car in the world today.

we're trying to raise more revenue at every opportunity. this car will go 50 miles on a single charge and then it converts to a generator, and 86 horsepower combustion engine and it will go another 300 miles. you can literally drive this car from washington d.c. to loss angeles. not to say that we will not develop other cars, but we think there will be more of a metro car. from the start, the volt was designed to change the way that we think about the automobile and i think that we have made a area. just in 2011, the accolades have been many and wide

we were named to have the truck of the year. that is very rare to have one company have a car of the year and truck of the year. we are confident that the volt be one of the most important cars that gm ever produced. in fact, when i think back over many people's lives in this ring, the iconic car might have been described as the 64-65 mustang. i think that in 2020 and 2013, i hope my children will reflect back up the volt is the iconic car of their generation. you might also note that in one of the launch markets will be

washington dc. we intend on shipping them out next week. last month, we announced that chevrolet will invest $40 million over the next few years for various clean energy products. these projects are designed to produce about 8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the united states. that is roughly the carbon footprints emitted from all chevrolet is that will be sold between now and the end of 2011 and we wanted to make a strong statement that we are not just out for a fast buck. we want to sell cars, but we want to be a responsible member of our society. this is an important role that

we are committed to receive. we believe it is the right thing to do for our customers. it is all part of our commitment to the environment and to a clean energy future. to be fair, and i appreciate all your kind words, david. this is not as it -- this is not a result of me. many of these projects were started well before the bankruptcy and i think that we have to give due credit and gratitude to the people that have the foresight of general motors to develop these great cars and trucks that are now winning so many awards. i think that it is testimony to the tenacity and the persistence and focus of the gm employees to look through the dark days of the bankruptcy and the days leading up to the bankruptcy and kept focused and delivered great products. there was a lot of turmoil

around industry. it was most impressive and a source of inspiration to lead such a great team of people that are so committed to doing what is right for their company and for their country. in many ways, when it comes down -- what it comes to them to in the future, we have to rebuild the trust in the general motors product line. it took many years of really not listening to our customer base and pull quality to destroy what was once a great image. i will tell you, today, that our quality is second to none. there is no foreign transplant for foreign competitors that can

do better than we do. these are world class cars and that has been verified not only by internal, but extrametrical. i am proud to be 18 later -- but external metrics. i am proud to be a team leader. as we went through the ipo, and we knew that we were going to have a special offering: everything from the press release that i hope you saw in our public statements, the humility that we wanted to project. we survived a near-death experience. we deeply appreciate the support that we got from the american people on a state and federal level and we will not forget that. for the first time in a generation, and i am not

kidding, this was a company that had many structural cost problems. the list goes on and on. that has all been rectified. in fact, for the first time, we have a level playing field. as we said in one of our earlier advertising lines, may best car win. if that is the matter which we are measured, i am confident of our future. we look forward to returning -- .o rearning the public's trusts i would like to turn it back to you. i know what you want to ask a lot of questions. [applause]

>> i understand that you drove over in may volt today. what was it like? >> ecstasy. [laughter] >> it is interesting. i have only had my life threatened twice so far, so i have security now which is something new for me. he drove the car. usually i'd drive in an suv, but i wanted to drive the car in case somebody want to take us up on the $25 ride around the block. he was impressed. this guy drives professionally and it was tight. i know that i will offend a lot of you toward offense. i would not be caught dead in a

press -- in a prius. i have driven the 500 miles. we have used 1.2 gallons of gas. 80% of the people in america driving 40 miles or less per day. he should be able to drive -- >> it is going to be for sale two weeks from now? >> we already have two hundred thousand orders. another thing about the vault, there are not going to be that many available this year. we liquid cools the battery pack. the battery pack weighs 400

pounds. many of the battery electric vehicles will be air cooled. we spent $7 billion in research and development. we put another $700 billion in engineering. the air cooled battery pack is estimated to last three-five years. we guarantee that the battery on the volt for a year for 100,000 miles. we know the residual that this car will be good when we come out -- be good. >> when your here on the weekends, what are you driving? >> i am driving the volt right now. wait until you see the new camaro coming out. it is a new camaro convertible.

you're going to love that car, too. it has been a great seller. >> so, why did she walk away from a lot of money that would help your children and grandchildren and great- grandchildren? what was the motivation, if you can articulate that? >> i was asked at last week. -- asked and that last week. he was quoting you. i know that you told larry summers because he mentioned the specific number. [laughter] >> he was staggered, when i told it to him. >> are you recruiting him? >> today is his last day on the job.

>> there is more to life than money. i was not put on this earth to just make money. i cannot tell you the iconic events in my lifetime. when i walk down to the trading floor once the deal was done, there must have been 400 people that set up and clapped. one of the traders on the floor , he said that when they had to de-list general motors, he cried. there was a man my age, and he cried. he said that 18 months ago, he thought that this company was

gone. it is hard to describe. is a wonderful place, carlisle, but i know that i made the right decision. this company, quite frankly, is too important to fail. the american infrastructure is too important to let go down. i will tell you, the implications the -- at general motors gone down, we spent $80 billion a year in our supply chain. if our supply chain would have gone down, that would have caused huge disruptions for everybody. i do not know what the cost would have been for another million people unemployed, but a

lot of people had projected that. sometimes, you have to do what has to be done someone had to stand up. >> when you did the ipo and you went around the world, what were the impressions that you got around the world? what do you think maybe stocks sell so well? -- what you think made it the stocks sell so well? -- what do you think made the stocks sell so well? >> well, the fact that we had a great contract with the union in substance and form and a competitive cost structure here

in north america. what really surprised me when i went on the board in 2009 was the market position. we will produce almost as many cars in china this year as we will of the united states. we are continually gaining market share. we have a most enviable position in china in that when we talk about our plans, and we all live here and if you think about this, when i was at mci, we would not run the same ads in birmingham alabama that we were in brooklyn. john denver did not sell well in birmingham. they are each a region of their

own. we looked at the -- if you look at the western provinces, we are going to produce a new car that would not sell in any industrial market because we have to sell in the $5,000 range. you can imagine that it does not have electric windows. that would free all of us out. -- freak all of us out. we are not only going to sell of market, but down market. i looked at a chevrolet design in the tech center yesterday's. we have a new chevrolet that, if you look at it, it looks like a bmw, only it is american.

we stacked all the cars in that sector up against a chevrolet. we asked people to take those cars and they did not know who made them. this car -- there are new cars coming, new models, that will put us in very good standing. >> you were paid a total of about $32 billion to the federal government. how much money does the government have to get back to break even and what stock price with a have to sell the remaining shares to break-even? >> they own 51% of the company. i just happen to know these numbers. 500 million shares multiplied

times 33, that is what they need to make. the previous break-even was about 41 or 42 -- $41 for $42 a share. have you given any advice to the government about how they can sell the other shares? >> no. it is a clear and bright line. the administration has been great about this. they do not involve themselves in the board room or the management or operation of the company. we had a shareholder meeting this summer. it was funny. there were four people there. the u.s. government, the canadian government, the healthtrust for the union, and motors liquidation corp. representing the bondholders.

if they do not like what the board is doing, they will remove them or parts of them. it is not our business and not our -- we have 1 million shares and only david would have 1 million shares of a particular stock. if you said you wanted to sell, i would tell you when you to sell and how much you will sell. it is not our role to tell the federal government anything. they are an owner is it is their decision when they want to sell. >> do they still determined celeries? is that a pro it? -- do they still determine salaries? is that appropriate? >> i am meeting with the special paymaster this all afternoon. it is not about me. we have to be competitive. we have to be able to attract

and retain great people. we have been able to do that. it is out of a commitment that may sound strange. we have been able to attract good people. we have been able to retain people, but we are starting to lose them. that is an issue for our shareholders to recognize that we should get some relaxation. >> when you were asked to join the general motors board, did the government know you were a republican? did they care? what impression did you take away from the general motors corp. when you joined the board? >> did you plant this? i would describe myself -- i say this with some pride -- as a colin powell republican.

[applause] there are not many of them left, i guess. [laughter] there are at least two. it sounds like there are more. i know john mccain. he happened to go to the naval academy. i consider him a friend, so i supported him. i have supported democrats as well. i think people who are right- thinking should be in our political community. i do not think that made a difference. >> what were your biggest impressions of the company? you had not been on the board before. what was the biggest surprise or shock you that when you joined the board?

>> too often too many things were done intuitively. you can do insightful, probing financial analysis. there was one report that brought up a request. the numbers we are talking about are large. we do $10 billion or $12 billion in sales a month. the development of a new eco- engine was in excess of $1 billion. we needed it. most of you in business would say, do you make it or do you buy its? can i get it from somewhere else? how many of you drive bmw's. bmw makes your transmission.

that german engineering is made in detroit. do you have to make everything. that was anathema to the gm culture. it is the gm way. culturally, that has to change over time, the sooner the better. it will not happen overnight. >> are your labor costs roughly the same as bmw or toyota in the united states? >> yes. they are the same. >> some of your predecessors -- have you talked about them -- talked to them about the stakes they may have made? have you got in some of their institutional memory? >> yes, i have. they are all fine gentlemen. i do not know if i was

criticized as much as it was observed, but i am not a car guy. i have been in other industries and seen other issues. as you know, we look at a lot of turn around and recapitalization. i am not sure i was totally witless. institutional knowledge is important. i still meet with a subset of the prior management on a regular basis. i want to know what others think. i may not accept it, but i want to know what outside, informed auto executives think about what we are doing. some of it is insightful for me. the more points of view i get, the more i am able to make better decisions.

i have gone to their homes. i have played a jeopardy with them on a location. not literally, but from an automobile perspective. i have been a beneficiary of their knowledge. >> what would you say your biggest three challenges aren't? what do you stay up at night worrying about the most? >> i worry about everything. it was funny. when i was on the floor and we just ran like dogs for weeks. a reporter told me i look like -- i looked like hell. i saw him in detroit and he said, you look better, but you do not look back to great. -- that great. i worry about the culture. cost positiona

going forward. a manager has to have integrity. i just put out a memo to all of north america saying there will be no salary increases. we will put a small contingency to the side. if we see issues where we are not competitive, we can address it. the structural cause of a 2% or 3% increase -- i cannot have that in a company that is in a cyclical industry. it is incredible how predictable encyclical this industry is over the last 100 years. been over the last 100 years. during the last recession, we said let's buy more of these defense industries that will be

as severely. in an up market, you look at cyclical companies. i do not get the opportunity to beat a portfolio manager. debt balance sheet. we had $26 billion in debt before the bankruptcy. we have less than $4 billion in debt today. we had a $26 billion -- $26 billion pension liability. we had cash on the balance sheet. we are looking at the pension liability now. we need to have a robust, fortressed balance sheet. people look at me like i am from mars now. we block predictable cash flows. we had that and we would pay the

debt down. this is a different game. we are paying -- we are playing football and not rugby. you have to fit the business model and analyze the problem much more than before. you look across this cost structure. we are going to have very pay for -- have variable pay for management. i meet with the union every six weeks. that may sound strange to some of my former business friends. i had the head of the uaw and the head -- uaw and the vice president on the balcony. i have invited them to be employee meetings. they are our business partners. i do not what a contentious

relationship with the union. told them in these meetings -- you heard a lot of noise same, aren't you going to get every dime back that you had to give up in the bankruptcy? their prosperity is tied to the company's prosperity. i have tried to --i go to one plant per month. it is so invigorating and a firming to walk through the plant and people are yelling at dan!"hety you cannot be trusted without giving trust. you cannot give or get credibility. i put it out on our website back there are no increases --

that there are no increases in base pay this year. i cannot think we can do it if we do not lead by example. the culture issue is about me. it is about the management team. it is about our relationship with the union. can we be trusted? we have got to invest. are we going to have the right products? what do we want to be remembered for? i am poly a little thin skinned. i work in private -- probably a little thin skinned. i worked in private equity. it was important that we have credibility in what we do. it extends into our products. what do we want to be remembered

as. when i look back to the bank management did coming out of world war ii, we had an oligopoly. people complain about government involvement in general motors. in 1960, they said we had too much market share and they had to bring us up. were they involved in the company then? " the view that -- or they and about in the company then? of course they were. when you go back and look at 1960 and they were giving away post-retirement health care and it was corrosive to the structural cost to the company. they gave these job banks in perpetuity. you say, who did bad?

they did it because there was no competition after the war. in asia, we were roaming the globe on a trade perspective. these guys just wanted to find peace. ford agreed with the labor contract that gm and chrysler negotiated as long as they did not get competitive advantage. they underestimated for equality and they were arrogant. i have had people coming to me saying, what about the labor agreement until 2025? i do not want to burden my successor with that type of decision. >> was successor. you are not leaving, but you are committed to do this until five years from now. >> yes. why did i want the chinese in this investment? if someone looks that from 2015

at 2010 and asked who was the person running the place then, i have the opportunity of having a lean market share and a dam -- a dynamic position in china. i have partnered with the north 1 manufacturer in china. i have been to china. i have met with them and this is a great partnership. one in three people on the -- live in two countries, china and india. i want that tie into china. i want that tie into asia. i think in some respects it would not be bad if we were considered global motors and

not general motors. >> what percentage of your stock is held by people outside of the united states now? >> about 8%. >> your market share in the united states is what? >> last year, we were 17.5%. >> the 13% is almost as many cars as you make in the united states. we make almost -- as anyone in the government call to thank you about getting $23 billion back in the coffers of the united states? >> they on a reasonably small amount. but, yes. [laughter] >> were they if use it? or just polite?

>>-- were they effusive or just polite. >> not as effusive as you are now. >> what was the best advice that somebody gave you when you became the ceo? >> probably not to take myself too seriously. this job -- everyone who showed up here last year probably would have filled that table. it is don't take yourself too seriously. >> we have time for some questions. speak up because you do not have a microphone.

>> i grew up in the early 1970's. it used to be a status symbol to drive a gm car and not a german car. listening to you, i hope that those days will come back again. and driving a gm car will make us all proud outside the u.s.. my question for you is, about six months ago, the ceo of fort talked about -- ford talked about how they are introducing this new technology to help the driver in the car. do you think back differentiates or is it building a good car structure? >> i think first and foremost you have to deliver core value in the basic value propositions.

a good car is reliable. it has great quality and it is durable. that is why we have made huge progress. the average residual, what is the car worth after three or five years? gm has increased from 500 to 900 basis points. we are comfortable with our competition. to get to your 1977 not story, we will get there. we have to be -- your 1970's that the non -- lebanon story, we will get there. it was kind of safety and security. people were crushed.

i said, i have fallen and i cannot get up. the automotive equivalent. we have so much potential. there are no external updates. believe it or not, if you are driving atm card, -- if you are driving a gm car, i can tell how much gas you have and how much it is in your tires if you have onstar. i used to have to fill all of my cars up and it was cold. by the way, is it warm in here? i got up this morning, it was 32 degrees. in detroit, it was 11 degrees. what we are going to do with onstar -- you saw social media.

we just loaded it into it. we do not want to encourage bad habits with distracted driving. you will be able to be digitized. for every gm car, you have a unique phone number. if your spouse or someone is running errands and you say, how can i get ahold of her? she never turns on the cell phone in the car. i could call the car and it would download to her and verbalized you are. we are going to try to conform for or -- 4 or 5 basic questions. we are working on that. we are working with focus groups so we can bring -- without distracting. we were driving out to annapolis

and were wondering what restaurant we could go to. if you have g.p.s., while the car is moving, you cannot punish it in for safety reasons. with onstar, you can say i want to go to a certain price rise in annapolis. she will download it for you. --a certain restaurant in annapolis. she will download it for you. we are going to start talking about safety. i do not want to change quality to commodity. we have gone to global product -- mobile platforms. a car that we build in -- global platforms. the quality of cars has risen dramatically. how do i differentiate?

styling. i take an active interest in all of our commercials. some of you have seen. i look at every one of them. i want to look at every design of every car. there are some things a ceo should do and some things you should stay out of. safety and telematics are the same thing in my mind. >> are we going to see you on television with any advertisement? >> you will never see me on television. going to something i said before, i want to have a hand in them. over thanksgiving you saw the falling down advertisement. we all fall down. [applause] that was a big risk for us. it just reminded people of the

bankruptcy. everyone has troubles in their life. to say that we made mistakes and we failed and that we appreciate it. we wanted to say thank you. i got letters and e-mail saying, i like this and you are humble. we should be humble. we did fail. you said thank you. why didn't the bank say thank you? why didn't a i.t., who got $150 ,illion, say -- i didn't aig who got $150 billion, say thank you? i am going to be about in the advertisements. >> time for another question. anybody else? last question. >> a question about corporate culture. [unintelligible] for a long time you had more

brands. was the near-death experience of eckersley enough -- the near- death experience of bankruptcy [unintelligible] >> i doubt it. we were in bankruptcy for 39 days. i do not think we did irreparable damage to the brand there is a segment of the population that use it as a bad storm that past. we went from four models to a models. in my office, i keep the front page, the cover of "fortune" magazine. they had oldsmobile, chevrolet. they were exactly the same.

i want brand identity. i want brand attributes and equity. we have what i call swim lanes. when your cars look exactly the same -- we always had gm cars. when we were not doing so well, we had pontiacs. i said, what is the difference? gm is not a brand. it is a holding company. chevrolet is a brand. cadillac is a brand. we have been swimming lanes that are broad enough to talk about attributes that are associated with styling, reliability, value. understated elegance is the buick. before, they were too closely bunched. we have to intellectualize the

marketing. it into your point, i said how many engine types do we have? we have 18 engine types. i am not a car man. but i was an engineer was. what is the difference -- but i was an engineer once. why do we have 1.4 and 1.5. then we have variants and turbo and gas and diesel. i have 1.4 and gas, diesel, terrible. you say, we have made it too complex. we have a plan to go from 18 down to a or nine. what do we do if oil goes to

$100 per barrel or $200 per barrel. the last time oil went to $140 per barrel, we were largely crossover driven. now we have the t-300, which is going to be another great small car. you have the cruze, which is going to be a grand slam home run. we have the volt. the lineup is pretty impressive over the next couple of years. you say to yourself, what do we do? right now, we have got to start -- it takes years to turn the ship around. you say, what do we do if it is $120 next year to? that is the question before the executive committee. i have a strong point of view on that and i do not want to influence. i want to get people to come to the right conclusion. we do have a plan.

it is not in final form, but it is getting pretty far on how we reposition the company for good times at mid cycle an up cycle. what if we have an up cycle and oil goes to $120 per barrel. what do we do? it is going to boil down not so much to style and design, but how do we drive the propulsion system? propulsion is a key system. we have hydrogen cars that are cool. i am in the rear. i say, let me put my face near the muscle or the exhaust. [laughter] it is water. it is just water coming out. but the car costs $500,000.

in the chemistry of