effective at reducing impaired driving and the crashes that result. we like to see states continue we like to see states continue with such efforts and we like to see law enforcement increase the use of alcohol sensing tools to help more officers deal with drivers who may be impaired. with respect to swift and certain consequences, adjudication must start immediately, from the confiscation of an impaired drivers license at the time of arrest through the license suspension process. additionally, the staff believes that suspension laws could be improved by requiring individuals arrested for dwi install interlocked as -- as eric ormet for license reinstatement. -- as a requirement for license reinstatement. as states establish more dwi courts, guidance from nitsa will be needed to outline the best practices of the courts.

next, technology can help to reduce impaired driving crashes. we believe that future in- vehicle pass about all detection systems such as dadss could one day reduce our call impaired driving. we believe we should work towards other with the development of this technology. all of the countermeasures we have discussed today are designed to work together to eliminate impaired crashes and fatalities. the largest circle you see here represents approximately 4 million individuals who currently drive impaired each year in the u.s.

lower bac laws, high-visibility enforcement, and passive detection systems are designed to have a broad deterrent effect that will keep people from choosing to drive after drinking in the first place. for those who continue to make that choice, revoking or suspending a driver's license at arrest, and requiring ignition interlock as a condition will make sure that it will not happen again. for the small population that these measures are not effective, targeting these individuals and dwi courts are some of the best ever to use we have to make sure that repeat offenders are rehabilitated. we believe if we implement these efforts, we will see a reduction in the number of people who

choose to drink and drive and we will eliminate all called -- eliminateving. alcohol impaired driving. finally, we believe that states need to improve their collection documentation and reporting of bac results. regarding the drunk driving problem, staff continues to be concerned and recognizes more needs to be done. this is why in november of last year we call upon nitsa to establish a standard practice for toxicology testing. we are also calling on law enforcement community to require the place of last drink data involved in all crashes.

these data also helped hold establishment and social hosts responsible when they serve obviously intoxicated and underage patrons who are then involved in a crash. finally, our ultimate goal is zero deaths, states need to set ambitious and measurable targets for reducing alcohol impaired driving and injuries and fatalities. more than half of the recommendations made in the state to report go to the states. strong leadership is needed at the state level to address this public threat to safety. this map shows states that have

low fatality rates in green, mid range fatality rates in the yellow and high rate fight out -- and high fatality rates in red. public safety needs to be a priority for all states. we are hopeful that as states reinvigorate their alcohol impaired driving efforts, this map will get greener and greener and we will one day reach our goal of zero deaths. >> here on c-span and c-span radio tonight, we are looking at the issue of whether drunk driving laws should be changed. we are showing you part of the meeting from two lisa go. -- two weeks ago. among the recommendations was changing the current state level to .05 from .08. we will show you more from that meeting in just a moment as well as part of a conversation with the chair. in 20 minutes, we will invite you with your phone calls and facebook comments and tweets

where you can use #reachingzero. the ntsb is using that as well. we will take you back to the meeting. robert, who asked the staff why they decided on the .05 number. a recommendation. one of 20 recommendations or so made to the state. here is part of that conversation. >> slide 17. >> you notice if we go from .08, a crash rate of .69. .05, percentage wise, it a 48%

- it is a48% reduction in crash risk, 48% reduction in crash risk, which is highly significant. that is not just moving it down, but moving the crash risk 48%. i could be wrong, but that is actually right. let's go to slide 19. slide 19, the second bullet point shows lowering it from .08 to .05 in one country, they found an 18% reduction in fatal crashes. if you apply that to the numbers here in this country, that is anywhere from 800 to 1800 lives saved every year.

that is highly significant. i am curious that we, and i am through with that slide. why did we go to .05? and not lower? i know commercial drivers are .04. as a former pilot, i know the federal aviation regulations call for .04 bac. why do we go with .05 and not .04? >> you are right. commercial drivers are at .04. we would start with our recommendation in remembering that our proposed recommendation included 0.5 or lower. one of the reasons we chose .05

is that is the reduction from research in the number of fatalities. our focus was on how can we reduce the number of fatalities. we have research. when we look at countries around the world that had pay bac below -- that had a bac below .08, the most frequent number is .05. we thought we would be very consistent with that. it is one of our pieces of evidence. .05 also represents a clear place where the risk is increased by 38%. that is why we chose it for the numbers that we used for the research supported the .05 and the rest of the world is primarily on .05. >> on c-span tonight, the conversation is on whether drunk driving laws should be changed.

in 15 minutes, we will open up powerful minds and get your thoughts on the issue. after two weeks ago, the national transportation safety board made the recommendation that states in the district of columbia changed their laws from the .08 current level to .05. every year, nearly 10,000 people die in drunken related incidents on the highway. in 2011, here is a look at the fatalities. compared with accidents in other transportation, marine accidents, 800. 759 in rail accidents. 494 in aviation accidents. we will hear from milwaukee county on that region and how

they are dealing with the issue of drunk driving. next up, the chairman asked the staff the real world impact if states were to change the law and some cash and some of the -- and some of the other recommendations made by ntsb.d tsp.-- by the >> i think this is one of the big questions we will face as an organization, understanding what constitutes current legal leg -- legal limits. we have talked about high bac, what that means. these are terms we use to describe things, but when we try to connect this to actual behavior, what are we talking about? what are we asking people to do >> we are asking people to think

peoplewhat are we asking to do? >> we are asking people to think ahead when they use alcohol. that is critical. if they go out to drink, that is fine. we want them to think ahead about how to be safe on the roads. it seems like a simple problem. it is. it takes a change in the way we think about this issue. this is it can affect that change in our culture. >> have not have this campaign that have gone on for decades?-- haven't we had this campaign that can go on for decades that what is different about what we're doing? we look for that for decades. does not been as effective as it

should be. we need to do other things. what are in looking at it to have an impact on that behavior? >> the changes that happened in the 80's in the previous reductions did cause a change. they did cause a change in the way we think about this behavior. it is exemplified in the aaa survey. people do think it is inappropriate. some people are still doing it. we need to go further and think harder about what meaning to do to change it even further. with thompson thousand people dying every year the message has not got -- with 10,000 people dying every year the message has not gotten through. we need to take the next step. if we move toward lowering the bac, we not only will know it will cause reduction in crash risks, it will leave people driving safer. it will also send a message in social circles it is not appropriate to do.

>> i understand that. we are still asking for a lowering of the bac. .05, .08, these are numbers on a scale. what do they mean to individuals, to the people who are serving? we talked about educating people at establishments that serve people. what are we asking individuals to be thinking about, if we are telling them, have a plan, that is true. we want them to have a plan. if you have a drink, wait a couple of hours. part of that is understanding how many drinks can you have and how long do you need to wait. >> one thing we know is the amount of drinks it takes to make a person reach .05 is based on a lot of factors. it varies based on gender, based on weight, based on how quickly they are drinking, and the potency of those drinks. we also know the safest thing is to simply not drive after

drinking. we know the risks do begin and there are impairments beginning with the first drink. for an average sized person, they can still consume a drink before they get to .05. a person of my size, i can go out and get a glass of wine with dinner. it is safer not to do that, but i know based on looking at information available that i can have one glass of wine. >> we are looking at the national transportation safety board recommendations on drunk driving, in particular, the recommendation they made that states in the district of columbia changed their laws, reducing the blood alcohol content, the legally drunk

content, from .08 to .05. it was one of the recommendations they made. in about 10 minutes, we will give you a chance to weigh in on the issue, your thoughts on that. we will open up our phone lines and take a look at twitter. #reaching zero. we are conducting a poll on facebook.com/c-span, asking you which you prefer, the current level or the ntsb recommended level. so far, the recommendations are 56 in favor of the current level, and 24 for changing it. the chairman, deborah, joined us on washington journal to further explain some of the recommendations. >> how someone is impaired. we look at a .05 blood alcohol

level. what do they know about driving safely? >> that is a great question. that is why we made our recommendation. there is a general agreement about impairment. you have delayed response times. you are not doing so well tracking objects. there is a scientific basis. and laboratory tests that you're 38% more likely to be involved in a crash at .05 than if you're sober. we think that's a really good indicator of where the risk lies and to go from .05 and below. 100 other countries around the world have already done this. gone from .05 or lower. some of them are .0 or .02 or

.03. host: let's go to the phones and hear from michael in south carolina, democrats lune. hi michael. caller: my comment is this. in an era where we are fighting and taking over our personal liberties and freedoms, it seems kind of ludicrous that we trying to take away another freedom on pools and another on the public. wouldn't you think it would be smarter to create some more transportation or some methods of transporting people from one area to another rather than criminalize more americans? it's like we're become criminalizing more americans and we have the immigration war going on now. it seem like americans are losing more. guest: michael raises a

question about freedoms i think that there's a very important distinction. americans absolutely have the right to consume alcohol. what we want to be clear on is the majority of the population, the vast majority of the population believes that impaired driving is a problem. they do not want to be on the road with a drunk driver. we are investigating a number of wrong-way driving crashes. in december we issued a report, a majority of high speed crashes where drivers going wrong way and hit another car, they involve impaired drivers. those are the risks out there when we face impaired driving. it certainly is anybody's right to have drinks, to have one, two, three, have 15, just don't drive after you've been doing that. separate the drinking from driving.

michael did raise a good point about making sure you have a plan. what we want to do make sure when people go out, if they're planning on drinking, have a plan. have a designate driver in your group. know if there's a free ride program in your community that you can call. be able to take a taxi and many establishments really do want to make sure the patrons get home. host: tony tweets, isn't distracted driving texting and phoning a greater threat than .05 alcohol level? guest: it's interesting tony raises that issue. one of the hot button points has been texting or talking on the phone behind the wheel. the ntsb over a year in a half ago, we came out with recommendations to the 50 states asking them to ban hand held or hands freeportable electronic devices behind the wheel. we now have 40 states who have prohibited texting while

driving. we have about a dozen who are at the hands free only. we don't have any states who completely out right followed our recommendation for the ban on all portable electronic devices. it's a huge area of concern. the numbers we have on distracted caused accident doesn't reach the numbers we see on impaired driving. one out of three people killed in highway crashes is involved with an impaired driving crash. host: in 2011 the number of drunk driving deaths is 9878 -- 9878. let's go to holly in new york. caller: hello. i have a question, i just don't understand the extent of

lowering it from .08 to .05 what you would end up gaining from that. also i thought when you change it from .10 to .08, this was all your logic to begin with. now you're doing it again. guest: one of the things that we know we've seen great improvements in the impaired driving fatality numbers since let's say 1982 where we saw 25,000 people killed every year in impaired driving related crashes. when those original laws began being passed in 1983 and over the next several decades the rest of the states in the u.s. followed. we also saw the drinking age raised to 21 and a number of these interventions and these

measures, the work of different groups like madd, really raised this issue on a public conscience. lot of public campaigns about not drinking and driving. we did see progress. we saw 25,000 fatalities in 1982 and about three decades later we're looking at 10,000 fatalities year. we did have a reduction. we are not comfortable saying we want to wait another 30 years before we see any improvement. we believe that has happened in the past, if you take these interventions including reducing the blood alcohol limit, you will see a reduction in deaths and fatalities. that's what we saw in the u.s. when we went from .10 to .08. that's what we're seeing in europe and australia when they

went from .08 to .05. in 2000, europe established a goal to have their impaired driving fatalities within 10 years. they achieved that goal. they reduced their fatalities by 53% and it went from 6000 per year to about 3000 per year e.u. wide. when you compare the u.s.'s numbers, we both have over 30,000 fatalities total and 10,000 in the u.s. are compared driving related. impaired driving related in europe. alcohol consumption is similar. they figured out to separate the drinking and driving. host: the executive summary said the u.s. drunk driving has plateaued. nearly one in three of all highway deaths still involves an alcohol impaired driver. kevin tweets in and ask, how

many fatalities occur do the driver and content between .05 and that .08 number? guest: that number is challenging for us. because you're not the legal limit. for the people who has been tested and only about 50% of the people have been tested for the positive test that we've seen between .05 and .08 estimated to be about 500 to 800 lives annually. host: carl is a republican. caller: i have a problem with the government taking over and controlling people's lives. i don't even drink. however i know if there's an accident, you got to have the blood alcohol content of these accidents. i want to know how many accidents and how many fatal

accident have happened with people under the level of .08? that's really all i had to say. you can answer that. host: are you still with us? deborah hersman gave us some of those numbers. tell us more about what you think this will be an infringement. caller: depending on who the person is you can have one drink and be over the limit. let's say you're on your way home and you happen to hit one of those pit stops. for me it probably wouldn't be a .05 i'm a big guy. for my wife who is only 5'2" and weighs 100 pounds, she may have one drink with me. let's say she's driving and we stop and she blows .06 and she's not drunk. what you end up doing, you take people who are honest law- abiding people and you're turning them into criminals.

that is my whole point. guest: i think carl, it's interesting you talk about you actually don't drink. what the statistic show about 25% of the population are alcohol abstainers and they don't drink. about 50% of the u.s. population are considered low risk drinkers. another 10% are alcoholics and 15% are high risk drinkers which they have problems with binge drinking. it is interesting with the break down. we have people that want to address and people who may not able to separate drinking from driving. they need more intervention. we have the other category, of course it's 25% who don't drink at all.

this is really not going to be imposition on them. the 50% who might be the low risk drinkers who drink occasionally and may not have problems with alcohol, when you go out and it's your wife, alcohol affects different people in different ways. for her one drink may get her to .05. if that's the case, spend a little time after dinner on either having dessert, having a good conversation together, going to a movie. she won't be at that level. or since you're the one who doesn't drink, since you abstain, you may be always want to be the designated driver and be responsible for that. at the end of the day, yes your wife will be impacted she was caught at the check point but it would be even worse for her to spend the next few decades of her life and your time together in prison because she killed somebody in an impaired driving accident. this will affect your family's life but the other family who was affected by the crash too.

we see this 10,000 times a year, 10,000 fatalities year after year. we don't want to see those. as a country, we have to figure out do we want to do more and if so, what do we want to do? >> all of that conversation with deborah herdsman is on c- span.org. we are looking at the issue of changing drunk driving laws in the u.s. base on a meeting a couple of weeks ago. we will open up the phone lines for your thoughts on the issue. here is how we are breaking up the phone lines down this evening --

we want to hear your stories. we are also on twitter and are using the #reachingzero and on facebook, facebook.com/c-span. a different question for you. we are asking in a poll what you think the level should be the current level. the current rate or the recommended level. here is how it stands so far on facebook page. 51 say keep it the same and 29 voting to change it. among those recommendations, the ntsb would change the blood alcohol content level from .08 to .05 or lower. they would develop and deploy in vehicle detection technology.

it calls on states to require ignition interlock for all offenders, improve the use of administrative license action, and target repeated offenders. they reinforce the use and effectiveness of dwi courts in the state and establish measurable goals for reducing drunk driving and track progress toward those goals. our question for you is, in particular, the .08 to .05 change. good evening. go ahead. >> good evening. my name is sandy. i am calling because i believe we are not looking at the right ways of changing the drunk driving. i believe we should look at this on the level of impairment. you throw alcoholics into jail

rather than treating them as if they have a disease. it is a different level of bac, different impairments should be really looked at in this country. >> what do you do about people who are caught at .08 or .05? what is the level where it should be set in connecticut? caller: in connecticut, it is .08. if there was an accident or somebody hurt, just a traffic stop, you have to look at it case-by-case in different situations. my question to you is will there be any changes in that? will they look at alcoholism as a disease rather than the rest of somebody's life?

>> it is a recommendation body in this regard. they make recommendations for changes and transportation policy. mike in wisconsin. good evening. go ahead. caller: i think .08 is ok. my area of wisconsin takes drunk driving seriously. i see the same people. >> what sort of place do you work in? caller: my parents own a bar and that is the reason i am calling from that aspect of it. >> in terms of how you are trained to deal with folks who have had a couple more than two or three, what do you do? caller: [indiscernible] i look for signs of people being drunk.

there is a free taxi in our community. they are offered to people so they can take a cab home. the college problem is a big problem in the community. the kids get drunk, fall in the river, get into car accidents. we put in place a free bus ride for the students to get home. [indiscernible] i think it is pretty much the same everywhere in wisconsin. you go through and get an evaluation to see if you are considered an alcoholic. >> we will hear from the sheriff in milwaukee county in a few minutes. mike mentioned college students being drinking. in the new york times today, they took a look at the issue of drunk drivers with this headline

and the chart shows between the ages of 18 and 26, even a small amount of alcohol increases rapidly the probability of a young person between those ages being involved in some sort of fatality, a traffic fatality. st. petersburg, florida, on the line. good evening. caller: my main concern is if you get arrested for drunk driving and you have to get the breathalyzer for your car, i know alcohol affects different people differently. i wonder why there is not a breathalyzer available to the public to let yourself know exactly what your blood alcohol level is. if i was curious and found out i was illegal, i would definitely call a cab. i do not want to lose my license. there is no way of me knowing that for sure. >> you would like it has a factory-available option, for lack of a better term? caller: not necessarily that you needed to start your car, but that would be nice. just something reliable the government puts out there that is trustworthy.

there is different stuff you use. it would be nice to have a meter that monitors and you know you are impaired and you say, i will not drive. >> let's go to delaware. maria, where are you calling for from? go ahead. caller: as a mother of a son who was served alcohol in a local tavern here, and attempted to walk across the highway and was killed, i would like to see the laws making available to the bars, and over serving adults of age. i look in delaware and there are no laws. they've protect the residence for adults and underage children. there is no liability there.

that would be better than lowering a few points in the percentage. >> we are looking at the issue of recommendations on changing drunk driving laws across the country, in particular, the changing of the blood alcohol level from .08 to .05. on twitter -- brian says -- paul is next in louisiana. hello. caller: the question was asked a

few callers ago. they made their recommendations. they are incomplete. do you have any to test x-acto statistics? how many alcohol-related incidents are in that range and how many stops do they have now between .05 and .08? we do not have any proof good or bad otherwise. is it really too late? the numbers show people are driving at 108 and killing people? if they did, they will find people are involved in alcohol- related incidents. >> you can take a look at the website. but go to paul in nantucket, massachusetts.

what do you do? caller: i am a waiter. a lot of rich people take the cab. i had to prove i was not over the limit of alcohol. i was put at .15. my effort here is to understand, ok, they are trying to solve something on paper. they tried to have zero deaths, which they can never really a tribute to anyone, what is in

their system, but ideally, it is the vehicle and the actual concentration of the person driving, causing a lot of these deaths. >> to be clear, you said you blew over .15. caller: i blew .13. right now, it is impaired driving, everyone throws out the word buzzed driving. there should be different consequences. there should not be drunk driving solutions in the courts because these people happen to be having something in their system. it is not necessarily budgeting themtributing to

not being able to handle the vehicle. a lot of the times, especially when police officers are trying to get more control over society, all this will do is increase that. say you had a drink, you are doomed. >> what do they pull you over for? if i can ask you? were you at a traffic stop? a plan thing? did they notice behavior on your part? caller: it was just, i was driving by. there were two police officers there who tailed me and i tried to hoop, scoot, and boogie. i got back in my car and handle the consequences. >> thank you for calling in. we want to get to as many calls as we can. we want to bring you a conversation we had earlier today with the sheriff of milwaukee county about how they are handing things in the milwaukee area. >> joining us tonight is david clark, who has been on the police force since 1978, sheriff since 2002.

how bad is the drunk driving program in milwaukee? >> it is problematic nationwide. it kills over 10,000 people a year. every state is struggling with it in some way, shape, or form. we have had 610 arrests so far in 2013, through may, and, to give you an example, at this time last year, we only had 315. we merely doubled the limit. doubling a lot of people we arrested for impaired driving. >> what do you think is behind the numbers? >> in wisconsin, we have a couple of things working against us. wisconsin the only state in the nation that does not criminalize the first offense of drunk driving. in your first offense, you get

arrested, but you get a ticket. you pay a fine and that is the end of it. 49 states, it is a criminal misdemeanor. to drive impaired or to drive drunk. what we are having a problem with in the state of wisconsin, and every state is unique, the problem we are having is with repeat offenders. in 2010, with more stringent laws going into effect for repeat drunk drivers, we arrested 970 people for the second or more offense drunk driving. eight offense, nine offense, the same driver arrested 8, 9, 10 times. the sentencing policies are pretty lenient when it comes to drunk driving. >> based on the numbers, what was your reaction in the suggestion, the alcohol level lower from .08 to .05.

there are two things i try to go into a problem. are we working smart and are we going to the right thing? we talk about the prohibited alcohol content 2.05 -- two -- to .05, it took a lot of states to come with that. i am basing what we do on my opinions and analysis of what the data shows. the average prohibited alcohol content is .16, nearly twice the limit. the average driver we are arresting is nowhere near the .08.

most people are drawn to the extent they are basically driving blind. it is easy to notice that when a citizen is behind and i call 911 and say, i think i am following and impaired drunk driver. one of my deputies comes up on someone on the freeway, they are weaving all over the road, they speed up and slow down, it is very obvious. from what i understand of the research at .05, people can basically function. we are talking about a social drinker, at least with the article i read, a woman of average size, one drink probably liquor, would put them at about somewhere in the area of .05, for an average sized man, two rings would put them at about 0.5. people drink responsibly. what they are suggesting is criminalizing an entirely new class of people we have been telling all along, have one or

two or you will be fined, because that is what the research shows, now we will tell them you are a criminal. i find it problematic because it does not hit the sweet spot of where we need to be, at least in wisconsin. if the person who goes out and way overindulges in consuming alcohol and gets behind the wheel, in order to find somebody at .05, what the ntsb would be asking law enforcement to do, and i know i have not asked for this, and i would like to speak for my fellow in -- fellow law enforcement, i did not ask for this. what ntsb would be asking law enforcement to do is to basically set up sobriety checkpoints and without any reasonable suspicion, ask them to submit a breath sample into our handheld breathalyzers to give a sample to see if and how much alcohol they consume.

that is the only way you will find somebody at a .05. i find that problematic from a civil liberties perspective, but also because it is not where the heart of the problem is as it relates to drunk driving. >> your reaction and the reaction of your colleagues, is it emblematic of how the proposal is being viewed by other police departments across the country? >> this has been recently proposed. there will be a conference coming up and i'm sure this will be on the agenda. i wonder if the ntsb is doing an analysis on this. you are going to arrest people, a social drinker or a responsible consumer of alcohol who may be driving, additional court costs, incarceration fees, tying up law enforcement officers, for a person who, according to the research, one

or two drinks. i will not speak for my fellow law enforcement executives, but i believe many of them would find this problematic because, with our arrests, if the average is .16, nearly twice the legal limit, we are not stopping anybody who is at a .06 or 504. that is rare because they do not exhibit the type of behavior somebody does who has really over consumed. >> an update from milwaukee area thank you for joining us this evening. >> you are very welcome. >> we continue with our conversation. the drunk driving law is changed. we stay in wisconsin. mike is a substance abuse counselor.

caller: how are you? >> fine, thanks. caller: i did not get to hear the sheriff speak. doing an assessment in the state of wisconsin for the last six years, one of the things we live by our experience. it suggests it is safe. some of the numbers not reported is 315 millions americans travel annually in 200 million vehicles. 65% are the drivers. 17% are the passengers. 18% are non-occupants of the vehicle. 300,000 impaired driving episodes. 1200 million episodes annually. the number is very small. the national highway of transportation safety, just because i'll call is a factor, factor,ol is a

it is not necessarily a cause. -- alcohol is a factor, it is not necessarily a cause. look at all circumstances of the case, and not just lump people together at say they are criminals. i have yet to deal with somebody who is criminal in my program assessor. most of the people, other scars, other cars, they are invested in the community. they are good, solid citizens. they just socialize at bars and happen to drink. >> how many times do you see a repeat offender? -- >> how many times do you see a repeat offender? caller: 30%. you are only a first time offender once. there is a difference between repeating the offense and getting caught multiple times.

you do it one time and nothing happens and do it another time and nothing happens. the last number was 87 episodes of impaired driving before something happens. >> thank you for sharing your experience. let's get a couple more calls. clyde is in utah. caller: i would like to get on his coattails because i think he has great ideas. a lot of statistics. my opinion is this. if we truly want to stop it, i am coming from the other side of the coin. i am a felony and dui offender. i did not hurt anybody, never killed anybody, never had accidents. my life has been changed drastically because now i am a criminal. i cannot work for the state, i cannot work for any federal government, i cannot have a handgun, i cannot hunt, etc. >> how many offenses? caller: three in 10 years. i am not sure if it is nationwide. it is similar, in other states.

>> thank you for checking in with us this evening. let's go to cape may, new jersey. steve, go ahead. caller: how are you doing? my name is steve and i am calling from cape may. in this day and age, we should have contractions in the newer cars or even the older cars, especially for repeat offenders, to where they can get into their car and they have to blow into a contraption and the car just will not start if they are under the influence. >> a number of states do recommend. i am combing through to see new jersey. they do have mandatory, some of that mandatory equipment on some level in new jersey. let's get at least one more call. nicole in fort lauderdale. hi. caller: i am a server in a restaurant.

i also teach a course to servers called safe alcohol that talks about laws and the responsibility of the server being personally responsible if we serve someone to the point of intoxication. the thing about lowering the level to .05 is that puts great responsibility on us as servers and bartenders that if we serve someone who has had one or two drinks and then we have to cut them off, they could still be over the legal limit, and if they do go out and hurt someone, that could come back to us. honestly, serving one or two drinks i feel is not excessive. we, as servers, should not be

held responsible or criminalized for that if a third party gets hurt, we could be sued. >> imagine a course you went through. youou mentioned this course went through. what is your responsibility now? you serve somebody two or three drinks. what are you supposed to do? caller: basically, if we are serving someone to the point where we feel they are moving into intoxication, we are supposed to stop the service immediately -- >> i think i lost you there. let's get a couple more here. gerald is in michigan. go ahead. caller: good evening. there are some points i thought of interest.

there are wonderful things to say as far as the impacts of people and how they go about trying to enforce this. also, in my own personal belief, i'm a person that doing so one time in my life, but no longer drinks. the monetary value to the -- there has been quite a machine that has been created on the guys of drinking and guise of drinking and driving and stopping it. because of life lost the alcohol-related incident, that is too many. >> let's go to to make in albany, indiana. nick in albini, indiana.

what he wanted, don? caller: i appreciate you taking my call. back to roll my ddr several times. the two statistics were not adding up. the statistics were not adding up. if youd they only -- double that to get 100%, that -- they're trying to cut it. that does not add up. it would be futile it that the -- if that is a gold they want to make. -- goal they want to make. it is a -- and intolerance

issue. will they make a case-by-case? which they should. the full --like nicole felt. is more sponsored bill you for the people you are serving -- more responsibility for the people you are serving. howy success is based on old establishment does as far as bar sales go. there are some that just might be making it, but it won't. there goes a lot of jobs. the madden chairpersons numbers do not add up or make sense. >> thank you for your calls this evening. a reminder if you missed the conversation or the meeting with

recommendations, all of that is at our video library at c-span.org. one of the proposals is to tonge the bac level from .08 .05. 74 people say to keep it the same and 34 people suggesting that the ntsb level is the preferred level. you can cast your vote on our facebook page at facebook.com/c- span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] alternativeson on to traditional transportation. .> welcome to a discussion today were discussing personal

mobility. a few decades ago if you do not have a car or there wasn't a bus nearby, you would have to stick your thumb out on the side of the road. today you can open a smart phone app and find a ride across town or across the country. if you want to drive, you can do that as well. over the next hour, we'll discuss the transportation for the economy with a live audience here at the commonwealth club in san francisco. we are pleased to have with us for people at the forefront of innovation. we had the ceo of city car share. sharing company and seven cisco. ofalso have the codirector the transportation sustainability and research center at uc berkeley. the head of public policy at -- please open them to climate one.

-- welcome them to climate one. [applause] tell me how you got into this car sharing economy. how you got into this new area quite some time ago. >> i have in searching for 17 years. it seems likea long time. i thought it made tremendous michael,ter i read and i heard his lecture and said, this is my dissertation topic. i was challenged by my committee, who said there is no way americans would give up their cars. i thought there might be a chance. i never looked back. >> you wanted to prove your dissertation committee wrong.

>> yes. >> you were an investor and you had an incarnation with another company -- tell us you got into the sharing economy and the ride sharing? >> actually, my story begins back in 1997, believe it or not. i just mosted to san francisco. me and my wife had one car between us. one day as i was waiting to be picked up, i had an epiphany. i thought i had an idea, i need another car. but some day my phone will know where i'm at. i started thinking, some day we're going to rethink transportation around this idea. it led me to work through the ideas. ran into the founders of city car share. here's another example of rethinking transportation.

i was on the baurd of city car share for a number of years. i taught at the university. the students created get around. we have a law passed in california of car sharing. my interest in this category has been around for a long time. i think ride sharing, which is what side car does. we're able to expand this rapidly and aggressively around the world. >> rick, how did you get into this space of ride sharing? you're non-profit. >> ride sharing was started back in the late 1990's. we're about 12 years old. i'm a reformed banker. i made my way out here, did a couple of start-ups and ran into people like sunil who was doing

amazing things in the environmental space and around innovation and technology. city car share lost its executive director and after a little dance, i decided to join and the rest is history. it has been seven years. >> we'll get more into ride sharing. how did you come to the ride sharing and car sharing? >> i was outside council to naurm of the high-flying companies. i also represented other companies. in 2010, i was working with a company and grew close earn close we are the founders. i saw the vision. in what they were doing over last couple of years.

i came on full time three months ago for legal and public policy matters. >> great. let's get the bask terms -- basic. can you outline for us ride sharing, car sharing and then we can get how it is changing the way people get around the world. >> it is fairly simple. it is the shared use of a vehicle. >> we need to put your mic on. >> it is a shared vehicle by a group of members. they frequently pay an annual fee, monthly fee and pay by the hour and in some case, by mileage. there's a couple of new flavors of car sharing that you heard mentioned. one is the peer-to-peer concept. that is the idea of people putting their own personal vehicles into this car sharing.

we're seeing a new form called one-way. companies like bmw are operating here in the city. that's a one-way model. in rick's model, which is more classic, individuals go into and out of the same location for their access to the vehicle. with one way, you actually can pick the vehicle from one location to another. so there's a lot of tremendous innovation in the car sharing space right now. there's a lot of confusion about definitions and impacts.

it's causing some flurry of activity here, actually in san francisco. in terms of ride sharing, there's a couple of different flavors of that. it starts with the simple, a family sharing a vehicle, taking children to and from school, maybe with the neighbors. it also moves into more of a classic car pooling situation where people are sharing a vehicle that they car pool in for work trips or more regular trips. there's longer incidents tants trips. we're starting to see a tremendous amount of innovation in, which is represented in -- by my colleagues here which is the ride sharing. very dynamic and instant. so what we're seeing, in my opinion, is the growth and development of the shared usele mobility space. we don't know how it is going to shake out. we have a lot of work ahead in the public policy arena. >> so the concepts have been around for a long time. you go into the airport, share a van. why is this happening now?

is it technology, hard economic times? what is driving it? >> i think there's three things that have changed. i actually looked at doing something like this in 1999. i decided not to for three reasons, all of which has changed. technology, that is changed. smartphones, there's been smartphones for a long time. what has changed is you can have access to them without convincing a big, huge company to cooperate with you. you can publish it to the itunes store and many more are coming. there's interest on the part of every day people in new forms of transportation. i think this is -- we have more willingness to experiment with transportation than any time since world war ii.

since that time we accepted that is going be the mobile of the rare. >> owning the automobile. >> yes, the car that you own. because of climate change, things like energying suggest -- security, there's a willingness to try new things. third thing is there's political will to try new things, for the same thing of climate change and energy security. there's a political will to experiment. i mean, a quick andy dote. when i was advocating for the company, i was sent into a republican's office, i shouldn't

say publicly why i was sent in. >> would that change the way insurance is handled? >> the insurance companies could have killed this bill. i was told with a single phone call. i was told these republicans were, you know, very minimal to the interests of the insurance companies. i met with a staffer, i was prepared for all my arguments and the first words out of her mouth, this is the future and the insurance companies need to get on board. to me, there's an indication there is a willingness to try new things in transportation, there's a willingness to accept the smartphone and technology is the wave of the future. we are going to reorganize our entire society around this and transportation is one of those things. we've done it with media, shopping, eastern things. transportation is the next big category to be transformed. one person at google, in five years your car will be your smartphone. does what does that mean? does that mean self-driving cars? more displays in the car? what does that mean? >> when we say that we're talking about today, when you

want to do anything in modern life, if you want food from the grocery store, get to work, you want to go out of an date, everything is mediated by the automobile. now, everything is going to be mediated by your smartphone. you can get the mobility that you need, whether it is going grocery shopping, going out on dates, getting to work, all of that will be possible through your smartphone. >> let's talk about the size of this market. do we know how big this market is? there's lots of companies, that are pretty small. do we know how big it is?

>> yes. this is what i do. [laughter] i track these numbers for the industry. that's why you invited me. i have not shared this with the media yet. we did our data collection for january 2013. north america has surpassed the million mark for car sharing members, that includes mexico, quite small, one program and canada and u.s. the u.s.

is about 820,000 members. >> car sharing our car riding? >> car sharing. >> that is tremendous growth, right? >> it has been growing. since we've started our tracking efforts in the late 1990's, we've never seen a decline. we've seen ongoing growth. i do think this product or service could scale much bigger than what with see today. my concern is how do we look at this from a public policy stand foint grow those numbers bigger? i'm very interested in the question of scale ability now i used to be interested in how is this going to impact society and environment? >> who are those people? are they people who live in urban areas, people under 40 who live in urban air zpwhrass-- areas. >> those are the common demographics. i think there's chances to grow beyond that in the business models and changes in the overall approach. i think everyone on this panel

represents that change. >> then what are the impacts of that change on existing businesses, car company, we talked about insurance companies? are the car companies going to sell fewer cars? >> they could sell more cars if they put them into car sharing systems. we see a number of automakers who are interested in providing these services. they mentioned bmw, they are putting electric vehicles throughout. they could be a service provider as well as a vehicle provider. there's an opportunity for them to develop a new core competency in their business. ultimately, there might be an impact on the total size of vehicles. we're looking at a changing world where people are moving into urban areas. there is limited space. we're facing climate change and energy issues that are going to impact the future. i think the role of the automobile is changing. >> bill was here from ford company and he said car sharing

is going to happen whether we like it or not. is this going to reduce vehicle miles traveled? or people are going to be moving around more because it is easier to do? >> that is an excellent question. i think there is this potential paradox as you make things more efficient people use them more. i do think in case of what we're doing, specifically with ride sharing, there's an opportunity to reduce emissions and reduce congestion. it has to do with the way that we do it. passengers must enter their destination and drivers can see what that destination is.

we like to say the good of the nation requires destination. that is -- basically conveying if you can make the ride shared then you can have reductions in emissions, you can have reductions in congestion. if you can't have that kind of sharing you're not going to get those benefits. >> is this someone commuting from san francisco to the east bay? is this the daily routine? if this is someone going down the 101 and wants to get into the car pool lane? >> we have a number of different people. we have a platform so people can indicate here is where i am and this is where i want to go. drivers can see where the pick up and destination is. if that is convent for them they will accept it. we have a guy in our system named nick, he works in mountain

view, he lives in the city. he turns on the app in the morning, he looks for somebody going south and they drop him off and he goes on to his job. that is one case. there are other times people turn it on to get out of the house and give rides to people because they like meeting people and it is a way to make extra money to offset their car costs. >> i take that as motivation for lists that have the distinctive banner -- >> the car stashs. >> is it the extra money that is a big motivater? >> i think there are a number of motivaters. one is the opportunity to make a little extra to offset your car costs. i think people believe in the long-term vision of the company, which would have an effect in miles traveled and greenhouse

gas and emission reduction as well. >> how does that work? if i hop in and that car might be sitting in the garage, i might have taken a taxi and the taxi would be out there driving around. it could increase the greenhouse. >> that's a great question. this is something we've talked a lot about with susan in the past. i believe, officially with car sharing that was the problem. you had vehicles available to people who were did not have vehicles available. you are putting more cars on the road but which n the long term, you're having an overall positive benefit. that is our long-term vision as well.

>> would that happen, susan? >> yes. a lot of times the early adopters of car sharing in a city are people who never had access to a car. it is not surprising tow see an increase in miles traveled. the real gain is reduction for the miles traveled is to get people to sell cars or postpone car purchases. one of our studies revealed that impact and what it displaces in carbon and vehicles and miles traveled. >> in the bay area, we're ground central for car sharing, peer- to-peer sharing.

there's more companies offering services to allow people not to have to own a car, or to get rid of a car. we've been experiencing that for years. 2/3 of our members say they have sold the car or delayed buying a car once they join us. a study done back in the early 2006, it is the only longitude study that i know of and it shows cars take off the road. it showed that a greener ride could have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. based on the report and work that susan shaheen has done, we saved about 80 million pounds of co2 emissions. 80,000 fewer miles are driven on bay area roads. you asked a question about growth. there has been tremendous growth. when i joined in 2005, i had a number of 3205. last year, we issued number 40,000. there's been tremendous growth in car sharing.

every single one those members is likely to have gotten rid of a car, not buying a car, or is thinking about getting rid of another car. you have reduction in greenhouse gas emissions but in all the co2 that is released in the production of those vehicles

that would have been purchased. >> you claim your non-profit car sharing service is greener than four car sharing services. how? >> i'm using information that came out of a study back in 2008 that showed non-profit car sharing organizations do save more greenhouse gas emissions. what is the reason for that? i think there are several reasons and the main one is we have the greenest fleet in the industry. 45% of our cars are hybrid or electric vehicles. when we look at -- just based on e.p.a. standards, our fleet is about 35%-40% more fuel efficient than the standard car on the road today. >> i would say the former car share member i drove around -- i

wouldn't buy those car bus drie around in. is that true that for profit companies are looking to maximize their profit? >> what i would say is the data showed for profit and non-profit had a negative effect of redoesing co2 emissions or a positive effect for the environment. we did see that this effect was higher for the non-profits. i have another hypothesis for the dynamics of the fleet. i also think the pricing of how city car share prices have an impact. they do charge by mile. i think that has an impact on the total number of miles driven by a city car share vehicle. it is contained more inside the

pricing of a for profit company. does that make sense? >> sure. >> for relay rides and theers models where people are using their own car, they may not be the cleanest or a hybrid. is there an incentive to be clean and green in the model? >> you know as far as not with respect to the way city car share is doing it but what is clean and green about it, you have less vehicles on the road. less vehicles total, more people using their vehicles in an efficient way. even if you're not driving a prius you maybe are taking another car off the road.

>> i read a statistic that 80% of the car seat miles are empty. you think of a five-passenger car and during rush hour -- so we're talk aboutal pretty big cultural change here prp for all those people who are used to listening to n.t.r., we love them, or sports radio and picking up a stranger, do i want to talk to you all the way to san jose? really? how is this working culturally to ride with strangers and make that commitment? >> i think it is working remarkably well. i think there's this whole culture that -- i'm old enough to remember texas chainsaw massacre. there is -- one thing that surprised me was that we put all these safety measures in into place and people have taken to it. the background check of the driver, the rating systems, all of these systems have, i think built confidence that this is a safe system.

enough so when we surveyed the users, 71% think it's safer, they feel safer in a ride they matched through us than a taxi. we've been around for less than a year of offering this service. >> someone who recently took my first thrilling ride in another company that is a real time dynamic, basically, replace taxi. i like the fact i can see the guy's face before he picks me up, eni have his information afterwards. that moderates the drivers and i get to check one or five stars, that has an effect on the person's behavior. i think trust seems to be a big part of this.

user confidence or accountability in both directions to making this work. >> we have this new model of trust that is now possible. it is because of social media, just the ability of feedback. there is little accountability before. casual car pool here in the bay area transports 5,000 people a day with no accountable. >> that is where you wait on the side of the road and a carpals up and you don't know who they are. >> that's right. so we took that model and was like, gee, can we take that and make it work across the entire bay area and around the country? and the answer is yes, it's working and it is spreading rapidly. >> it is spreading rapidly and it is causing resistance with regulators. >> let's talk about the yellow cabs, who is being disrupted by this innovation? let's talk about the incumbent defending their territory and how that is playing out. >> it is a battle that happens a lot.

the industries that -- the new envow vacation want to resist it and they use every enmeans they can. i think another example of this is what happened with voice over i.p. and things like skype. they offer this amazing service and amazing advantage for consumers and at&t and the rest really resisted it. they used other systems to help resist that change. i think a similar dynamic is at work right now. we've got objections that are made against us don't come from the public, they come from

people who have a lot to lose by having innovation happen in the marketplace. >> you've been fined what $20,000 -- the regulatory issues cost you half a million dollars fighting this. >> just to recap, the california regulators have sent notices to us fines three of us. while there are those fines out there to be honest, what is expensive, we haven't paid the fines. what is exspebsive is engaging with regulators. -- expensive is engaging with regulators. lawyers, that is the expensive part. we're innovators and we're looking for new ways to make the systems better and transform transportation. we estimate about $500,000 that

have gone towards these regulatory engagements. >> what is their beef? you're not regulated? what is the problem? >> well, i think -- >> you don't have a license to do what you're doing. >> we had a note saying that we should stop operating because we don't have a license for a regulatory code saying we don't have a license for another company. we don't have car, we don't have drivers. we are information provider, we provide matching of riders and drivers. so i think there has been a fundamental -- this is a new

median and it needs new rules. that viewpoint is one that regulators in the beginning don't understand. we see the same thing in philadelphia, austin. >> are they trying to make it illegal? in philadelphia they did a sting operation on your company. >> yes, a week before last there was a sting operation -- it wasn't against -- it was against our company but they impounded the vehicles of three drivers, they fined each of them $1,000 sorry one of them was fined $2,000. they sent us fines as well. in off the , -- austin, they sent us a cease and decease and the city council has made it impossible for them to impound vehicles as well. i think what happened in california is we went from an attitude of the regulators to hey, you can't do that we're going to shut you down to, ok, we get it. we need new rules, let's have a conversation about what this new median is like, what the right rules should be for it, and how do we benefit california through this new capability? that is the approach we want. we want to talk to these folks.

we're not saying there is no role for government. we think there needs to be a way to encourage eninnovation. >> your company reached an agreement with regulators and so what was the deal to get them off your back? >> right. we had a number of trust issues in place background checks, rating system, etc. the public utilities commission's number one concern is public safety. i think they're not as focused on the entrenched interest like the taxi cab, they are interested in protecting consumerss. once we were able to show them what we do we were able to come to ansettlement agreement. >> -- to a settlement agreement. >> but that was not ok with you?

>> ours was to stay the fines and cease and desist. those conversations, we've agreed to keep confidential so i'm not going into details. i will say, we obviously, have not agreed to what they proposed. we have principle disagreements with what they have so far. we may end up signing it but only after we get an agreement on those principles. >> where is this going? innovation is ahead of policy as often is the case. there's industries fighting to protect -- susan sha sheen, how is going this going to shake out? where is this going? >> i think we have to work through these policy issues for the entire space. the ride sharing space are hitting it first. i think a lot of questions about liability, new insurance models, no ways of doing pricing, a lost

things need to be worked out. >> those are built around ownership. >> access. yeah, they are not based around principles of access. so i think we really need to work across the industry so there's many different players in this beside car sharing and ride sharing. we've got public bikesharing in it, we have new models of ownership being developmented that fits into this space. there's a range that could be represented and collectively, i think they have a voice. it's difficult when you're an entrepreneurial and trying to run a business. we need a new policy framework and we need a new dialogue. i've seen a lot of promise in regulators wanting to have that dialogue but it is this immediate reaction that i think is really tough and difficult for the small companies. this could stomp out innovation. >> by the time rules get made.

>> can i just add? >> sure. >> we're seeing this not just in transportation, we're seeing it with challenges in sharing. it across the board. sharing is not crime. it is good for sorte and we need to figure -- society and we need to figure out a way to encourage innovation. >> hashtag defending sharing? good access on twitter, the hashtag is our hand. >> we should get people to sign our petition. we have people helping us with south by southwest coming up in austin. the timing with austin is really unfortunate. we were planning on providing these shared rides for south by southwest and along came all

these actions. we would love support on our petition on change.org. just search it and you will find it. >> i want to reference quickly, a company not up here but relay ride had a person -- quite a tragic case. an m.i.t. student and going her -- googler es leased out her honda, several people were injured, someone was killed. that looks like it would be exceeded. she could be on the hook financially. this ask a case that no one thought would happen but lending out your car than leasing out your couch. >> i would say this goes back to the public policy issue.

he talked about his work to develop peer-to-peer legislation and it would help to protect consumers as well as protect their right to make money off the use of their car.

only two other states have adopted that legislation thus far. in that particular state, massachusetts, there was no protective legislation in place. you can see, are these small companies expected to go state by state by state to develop legislation? it is going to be impossible for them to do that. we need to elevate this to a national dialogue if not a higher dialogue. in the libraryability issues need to be address -- liability issues need to be addressed. is the current insurance model the proper model? probably not.

we need to look at insurance vehicles and, you know, do we need new insurance approaches, new insurance products to help promote the service? >> is this market driven? the insurance companies are saying we have different clients and they are protecting different interests so it is hard to see the market doing this. >> god help us if the regulators are in charge of innovation. can you imagine if they ran twit center [laughter] i have nothing against them but their institution is not set up to do that. their job is to protect public safety, not to encourage innovation. i'm sorry, that is not their charge. there has to be a way to -- the role of public policy, to uphold the role of people is to encourage innovation.

the role of our government is to encourage innovation. >> you think insurance companies innovate? >> yes. yes. >> they are going to have to. in insurance, you have the commercial and the personal side and they do not meet. they don't talk the same language sometimes. when you have cars involved with different regulatoryle environments in different states, you have a mess. right now, as typical of any business that has been

relatively successful over a long time you're going to get inertia and they are going to do everything they can to protect themselves. it is not working as far as promoting and helping innovative new ideas get accomplished at a cost that is practical. in the peer-to-peer car sharing model right now, it is a great model but one of the key issues they have is they cannot make any money with the insurance costs at the level they are at. i think she can talk a this. when we penciled it out years ago, we went great idea. is it scaleable? is it going make money? it's not going to make money if insurance companies don't get -- become more innovative and choose to create a new product, quite frankly. >> it took a lot of work for

people to take their health insurance different places. that was hard. >> do you think there is going to be innovation in insurance? there's going of to be large companies that will be more resistant before there's smaller companies that might be more nimble and pencil out the risk. car sharing, you can speak to this. tremendous history of wonderful, safety, good driving records. there's not a lot of accidents in the shared space, with respect to car sharing. i know this for a fact. there's money to be made by the insurance industry by understanding that data, that risk data. >> if you're just joining us we're talk about car sharing. our guests is susan shaheen, sunil paul. before we go to audience questions, i want to talk a how this is going to affect buildings and cities in the way that we build new spaces to accommodate growth? there's going to be new people in the bay area in the coming years and we if we build parking one to one that has imply cakeses. do you get special parking spaces if you're driving a shared ride? how is the land use going to connect with mobility as a shared service? >> san francisco actually has been somewhat innovative in this air ya. back in 2006, the planning code was changed. now in san francisco, any billing, commercial or residential that is built, is required to have car sharing if they have above a certain amount of units. that kind of legislation is being studied and looked at in

other venues as well. we did a pilot test on on streetcar sharing parking last year with the city of san francisco. this is a very interesting subject because what we're talking about is using the public right away and the public good and making it available to private companies. so it shouldn't be taken lightly. the fact is there are many benefits to allowing shared vehicles of any kind to be parked in areas where we might have equity issues, where car sharing or car ownership is not financially viable. therefore, being able to have on street parking or parking that is somehow either subsidized or permitted is going to help expand car sharing and i believe some other models greatly. in the bay area, parking is the key aspects that causes costs challenges for almost every model and is difficult to find. >> anyone else?

>> i think sharing models have a tremendous opportunity to reduce challenges for cities. it takes so much money, it costs $1 million a mile to build a sidewalk. not the mention a freeway. it is incredibly expensive to build these things in public infrastructure. having shared use, we already have h.o.v. lanes, having shared use through an apartment, through a side car system, having shared use of

public infrastructure for parking spaces, through car sharing. all of these things make our public dollars go further than they would otherwise. i think it is fundamental, special to a money constrained environment that we're living in for the foreseeable future, sharing has to be part of the solution. >> building developers don't like what they see as a government mandate. it messes with their economics. >> there's a lot of developers who buy into this. many developers, at least in the bay area, we're local community buzz many developers get this. they look at sharing as an amenity for their projects. they see it as an opportunity to also build less parking. parking cost $30,000-$40,000 per space. if you can not build those

spaces and put in a few other units or even some open space, that makes it a better project. many developers are very supportive of what we're doing. >> we're talking about car sharing and climate one. we would like to invite your participation. don't be shy and come up here and come to the microphone. who is going to be the first brave soul? if you're on this side i would

encourage you to start on that side. our line starts with our producer who will invite you up to invite your question. while that line is forming, let's talk about the jobs impact. how many people -- we talked a little bit about extra income. are these companies significant job creators? let's get a sense of new jobs as well as, sort of part time jobs? how many employees? >> side car has 50 employees around the country but if you look at the extra income or offsetting of vehicle cost we're closing in on 1,000 people around the country. >> we heard a member members of the car sharing services. how about jobs? >> our numbers are similar to sidecar's. i think we have 40-45 full-time employees now. hundreds more receiving incremental income because being able to ride share. >> part of the economy. >> i am wondering if local developments have partnered with the car sharing and marketed that as a benefit? >> absolutely. we have several build information san francisco and also in the east bay. there's a local developer named patrick kennedy who -- maybe you have heard of these microunit developments going up. >> super small housing. >> patrick that is been a leader in that space and one of the things he pitched to the city here is i won't build any parking, we'll use car sharing so we'll have microspaces. >> these are housing that might

fit into a parking space. >> true. we don't want people living in the car necessarily but it would be bigger than some those spaces. >> anything to add to that? >> i've been tracking this for a long time and i see developers getting on board with this because they can make better use of the space. >> parking is a selling point. when you go to a condo the owner is like what if there is not a place to park when i come home with my christmas tree or bhaffer. so this is one step further, right? >> in my cities and locally here, you have unbundled parking. so a condo must separate parking and you pay a separate amount for that. if you choose to go car free, you don't have to pay for that spot or even buy it. at least in urban environments that seems to be more popular

with sharing mobility services, whether you can use sidecar lift and gate car immediately or being b a member and share a car for more common needs. you don't need to have a car in the city. >> how about the impact on transit? is this taking people off bus >> this is where model matters and different models of car sharing, ride sharing and peer- to-peer car sharing, we know through studies that when people join city car share, they decrease their drive big 45%. how many miles they drive and they increase their use of walking and biking over 50%. we've done studies with the san francisco m.t.a.

over the years and it shows we're pushing more people on to public transit quite a bit actually. locally last year, we had more people taking a car across the bay to use a dart station than people using it who lived there. >> dart u.s.n't do go wherever and use a car sharing to get that final mile. >> thanks for a great panel so far. the social car sharing is impressive. we talked about insurance liability. if you look at zipcar stock's performance was underwhelming until it got bought. my question is what can you tell us about how compeling this market is for companies that are in it financially? if we had this panel 10 years from now are these companies still going to be in here? >> start with your background and i will plan.

>> we should -- before you start ride sharing from car sharing, the differences. >> zipcar was about car sharing. >> as far as car sharing is concerned, we're non-profit. we've made money for many years. we take all that money and put it back into the community through a low-income that we call community share. we developped the first wheelchair accessible vans that we've shared. we're going to initiate a local bike program. we own other companies are making money. not a lot but enough to create some social program that we think are important and to help expand car sharing. ride sharing, a new model here, my opinion, is that people like sunil would not be in it if there was not money to be made somewhere down the line, as well as social good that is produced. >> google ventures is a -- an

investor. >> google ventures is the institutional investor in it. this is my third company i've started and ran and invested in many. the last company was very successful. i made a lot of money already. so i am a capitalist so i expect to make money on this company and it's a big reason why i did this. i did this -- i'm doing this company not just because i think i can make money but because i think i can make a big difference and i can make history.

i believe there is an opportunity to build a big company that fundamentally changes transportation. 10 years from now, we'll look back and say, wow, that -- not just sidecar but other companies in the space ended up transforming the way we think about transportation. in the same way we look back in material days of electric cars. we say wow, ok, amazon, they were not just selling books and ebay, was not just handling collectibles and allowing people to trade collectibles. there's a whole bit of commerce has changed because of those companies. i think we're in a similar stage. i think the smartphone is going to unlock mobility in a different way, it is not just your mobile phone, it is going to be your mobility phone.

>> so you may never buy a car for the young child that grows up and hits 16 like you and i wanted so bad. it may not happen. >> the trend is heading downward. the number of people who get drivers licenses at age -- i think it is under 21. that population has been declining since the 1970's. in part because of of -- for a different reason. in the past, your automobile was your key to freedom. you got the keys and you can go out and do stuff in the world. today, my almost 12-year-old they have freedom already. they can talk to their friends, they don't have to be stuck with their dad all the time because they have a smartphone.

that kind of -- it's already unlook different kind of freedom and mobility. i think when you take it to the point that i need to be able to move around in the city and i do need to look into a job. all of those things will be possibly through their phone. >> would you call up a ride share, sidecar and put those kids and send them somewhere? >> sidecar. they are only 11 and a half but when they are older i would. >> next question. >> you were talking about or thinking about it for 10-plus years. based on stuff that is floating around they are saying that we will have self driving cars. >> another reason why i jump in is because of self driving cars.

we make -- we think that it is a fundamental change to transportation it will occur, that having a network where you can get access to our ride plays very well to self driving cars. >> i would add that many people in the industry are arguing that good platforms for autonomous vehicles are actually these. >> the idea of buying a self driving car might be a little scary, but going to a city car share, which can be a factor, maybe they'll want to buy because of range anxiety, but that could be a good place to sort of prime the market for electric vehicles. >> we have the largest program going. currently only have 20 vehicles. i believe we will double it. the first six months that we had our initial 10 vehicles out in our fleet, some are fully electric vehicles, we had over three house and -- 3000 unique individuals trying those cars.

we think that car sharing, we are also putting in charging stations for public use and car share use in locations that will allow us to do that. >> did they go on to become buyers? >> we suspect that we have had some short-term membership that we're looking to try out. we are happy that way. >> we have found in our research that individuals who have a life change need to move to the suburbs, they have a child or something like that, they often by a vehicle that they were driving and car sharing. >> this whole idea of sharing and variety, it is intrinsic to the whole sharing experience. if you are -- one of the things that is attractive about using someone else's apartment is that you get to connect. it is variety. in it is not the same old holiday in. you get to try different vehicles. you get to meet all of these interesting people. it is part of what makes it fun. it is not just the same old thing every day. wax

-- >> i would never buy one, but i felt: help driving those things around. does this model translate to rural or suburban america? the ford f1 50 is the best- selling truck and america. is this moving up to the suburbs? >> i believe it will. i think that the stronghold for the systems will be urban areas. just because of patterns and how people are going to be gravitating more and more towards urban living. but i do think that through phenomenon like peer-to-peer car sharing, fractional ownership, the idea that several people: a vehicle, and all this connectivity that is provided, there is really not a reason why these things can't spread to other areas. this is the next great challenge for the space. can we move this into other location that -- than just these areas. >> did you do research or benchmark on what is happening in europe? you had to companies one in germany and one in france. did you check why it is so big there?

>> i do not know if he is here. the ceo of car sharing has had limited success. all over year. it is a denser population. >> they also have institutional governmental support. i'm talking about regulatory and policy support. that helped tremendously in europe. >> is a great example of the sort of public framework encouraging these kinds of innovation. it has resulted -- i shouldn't use the number -- they are doing millions and millions of riders. they are doing very well.

>> that started out of colleges. i saw one today for someone going to greenville from san francisco. that is something that is really growing. .

i'm talking about regulatory and policy support. that helped tremendously in europe. thes a great example of sort of public framework encouraging these kinds of innovation. -- i shouldn't they areumber -- doing millions and millions of riders. they are doing very well. >> that started out of colleges.

i saw one today for someone going to greenville from san francisco. that is something that is really growing. >> that is right. today is our sixth year anniversary of a corporation. it started initially focus on colleges and universities, a critical thing with respect to carpooling, getting a critical mass. a large enough user base. the original model of the company was focused around colleges and universities where you have a dense population of people that are often going to and from the same destination. and we were left with the evolution of that with mobile technology, the ability to do these things in real time, rather than plan a week or so in advance. >> we have to end it there. we have been talking about car sharing and ridesharing.

-- rick hutchinson

that is where the assignment of that desk was. it prevents project presents us with an opportunity to look at the question that peter berg and asked, is it right to have that in the fbi? the fbi has had a mission for years. it gave them the assignment to preempt in terrorism plots. the capacity looks like a lot of social science stuff. and they may have a ph.d. is in sociology but that is kind of rare, those resources.

for folks that are joining the bureau to get bad guys and build cases -- instead, by its location there is a possibility of building a partnership paradigm where the private sector can potentially have a role. local and state law-enforcement can have a role. maybe the prevention step is done with the police department. those are other aspects we can explore later. hopefully that answers it. >> the next question i want to point to, there was a common theme among all the panelists about the counter narrative, that there needs to be a counter-narrative as strong, as graphic, as the motive as the key, lists -- as the jihadists. the video face of the clerks would not necessarily work.

in 2010 we worked together and produced a video called "injustice cannot defeat injustice." you now have a virtual mosque. you have had a couple of conversations on the radicalization. how do you see the role of community and the role of government -- there have been attempts by various foreign governments who have guided into the counter-narrative space. at the time we have the constitution and that is nothing we can get into. where dc those roles and responsibilities lying? >> that is a lot of questions. let me address a few issues.

in 2004, we were studying together in egypt. we realized that -- as i had mentioned earlier the internet is becoming a mosque for the mosque-less. with a group of people as activists, scholars, renamed the virtual mosque. but be realized is looking at our community millennial is no longer defines religiosity the savvy institutional commitment. religiosity vis-a-vis institutional commitment. we decided to treat something called the virtual mosque. it would allow people the cannot belong to institutions.

the majority of american muslims to not attend mosques. it allows them to engage in an open, free, and transparent environment. we had an article written by an ex-islamist. in 2009 and online form on use radicalization, before it became this cool word where we can now hash tag, we are able to see some young people who were affected by the jihadist message. advice to policy makers and government is to give muslim leaders and policy makers -- we do not need to be too close to each other.

that undermines our street credit. i was involved in a radical middle way project. they lifted me as a moderate muslim leader. that undermines my ability to work at the street level with a lot of people. i think there needs to be an implicit threat -- implicit relationship that recognizes this is a dynamic problem. it may not represent the larger body of the muslim community. it demands a response that ignores the majority of our community. in order to do that we have to be seen as free, transparent leaders who are born and bred within the community and have not been influenced by other people trying to shape how that community moves. it needs to be an implicit relationship.

we need to model partnerships with the government with policymakers like yourself. at the same time we need people to trust us. i think they do a credible job to an incredible job. they're both given freedom to do that. >> very interesting insight. i want to come to you and talk about resources. a lot of the local communities, they say they do not have the resources to deal with these issues. they have to worry about pastoral issues and funerals. the basic functioning of a place of worship that all communities have to do with -- i do not have the resources to sit down and study national security and all of these issues, especially since most of these institutions do not have full-time staff.

can you talk about the resources, both the policy makers and communities and how they can come together and address this issue of resources. >> i think the challenge of resources, for local communities it is not limited to -- it affects a lot of different issues. you feel a lot of young people who are not attending mosques because of limited resources available -- the easiest way around this challenge is to provide information. that does not require a lot to become done electronically.

it can be done between community ran the tables. when you provide information to parents and we say we are not going to turn on this because of traditional networks, it becomes a manageable issue. telling parents that if they are not going to talk about political issues or pilot -- or violence or certain issues with their children then you have to think about who is fond have that discussion. is the local mom equipped to have it? no. they are glenn to go online. if they can manage these problems -- i also make the analogy that online sexual predators, these are part of national gangs. as the parent of a young girl i feel it is my responsibility to make sure she is safe online.

if you frame it like that it takes away the overwhelming feeling of being unable to deal with the problem. it affects families, it affects the communities. 4 shall local and law- enforcement -- for local law- enforcement it becomes an issue. >> as far as the virtual mom's virtual mosque goes, it attracts people that want to work in the community. we did the prayer for syria which attracted over 300 mosques all around the world. everyone got together and pray for the security of syria. i received a letter from pakistan. i think having transparent trust for the alternatives is where you are going to be able to redirect people towards positive

influences. >> that is really interesting. two questions to you. this conversation is a lot about surveillance vs partnership. there are individuals who say we increased the amount of surveillance on the communities. you had the whole controversy with the nypd and what happened there. there is apprehension in terms of engagement. it is engagement going to be worked or are we going to be surveiled by local law enforcement agencies no matter what? if you surveiled a community are you going to get the needle in the haystack? are you going to create more work for yourself? that is the first question. the second question is the president last week tried to put this into perspective. he talked about the proportion of the threat and he talked

about the evolving threat. you have been around the block. can you talk about where you see this threat evolving and where is it going in the next five to 10 years? >> i will leave the surveillance question to the people on the panel. i know that adam goldman wrote the nypd story. on the question of the scale of the threat i think president obama is exactly right. the threat is threats to our overseas diplomatic facilities and businesses. going back to the database we maintain here, i think it is factually interesting that the number of-course by right-wing press -- for right-wing extremists, we calculate 29

deaths since 9/11. the number in the united states is 21. peter newman is right to say that this has huge political consequences beyond just one murder. the fact the matter is the threat from right-wing extremism is the same as jihadist. it is an interesting questino that i don't have an answer for? al qaeda and groups like that cannot pull off 9/11. it is a very hard speech to give politically because what happens

even if you are of one percent wrong. somebody comes along -- the political cost is very high for a politician making a statement that we all know is basically true. we know the threat has been much reduced. it was a very welcome speech for the president to make. there's no reason he may still be in -- there is no reason he needs to be in a stand for. it has a lot of policy implications on all sorts of issues, whether it is the drug-- drone program, guantanamo, and the way we organize of -- organize our national security. it is a serious and significant problem and is one that is

probably having this discussion now. it is a problem that can largely be managed. what is almost surprising is how few attacks. that was the first attack in the next it's motivated by their ideas -- in the united states motivated by their ideas. there is a whole set of reasons why these attacks are pretty infrequent. >> i will go back to surveillance question. i wanted to ask you about the impact of this and a relationship with other countries. muslim communities abroad. i know you are constantly engaging them.

how has this focus of national security impacted our relationship? i heard president last week talking about our relationship with pakistan is strained. one way we can get round this is make sure we have a relationship a partnership with muslim majority companies. have you see that playing out? >> that is the beginning of the administration. we recognize the other communities in the united states and around the world have been key contributors in many areas. our partnerships have been comprehensive in areas like education, job creation, health, science and technology, and that is the bulk of work we do winning gauging of trinity's to have fun fun -- gauging what they do. the what it should have access to education, access to health care.

at the same time it is often muslim communities themselves, for the reasons that i mentioned, that have raised the issue of extremism. they are concerned about their family members. they are concerned about their neighbors being recruited by a terrorist networks. they are concerned about being victims. it is an important conversation. we have had a partnership to counter violent extremism for some time now. part of that strategy is to make sure that we are contributing to the efforts of local communities, that we are sharing information that we collect at the federal level to make sure the communities know about the latest threats. we have these types of briefings he participated in with local communities that are increasing

our operation and engagement so communities have opportunities to brief us on their efforts and identify threads into their communities. we also have a convening role. there are some many people working in this area. we have actors in business, internet companies, government so many people are concerned about this problem and we have the ability to convince people that might not know ordinarily convene people that might not ordinarily sit together. although we have engagement- based -- on a comprehensive set of issues, there is every a terrorist threat. our first and foremost responsibility is to protect the american people.

there is action that have to be taken from time to time because those that we are partnering with may not have the ability to respond or in parts of the war parts of the world may not be willing to respond -- we have to protect our national security. inevitably there will be instances that have impact on our relationships. the basis of action is the protection of people around the world and it is not motivated by what terrorists have labeled as a war against islam. we have been cleared but we have been clear that muslim communities in the united states are the greatest counter to that argument because they have been successful at such high levels. the resilience the american people have shown to terrorist attacks also made clear to people around the world and many places we go to, they say, "how can you allow this freedom of worship and freedom of religion. if this is happening in our country all kinds of things would be going on.

you go to a grocery store and find a muslim having one of their five prayer times. this is something you will not find even in parts of the muslim world. they recognize our resilience have been strong and by staying true to who we are as americans and keeping to our bellevue's -- that is one of the best ways we can defeat the ideology terrace are putting out there. >> i want to open it up to the audience. if you do have a question please stand up, state your name, and please ask a question and keep it as short as possible. >> you are going to have to wait for the microphone. let us start at the back and move forward. >> if you could raise your hand. go-ahead. >> hello. my name is marion. thank you to all of the panelists for their comments.

i am a member of the american muslim community and i struggled with this idea of violent extremism in our midst of a bid. as i listen to you guys and it seems to me there is the shift in the frame in terms of how we talk about this. the connection between islamaphobes and violent extremists. when we take responsibility as a muslim community unfortunately we feed into that narrative which can ultimately lead to more alienation among american muslims. what i am thinking is we need to think about this issue within the broader context of violence in this country.

this is happening in america, not abroad. america is a country with some serious issues when it comes to violence. i have not heard any of the members talk about this but i am wondering whether or not you have any comments about addressing this issue of the broader context of violence within the united states. from my point of view it creates opportunities for cooperation and coalition building with communities impacted by violence. it allows for coalition building and can address some of the resources issue you mentioned as well. it still allows for particularized social interventions within the communities but its way from the stereotype of race, ethnicity, and religion in terms of propensity to commit violent acts. sorry for the long question. >> in my career i stay out of the political activism in the muslim community. i am not dismissive of the

symptoms that the question raised -- i do not want to see stereotypes out there. there is a fundamental question that muslim community leaders have to answer for themselves, which is when you look at these kids you see them as a problem and you are given by god may be some insight on how to address this and save them. are they part of what you should go and do in your ministry or is it not your problem? it is a political problem because of overseas foreign- policy or because of stereotyping but policymakers one sort or another. i personally made the decision a long time ago -- i kind of adopted a lot of these kids. i saw them as people who could contribute to the community and

strengthen it. but they are going off of the rails early in their lives instead of building a family and actually accomplishing something. that is a decision i have seen other clerics do. muslim matters were mentioned a earlier and we have had many hours discussing these issues many years ago. he ended up saying, "i am privileged to be in a position where i can draw these kids in their mother's basement living in there were virtual world." an example of what he did was he did a reverse sting operation. we wrote an op-ed for fox news

looking on the drone kill list. i basically chastised and turned it to muslim matters. i posted his response. he's critiquing separated the ideology from the -- at the same time he is chastising me for having bad manners, so to speak, by speaking about way. that drew folks out of their basement who would come to the comment line and be able to engage them. that was related to me that they loved seeing that. that was something the community

did on its own because community leaders to help they need it to adopt these kids. we did not sit there and look at the macro-international political discourse on violence and the discussions that had been going on in america for well over a century, violence throughout different parts of our society. we just went to solve the problem short term and address it. we left that political stuff for academics of inputs and to how many cases there are. perhaps we could not leave it out there and say until it solves on the big level political discourse wise it is not our problem.

>> i notice you use the word jihadi terrorism. i know it is in the vernacular, it is inevitable. even in today's paper the word was used as if it were in negative. i was wondering if there might be a way to let people know -- couldn't he have said it is a misuse of the concept of jihad and how can we get a counter- narrative out there that for how the word is used it is being misused if being used as a negative. >> one of the reasons people use it as a term -- everybody except

your point. we need to take it beyond an abstraction. a good example of that is the hashtag on twitter. there was a campaign of muslims tweeting. that exploded, metaphorically, maybe not the best word to use, and what happened was you saw every day average muslim people getting on board. without having to use our big legal and classical language that no one understands, that

gave the community and opportunity to say what this word means to me as a 12 year old kid in georgia. people try to put in alternative messaging on there and then you have the younger muslim community reacting and galvanizing themselves on this model, saying let us define jihad according to how we live our daily life. people who are talking about jihad are not scholarly and enable to define it. clerics across the board in america agree that in the american context violent reaction to foreign policy does not fall under that definition of "jihad."

>> i wanted to ask a question about -- if they do it and up reporting to law enforcement tickets targeted. in oregon we had a 15-year-old whose father went to the fbi to get some help with his radicalization ideas. instead of helping him get some counseling they made him a target and in the last three years we had four hundred prosecutions of young muslim boys from 15 to 25 year olds who have been actually convicted. i have some numbers about the rest -- in 2010 we had 653 arrests, 2011, 380. people from special interest countries, which is mostly middle east. i just wanted to ask about --

how can we trust the law enforcement if they go to help and they turn against us? >> by the time i finish here the fbi is going to be upset with me. that is an issue i have been working on for many years. eventually in 2011 they gave me the top award for participating in these cases. we have a history of american policing where gang intervention, we have given offering community is as a way to disengage the track they are on. i agree with you that sting operations have been overused.

there are a lot of folks in the fbi that have come to the realization that another tool in the tool chest is actually good for everyone. >> can i ask a question? the incentive structure, presumably it you are at the fbi field office, is to make cases. is there a recognition that a case not made in the right kind of circumstance of the 15-year- old kid in oregon, they would get some recognition or is that a pie in the sky? >> there is some recognition in director mahler -- the special agent in dallas in 2006 encouraged me to start on this track. he is retired now.

he did have some clout back at headquarters to have those conversations behind the curtain, to be able to say -- you had several folks who were advocating for this to have credentials in that world. multiple field offices have to come together outside of the new york and wfo world and push headquarters and say we have piloted cases like the one i worked on that we should look to create. like i was saying earlier, we spent our wheels for the past two and a half years where on the national level we never got a national counter-violent extremism policy across all of the fbi's 56 field offices.

therefore you did not get the training for the new agents that are coming in. you have some folks that are in the field offices that can rattle off at you who are trying to continue -- off a few who are trying to continue push that messaging. >> one very quick thing -- what you said is the biggest problem right now. in britain this led to the creation of the trial program that was mentioned before. what happens when someone comes across the 16 it becomes across the security forces of britain when someone comes across the security forces of britain, he is not being allowed to participate in a sting operation but there is an intervention constructed of around this. it is framed very cleverly. the frame is that people say

this is your last opportunity and we want to help prevent you from committing a crime. if you choose to go on then obviously ct comes in and you will be charged with something. there is a last stop where people are being told to take advantage of this and maybe it gets you off. that sort of tool does not exist in the united states. the only choice between not doing anything at all or involving that sting operation that would be an interesting thing to look at. >> i was going to recommend -- the framework document -- in it you will find three different sections where this issue is mentioned in how the government

needs to coordinate the soft it intervention tools. the president was actually briefed on that document in the oval office. there are a lot of people in local government aware to get this done. >> i am not going to go to any individual cases. people from the government are going in and provoking use. -- provoking youth. then we have the cases in boston where we see that this is an actual threat. communities cannot be in the basement of everyone's home. it is important we use the tools at our disposal and important

that we have partnerships with local communities that are the best place to identify these threats, to make sure local communities have all the intelligence and information we have at the federal level, to make sure where -- in some cases there is as strong and ongoing partnership and dialogue between muslim communities and the attorney's office -- if the community feels there is a problem they themselves can come in. this has happened on a number of occasions. there are cases in which local law enforcement agents speak to the community they say they noticed there's a disturbing behavior going on and members of the communities themselves can go in and identify their

intervention program, which they are using to deal with this program -- a deal with this problem. it is a difficult situation and balance to manage between knowing when you have reached the trigger point for the law enforcement traditional enforcement action is necessary. there is still opportunity for social intervention. >> i have one question. my observation is that i believe i have observed that the pakistan community has migrated to america for socio-economic

reasons. none of them is interested in radicalization. that is my first observation. the bottom line is that family institution is not radicalized. what i have observed is that there are different instances of radicalization. these are motivated because of personal grievances with the american institution. then they find refuge in finding

some kind of radicalization. that radicalization is a mean to prevent -- none of our scholars have critically evaluated the boston incident from another angle. what i have learned through the media -- even to aspire for a boxing competition on a national level requires one intense workout. if a person is so committed to make his career as a

professional boxer and turned against america, why? to me it is the fbi and noting that he has been submitting his own country. that shattered his dreams. this was the moment he found something on networking and internet. >> the impact on him, that he was not able to become a citizen and represent the country, that social impact on him becoming radicalized. >> i think that as a hypothetical. i do not think we can address that without any real means.

we see people who are radicalized and it has to be something outside of the sociological realm. it could be a problem at home, delinquency, there could be another set of variables that cause the person to go down that way. it is usually their ignorance of theology that allows them to act in a radical way. it appears maybe he was a drug dealer prior to this. those are areas where -- that is why in boston we have a intervention program. >> we can take one last question. >> below on of these questions together. >> my question is on the panel

you mentioned the respect to civil rights. right now in guantanamo bay there is 130 inmates that are starving themselves and are basically doing this because civil rights are not being met. 130 out of 160. about 86 of them have been cleared of all wrongdoing. there are some of them that are waiting there for about five or 10 years. i know one of them has been waiting for about 11 years for their civil rights to have a day in court where he could be represented with an attorney. why is that right not given to him? >> do you want ask? >> what outreaches have you had with the boston police

department and are you concerned they're going to take a more aggressive approach in the community? >> does anyone want to take the guantanamo? >> we have had multiple link the discussions of this issue. that is a good question but we cannot deal with it in 30 seconds. >> for the last 10 years we have had bridges. it is actively involved with interfaith leaders, the fbi, the district attorney. the lieutenant is one of my congregants with boston pd and has been very healthy. using the language of mapping, when you turn -- when you tell the community to win -- we are pointing to a new and watching. they have been receptive in that part. >> thank you everybody.

thank you for organizing this. caller it's which system can project power in the atlantic, the pacific, the indian ocean, southeast asia, which system can produce the civilian leadership to create the

transportation systems, the civilian leadership that's able to produce 9 ,000 airplanes in 1944. >> sunday, two-time pulitzer prize-winning author will take your calls, emails, facebook comments and tweets, three hours live, sunday at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> former arizona representative gabrielle giffereds receives the john f. kennedy profile in courage award. we in about 15 minutes, have comments from education secretary arne duncan. several live events to tell you about today here on c-span. the bipartisan policy center looks at immigration and border security at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and then at 2:00, the institution hosts a discussion on attitudes about legalizing

marijuana. this year's john f. kennedy profile in courage award was presented to former arizona representative gabrielle giffereds. our coverage from early this month begins with journalist al hunt introducing caroline kennedy. his is 15 minutes. >> we have a very high-powered committee. they're senators, house members, republicans, democrats, c.e.o.'s, some of america's greatest lawyers, the most distinguished law school dean, even newspaper editors. we're not distinguished, but we're never en died. but all of us know who our leader is. she inherited her father and mother's intelligence, charm, . ace, and diplomacy the heart and soul of this magnificent place and this marvelous award, caroline

kennedy. >> thank you. thank you, al. i was told that ken was going to introduce me, but wow. that was so much nicer than anything that ken ever said. thank you. thank you, chris, as well, and thank you all for coming. this is always a special day for my family and for the kennedy library, as we commemorate my father's birthday and honor those who possess the indispensible virtue he most admired, courage. this year is even more special, as we remember his life and the 50th anniversary of his presidency. we also remember his death. our family is still suffering from the heartbreak of gun violence. no one should have to lose a husband, a wife, a father, a child to senseless murder. but as our honoree has shown,

out of that pain and tragedy, we must find the strength to carry on to give meaning to our lives and build a more just and peaceful world. the work that my uncle teddy did year in and year out to carry forward my father's vision for america, the heroic and selfless acts of the first responders and citizens during the recent events in boston, and the uniquely courageous woman we honor today remind us all how precious life is and how the human spirit can triumph over hatred and violence. before we begin today's presentation, the ceremony honoring courage, i'd like to salute the first responders and citizens of boston. all americans have been inspired by the countless acts of bravery and compassion we saw during the violence that struck this stow patriots day. today we pray for those who lost their lives and those who are fighting to recover. and we give thanks for the men and women who illuminated a path to hope when this city was gripped by fear.

my family and this library are proud to call boston home. now we honor a woman who inspires the entire world. gabrielle giffords has turned a personal night mere into a movement for police change. after an assassination attempt ended her congressional career and left her with grave injuries, she fearlessly returned to public life as an advocate for new legislation to prevent gun violence. when others would have withdrawn from public life, she's challenged us all to reengage in the political progress. when others would have gven up hope, gabby has been unwavering in her belief that politics can solve problems. when others would have looked for excuses, gabby has inspired action. even before she was wounded on that terrible january day, gabby was a profile in courage. she was outspoke known her commitment to civil public discourse despite threats from angry part sans over votes she

had cast as a legislator. since then, with the support of her remarkable husband, mark, gabby has not fallen silent. she understands that this is not going to be easy and it's want going to happen quickly, but it's the right thing to do. she perseveres not just for herself, but for newtown, aurora, chicago, and tucson. gabby's courage has already changed the way we look at guns in this country. her work will spare countless families from the pain and loss aused by gun violence. as she wrote just a few weeks ago to do, to do nothing like others are in danger is not american way. gabby giffords lives those words every dasme it's my profound honor to present her now with the 2013 profile in courage award.

[applause] >> thank you, caroline. thank you so much for recognizing my wife's extraordinary courage. to be honored along with people she admires deeply, like congressman john lewis, or your

own senator, edward kennedy, is amazing to gabby. i know that. but i have to say, not to me, the determination and the valor my wife gabby giffords displays every single day has redefined the word courage for me. gabby and i have spent a lot of time at another place that honors president john f. kennedy, and that's the kennedy space center in florida. the only place on the globe from which humans have departed our planet on a trip to the moon and from where i commanded space shuttles discoveriesly and endeavour. while it's not our first time here at the kennedy library in boston, we are glad to be back. we're so sorry for the violence and terror that all of you have endured. we know what that is like.

i saw combat in iraq and kuwait, and gabby lived through a mass shooting. we know how violence changes lives. we know that for those touched by violence, it matters less what you call it, crime, terrorism, war, or madness, because violence defies categories. it's simply and brutally draws a line in the sand of time before and after. before, when gabby could ride her motorcycle around the foot hills of the southern arizona mountains and speak easily and often to her neighbors, and after. before when christina taylor green's parents in tucson or martin richards' parents here in dorchester, where they could

go to sleep wondering what wonderful thing their child would say when they woke up the next morning, and after. for the victims of boston, of the boston marathon bombing who e spent time with today at rehab, before when they gathered on a sunny day to demonstrate, to celebrate the demonstration of an amazing physical strength and determination wauchingt runners go by, and after, when they must find the physical strength and determination necessary for their own recovery. we extent our dopest sympathies to all of you who have endured violence and loss here. but courage for us is about the after. courage is doing everything we can everything we possibly can to make sure that fewer parents face that loss. for me, it meant learning more

about politics. previously i handled the space flight travel responsibilities in our marriage, and gabby handled the politics. but now we have to do the politics together. for gabby, her courage is the equivalent of a lunar mission. she has set her sights on a distant horizon, a country that will be dramatically safer from gun violence, and she works each and every day with physical therapy, speech therapy, and also a little bit of yoga to make sure she is in shape to get there. and there are many doubters, many who think that the n.r.a. and the rest of the gun lobby is simply too powerful, many who think our deep and patriotic support of the second , which, by the way, gabby and i share, will prevent from us

making progress, many who saw the failure of the senate to pass expanded background checks last week have just thrown up their hands in anger and disgust. that's fine. our friend, jim hubbell, remembers being amazed, he was amazed in 1971 when president kennedy said we would get to the moon. jim says he thought that was impossible. then, as many of you know, he flew there twice. jim says, and i quote, there are people who make things happen, there are people who watch things happen. and there are people who wondered what happened. to be successful, you need to be a person who makes things happen. gabby gevereds is a person who makes things happen.

gabby has chosen to help inspire, organize, and motivate a nation that is fed up with violence, and fed up with congressional inaction, and she has chosen to focus us on coming together and taking concrete steps that will keep families and communities safer. her courage inspires us daily, but i know she is inspired by the courage of those who came before her, those she met today and those hundreds of thousands of americans all across the country who are joining her each and every day, those who are sending checks for $5 or $10, money they may need in tough times to help us, those who are taking to facebook, to twitter, to stand shoulder to shoulder with gabby, those who

are talking to their friends at the gosh are you store, on the water cooler, on playgrounds and saying we can do better, and i'm standing with gabby giffords to get it done. i know she is inspired by the courage of her friend and staffer gibb zimmerman, who ran toward her and toward danger during the terrible shooting in tucson and lost his life trying to help. president kennedy said the stories of past courage can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration, but they cannot supply courage itself. for this, each man or woman must look into his own soul. gabby's courage is limitless, and it is powerful. we thank you so much for recognizing and honoring that, and we ask for your courage in joining us to make sure we

achieve our goal of a safer america for all of us. now i'd like to introduce you to the woman who reminds me each and every day to deny the acceptance of failure, my beautiful wife, gabrielle iffords. >> thank you to the kennedy family for this award. i appreciate it very much. all have courage inside. i wish there was more courage in congress. sometimes it's hard to express it.

i know. it's been a hard two years for me, but i want to make the orld a better place. more than ever, thank you. >> thank you. thank you, everybody. >> thank you. thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the public fascination with frances cleveland really extended to her clothes, and she was a real fashion icon. women emulated her hairstyle, her clothing. she popularized everything she had and did. this