a's legacy is evolving in light of recent events. and a look at what the government is doing in the private sector and other safety issues in the united states with deborah hersman. ♪ host: hope you had a great fourth of july weekend. welcome to the washington journal. it is july 6. we are going to open up the phone calls for your thoughts on public policy issues you may be following this morning. congress is set to return tomorrow and sprint to the finish before the august reset. also, the greek people have rejected the measures by the european financial institutions. they were soundly rejected that.

the nuclear discussions are wednesday from imposed deadline. and in south carolina, the debate continues about the confederate flag and its presence on the state grounds. here is how to join the conversation. democrats call 202748 8000 republicans call 202 748 8001. post your thoughts on twitter and facebook. we will get to your calls shortly. the front page today is filled with flags. the american flag and the confederate flag there. "the confederate flag's last stand at the south carolina statehouse."

whether or not that flag will remain on state ground, and on the front page of the museum -- the museum -- as the u.s. women's soccer team won against japan. another flag is being waived prominently in greece as a defeat of the european financial package. greek voters rejected a bailout deal, that is the headline. the next steps are unclear "as people gathered to celebrate 61% of the voters had said no to a deal that would have imposed greater austerity measures. the no votes carried virtually every district in the country

handing a sweeping victory to the prime minister. he called the measures and injustice and economically self-defeating. " so 61% of the people have rejected that deal. the finance minister has resigned. we are one day away from the second deadline on the iranian nuclear negotiations. this is the front page of the bbc. john kerry says very hard choices are needed. he spoke to reporters yesterday in geneva. here is what he had to say. >> whether or not we are able to close an agreement in many ways this negotiation has been going on for a number of years. over the past few days, we have made genuine progress. but i want to be absolutely

clear with everyone, we are not yet where we need to be on several of the most difficult issues. the truth is, that while i completely agree with prime minister's a -- that we have never been closer, at this point, the negotiation could go either way. if hard choices get made in the next couple of days, and made quickly, we could get an agreement this week. but if they are not made, we will not. so our teams are going to go as hard as we can we are not going to be negotiating in the press. we will be negotiating privately and quietly. when the time is right, we will have more to say. host: secretary john kerry

yesterday, the headline of usa today says "iran's nuclear windfall alarms lawmakers." >> we are managing privilege and -- managing proliferation. right now we have the issues of whether we are going to have any time. will he know what their past military dimensions were? it is very important. everyone who is coming to testify has talked about the ones of that. they are required to declare that iran has a civil program not a military program. so there are a number of issues, it has been going on a negative trend for quite some time. it is not congress that is pushing to have all the documents by july 9.

it is the six major countries less iran -- countries plus iran that wants them to only have 30 days to review the steel instead of 60. this has been going on for almost two years. it is amazing to me that as we come to the end, the biggest concern is that congress would only have 30 days and not 60 days to review the deal. i urged kerry to take the time, make sure that the last remaining lines do not get crossed. don't make it worse than what it already is. host: that was the senator on the nuclear negations -- nuclear negotiations in iran that end tomorrow. your thoughts.

202748 8004 democrats, 202748 8001 four republicans -- for republicans. caller: i would like to make a comment on the greek situation. i think we have to take a look at the world's financial system more so than to just greece. you have spain italy, ireland isn't doing good. to me, if it was one or two countries, i could say it. when you have a multiple amount of countries that are in trouble, less there's so much debt in the world, you even hear

them talk about cutting social security benefits. i think the world's present financial system has to be on the table. host: ok, bill. comments from stephen moore in the washington times this morning. "let it go. bankruptcy is the only way that greece can fashion a new beginning. all the conventional solutions sidestep the root cause of the greek situation. the greek citizens are simply living way beyond their means. this is a nation with an average retirement age of 60. one in four adults are unemployed. half of its young people are out of work. -- are they going to pay more taxes to provide lavish benefits? probably not. " host:caller: good morning.

i would like to see more in-depth reporting on the train to rome and in tennessee, and the evacuation. they were moving hazardous wastes, and i would like to know who was shipping it. how was it produced? where did it come from? how often is it shipped? what would be the result of exposure to it? when we had the gulf of mexico oil spill, we heard how many gallons were spilled. how it affected the birds and wildlife. there has been very little said on what is happening in tennessee, other than that there is an evacuation because of

hazardous waste materials. host: it sounds like an issue you have taken some interest in before. caller: it is interesting because unless we know in-depth we can't prevent it. so that has my comments. i think you. have a nice morning. host: i appreciate that. we will be talking with the former head of the national transportation safety board deborah hersman she is now the head of the national safety council. catherine was calling from new hampshire. usa today was talking about the bush history in new hampshire. "family history in new hampshire , not insurmountable. "

"now, jeb bush is in political purgatory. the successes and failures of his father and brother hang over the former florida governor as he faces what might be a must win in the primary." call our phone lines at 202-748-8000 if you are democrats, 202748 8001 if you are republican. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment on what is ironic with what mr. trump said about illegal aliens. it was not delegate, not the best choice of words. although he did throw in a qualifier that said he wasn't referring to "all."

but we had a murder in san francisco i and illegal alien. he had been deported five times. he was a violent, criminal illegal alien. he had warrants out for his arrest. he shouldn't have been walking the streets of america, and yet san francisco is called a sanctuary city. i am from denver, colorado. these are cities in the united states that do not enforce or cooperate with finding people like this person who murdered this woman. so that comes to mr. trump's point. they are not all bad, that there is a large section of them that are. and because we have a border that is out of control it isn't that we have a broken

immigration system. we have laws that we don't enforce. that will dovetail into the second part of my comment. that is what happened in chicago over the weekend. i think we had 80 people shot. a seven-year-old boy killed because they were trying to kill his father, a gang member. chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in america. strict gun-control laws, and yet the chief of police, they say it is because they do not enforce the gun law violations. the getting bankers who buy guns outside the state, and are not prosecuted for that. this is what we are reaping. that is my comment. host: mike, i appreciate your comment. california murder suspect is

deported five times. they writes that the man accused of gunning down a woman along the waterfront is a convicted felon who had been deported several times. francisco sanchez, who was arrested in connection with the apparent random slaying of -- while she walked along the city's. . he was last supported in 2014. on the front page of the washington times this morning, they say "trump drives wedge further along the gop. " businesses are distancing themselves from donald trump's comments. at an independence day parade in

new hampshire governor jeb bush says that he doesn't represent the republican party or its values. rick perry also put out that question on donald trump's comments. >> everybody gets to pick and choose who they want to be four. but i said that donald trump does not represent the replicant party. hispanics in america and in texas from the alamo to afghanistan, have been extraordinary people, citizens of our country and our state. they have served nobly. to paint with that brought of a brush as donald trump, he is going to have to defend those remarks. i never will. i will stand up and say they were offensive. host: rick perry, former florida governor on abc. here on washington journal.

the u.s. women's team won the world cup 5-2. president obama said "what a win for team usa. your country is so proud of you all." also, a tweet for another issue on the open phones, "they spend money they don't have and repeatedly expect others to bail them out over and over again. " in peachtree city, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. all of the issues that you have mentioned for today, there is such a tendency for people to use examples that are deviations from the norm. to try to imply that they represent the norm.

since i am kind of liberal, it seems to be that people on the right doing it more than people on the left. it is so destructive because it distorts the argument so much. the issue is, what is the norm? the question is not what is the exception? host: what particular story are you talking about? caller: earlier, they were talking about the murder of the lady in l.a., i think, by an illegal alien. but that is an exceptional situation. it does not represent the norm. for people to use those unusual examples to imply that they represent the average is just destructive. it distorts the issue that it is almost impossible to have a decent discussion about what the real issue is.

host: let's hear from chicago next, andnna is on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that seven people died. host: thank you. the fight against isis coalition airstrikes hit islamic state in raqqa. here. we go to leo in washington d.c.. caller: good morning c-span. i want to comment on the immigrants. this country was built with immigrants. the immigrants that you are talking about are the --

immigrants, the brown skinned immigrants. once again, this country was built upon immigrants. host: independent line, barry in vermont. caller: i wanted to have a comment on donald trump's thing with the hispanics. donald trump is not doing politics as usual. he is being straight up and honest. his opinion may not be buttered up so that the democrats or republicans can understand him. what he is saying is that there is an issue here and we need to address it. i don't agree with saying that all hispanics, but he didn't say all hispanics. he said that we have the ones who jumped the border. if they came in and paid taxes

and took care of all the bills that the rest of us had to take care of, that would be something different. but they need to come through the same way everybody else has. host: who do you think has the best message of the presidential candidates? on immigration? caller: right now, i think donald trump does. he is straight up. he is not buttering it up. he is just saying a fact. politicians nowadays would state the facts, and tell us how to take care of it, and let the people make the decision. but no, they want to fight one another. trying to downplay mr. trump or the others. i am so sick of politicians as a whole. i want to just hear the truth.

you don't have to butter it up. host: i appreciate your comments. 202-748-8000, democrats. 202748 8001, republicans. any issue in the news or public policy. in the south carolina legislature, in the new york times, "debate over confederate flag is set to move inside south carolina's capital." discussions are expected to take up today over the battle flag. they're responding to demands that it be removed after the massacre at the church in charleston. the state senate is scheduled to consider a bipartisan proposal to move the battle flag, long

viewed as a defined tribute to the segregationist past to the relic room in the museum. if the measure is approved, it will shift to the house. again, this is in south carolina. republicans control both chambers. a newspaper in charleston found last month that there was enough support in the legislature to approve the plan. just to read a little bit about what prompted governor haley to remove the flag. this is in the washington times. they write, the surfacing of a website with mr. roof holding confederate flags deepened her resolve.

i could not have been more disgusted, she said. let's honor every person in south carolina so that nobody drives by the state house and feels pain. but she has said nothing publicly for several more days. let's hear now from virginia on the independent line. caller: good morning. the last caller said everything i was ready to say. i want to add that we are starting to be a society where we have to put everything into words where it doesn't offend somebody. on a case like that this morning, 7-8 murders in chicago weren't committed by gangsters, they were committed by guns. i think we need to put it in perspective. we are getting where we can't called a certain group by what they really are.

in other words, we used to call -- gangsters, but now we have groups that say we can't call them what they are. at the end of the day, i guess the guns are committing the violence, and not the real perpetrators. host: a couple of tweets here. monty tweets about the iranian nuclear negotiations. "no agreement could have non-nuclear consequences. " a tweet about greece "races a corrupt nation whose citizens horribly cheat on the payment of taxes." congress will return on tuesday the act race sprint to the august recess. joining us is kevin's

cirilli. what is the deal with the highway funding? guest: before the august recess they have to have a highway transportation bill. this is something that both sides have indicated that there is bipartisan agreement on. or else the funding bill will run out. most expect that there will be an amendment attached to extend the reauthorization of the export-import banks. in the house, there has been a lot of finagling over whether or not to reauthorize that. the bottom line is that we've seen a situation play out where there is a less controversial bill, and then the does attach. tea party members are worried about the export import banks.

other members say it helps to sustain jobs. host: so there authorization ran out as congress went to the july 4 recess? guest: absolutely. it has temporarily expired. that means that the bank officials cannot vote to have more projects. this is federally backed and is supported by the business community. a bank can still make good on the commitments that it has already made. with that being said, this is one of the most contentious sites right now. outside of congress you have every major top-tier presidential candidate in the republican field coming out against it. while democrats supported, and so do moderate republicans.

host: give us an idea of where congress stands on the annual spending bill. it seems like they're halfway through. what is left to do? guest: a great question. the house is in front of the senate on this. the house is taking a much more peaceful approach. the senate likes more of a juxtaposed position. we are heading into the fall. i would not expect there to be major spending bills going on before the august recess. we are adding it to the fall and that comes around the time of another debt limit, and it also comes when we could see another fiscal situation for the holidays. in the fall and winter, around december, it is going to be another example of whether or

not congress can get something done in terms of a budget. the background to this is that we saw this to an extent last year i expect the ramifications to be more heightened this year because we are heading into another presidential cycle. i think that the debt limit is surrounding all of the budget fighting, and it could heighten things. it will be interesting to see how it plays out. host: we talked about the highway bill. the usa today headline says that congress will tackle highways and education. the no child left behind law is coming up. what does that look like? guest: no child left behind is something from the bush administration. it is tough to talk about these and not talk about what is

happening on a presidential scale. when you talk about no child left behind, you have leading republican lawmakers in the senate like ted cruz and marco rubio, rand paul, lindsey graham all of these people are going to bring up the debate. i think that on the flipside, democrats have also attacked no child left behind. so we're going to have an education debate. and i wouldn't really expect the president to try to pass any type of comprehensive education reform. i don't think that is on the agenda. i don't think there is the capital to do it. we'll have to wait and see. the country is about to have a national debate. this will be the first instance of that in the coming weeks. host: the hill this week talks

about democrats to watch on iran nuclear bargain. how would the signing of the treaty play out on the floor? particularly in the senate? guest: we are going to see battle lines drawn. republicans have continued to raise questions about whether or not president obama has been able to get the best deal from the iran sanctions. to some extent, people within the president's own party have questions that. they have asked for the final say. i think tomorrow, it is an opportunity for republicans to criticize his foreign-policy. i would expect that to happen

tomorrow. republicans have consistently called for president obama to be more tough, for lack of a better term. that will continue on the floor tomorrow. host: kevin cirilli is reporting. we thank you for joining us. we are live with the phones on washington journal. 202-748-8000 democrats. 202748 8001, republicans. ryan is in florida, thank you for rating. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i

support everything that donald trump has said. granted, he is a little harsh in his wording. but i'm a little upset and disturbed with the candidates trying to put their spin on things. he meant illegal immigrants, not immigrants. there is a way to do it. when people come across our border illegally, they are committing a felony. as actually, they are felons for doing so. that is all i have to say. it is a little upsetting to see them put a spin, turning his words around on him. he needs to put a bit of a filter on it. but i feel like he is speaking what the majority of americans are feeling. host: let's hear from new york isaac is on the democrat line. caller: good morning.

i would like to say, anecdotally, i live in a small city of about 25,000 people. it is not 100 miles north of new york. we have a large spanish population. i see hard-working family-oriented people. i would say most of people -- the people in this area who are in trouble in terms of alcoholism heroine, and all of those crimes, they happen to be white. our problem appear is that people who are not able to work, don't work. i don't know if it is a statistic, but it is what i feel and see. mexican and people from honduras and nicaragua, these people, legally or illegally and

actually work. host: you are talking anecdotally. why do you surmise that you are seeing more hispanic workers who are employed than the white community? caller: i built a house. when i built a house, it was very hard for me to get regular native americans to show up on time and sober. people who came from the spanish environment seemed to come in with a realization that they had an opportunity to work and they were going to take advantage of it. if you asked them to be here at 8:00, they would be here at 8:00. they wouldn't saunter in at 9:00 with a cup of coffee. it was a very -- it is very

common for people appear to feel that way. maybe this is the flipside of racism. that is why i say it is anecdotal. it is just what i have dealt with. when my mother was in florida, in rehab, almost everyone in there was people of color taking care of her. host: let's go to texas with bernie on the independent line. caller: i am an african american and i agree with donald trump. with black people, we keep rooting for the cowboy when we are the indian. all these companies are distancing from donald trump. they are doing that for the dollar. they couldn't care about hispanics or anyone else. corporate america cares about dollars. they are interested primarily in cheap labor.

so i voted for obama. i gave him $400 of my hard-earned money, but i'm disappointed in our race. it was founded on immigrants, we were brought to this country as the bottom rung of the lad der. our jobs are being taken over by hispanics. summer jobs for kids, those are taken over by hispanic adults. the last guy that spoke, of course they were coming to work on time. with the cheap jobs they can get here, it is much better than they can get in mexico. they have broken the law, they are illegal trump could have been more kind, but i never thought in my life that i would

ever vote for donald trump. but he hit the nail with a hammer. we have a problem with illegal immigration in this country. and as far as i am concerned the mexican government's way of taking over this country. host: that is bernie from texas. we are in open phones, any topic. "greek finance minister resigns after a referendum." they write that the demand for pension cuts and other austerity measures is likely to bolster the conviction of the athens government. they can successfully pressed its creditors for a better deal. that includes fewer painful fiscal measures and more debt relief.

the washington post this morning, they are writing about how the debt crisis in athens could reflect on main street, usa. here are the big ways that the debt crisis could intensify, and could affect you personally from your stock portfolio and summer plans. your 401 could get scary. negotiations broke down last month between greece and european creditors. two, your vacation could get cheaper. the euro is plunging against the dollar. the currency hit a 12 year low in march. lastly, they write that homeowners have enjoyed good rates. they are supporting mortgage rates to record lows.

the u.s. central bank is considering raising its benchmark interest rate. many analysts believe they can start hiking the interest rate as early as september. but the fed does not want to cause undue market volatility. the central bank officials learned that lesson in 2013. open phones, we go to holly in ohio. republican line. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment about the donald trump campaign. the one thing that i liked about it is that he will not let the country be run by lobbyists like it has been for years. the caller who called in to say it is about money, he hit the nail on the head. this is what we are doing.

we have a governor here, john casey, he has been running this state by lobbyists. he goes around bragging about the extra money, but he doesn't spend any money in ohio to get anything done. he is totally controlling our medical. the hospitals, especially the state owned hospital, you don't want some into happen to you. i think our washington has been run like this for the past six years or so. it is all about money. people do what ever they want to do. we need to get our government back to the people. host: all right michael is in dallas texas. caller: good morning.

i was listening to people talking about the flag, in virginia they are having problems with it. but the average person doesn't even know the name of the flag. i was just thinking about that. i know the name of the flag. but the reason i mention it is because it a lot of times we have people who comment on things when they don't know what they are talking about. host: what do you mean by the name of the flag? caller: they don't. do you? host: you mean the confederate flag? caller: yeah. host: they are talking about the confederate battle flag. caller: the name is the saint andrews cross. it was done by a group of confederates who believed in making wages off of the slaves backs.

the reason it didn't last is because a lot of the western people -- i mean a lot of the northern people -- they joined to help the slaves get out of slavery. because the slaves were giving them vital information on where the stashes were. another thing is the hook up. host: do you mean the general? thank you for that. let's hear from cedar hill texas. jessica. caller: yes, good morning. my name is jessica. i want to say the united states is a great place, but we have to address and to support donald

trump on what he said. there is nothing that he said that was outlandish. he is not talking about all of the hispanic people. the republican party does not back him because we have an election coming up. they need to be vote. went donald trump has finally said something, they don't back him. they have always been wishy-washy. if you are going to stand for something, stand for it. don't back out. if you are going to come to this country, you should pay taxes. you should be held liable for your actions. host: thank you for that. lots of comments this morning about donald trump's comments on

immigration. here the headline from the style section of the washington post. "81 things mike huckabee has denounced." he was on cnn's state of the union. >> donald trump needs no help from mike huckabee for publicity. so what i have been doing is focusing on my own views of immigration, rather than waiting eighing in on this battle of whether or not we are with trump. i delete in a secure border, i have committed to get that done within one year. 73 years ago we built a road from british columbia to alaska in less than a year. people say we can't secure the border, that is nonsense. we just need a president who is

committed to it. host: a couple more calls on the open phones. joshua. caller: hello. thank you for your show. it is very educational. i want to talk about education. i am a younger viewer and voter. it is hard for me to become educated about politics. i have never voted before because i don't believe i am qualified to vote before have enough information. host: how old are you? caller: i am 26. i have been doing my best to learn about politics over the past few years, it is my duty as a citizen, to become informed about how we work. i would like to see politicians and those campaigning offer more resources to people in my age bracket who don't know a lot about politics.

then they will become informed and make a decision. if you years ago, i identified myself as a liberal. i truly didn't know the definition of that. i come to find out, and they let -- find out, i have a lot of conservative beliefs. i will say that some of us are uninformed and i would like to see that change. i wish there were more resources. host: one more. democrat line in california. caller: good morning. i would like people to know that san francisco is considered a sanctuary city. a few years ago, a father and two young sons were slaughtered by a puerto rican gang member who had been deported to-three

times. until the government decides that they are going to do something to protect our people, we are in california, saturated with drugs. even in our national parks. the gang members are growing marijuana. we have no protection. our government has considered as a sanctuary state, and we have so much unemployment in oakland the rate is 29%. it is appalling that we are not doing something to protect our citizens. host: all right, we appreciate your calls. more ahead as washington journal continues. we are going to hear from david wasserman.

he is going to be talking about the agreements made last week in the term. later on, presidential historian, richard norton smith will be commenting on how recent decisions like the trade deal could impact president obama's legacy. more ahead as we continue. ♪ >> tonight on the communicators. we visited to hear what tech

companies want to discuss with members of congress. we talked to stephen fay and alice turnquist. >> that is basically when a business owner doesn't like a review of their business and says, i am going to sue you. they may go forward with it, but you as the user, the person who wrote that review, you know that it is firsthand, but you are the little guy. you might not have enough money to go to court over what you wrote about a chinese food restaurant. so instead of doing that, you just take off your review. so yelp is protected, that we are concerned about the effect that those kinds of lawsuits would have on people who otherwise would share their

firsthand experience. >> we had 600 families in our first consultation. there are a number of items we have to address. we have to express -- to bring affordable internet access to the masses. to provide public safety and discuss government uses. >> wireless is very different. our hope will be that wireless will be treated differently in terms of net neutrality. it is not exactly the same as data flowing over a fiber network. we think it needs to be given careful consideration. >> tonight, at 8:00 on c-span two.

>> washington journal continues. host: joining us this morning is david wasserman. he's here to talk about the supreme court decision that could affect how the house is shaped in the coming years. the supreme court upholds the arizona map. what did the supreme court decide? guest: the supreme court ruling is complicated and contradictory as times. the supreme court has had a hard time making up its mind on redistricting issues. they said all legislative districts had to be drawn with equal populations. but now there are questions in terms of what is fair to draw on a racial basis.

also, how gerrymandering should be allowed or deterred. in this case, arizona was one of several states across the country to employ redistricting commissions, commissions that were separate from the state legislature. after the 2010 census, the redistricting commission drew lines for congressional elections that republicans alleged were stacked against them. the independent tiebreaker side d with the commissioner. if you were to draw a map that simply incorporated regular shapes at random, you would end up with a republican leaning map in arizona.

but they sued and to the supreme court because they argue that independent redistricting commissions aren't constitutional. after all, it says that it should be determined by each state. so the supreme court had to wrestle with whether to interpret this with a strict space or a loose a. the majority decided to interpret this loosely. to say that these commissions are a tool. host: let's take a quick look at article one, section four of the constitution. the section says that the times places and manner of holding the

elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof, the congress may make such regulations. how many states use these commissions? how long has that been in existence? did it come about by the legislature or the citizens? guest: it came about by referendum. there are only seven states that have commissions responsible for redistricting. seven states only have one member of congress. arizona and california are the two states that have passed commissions that are truly independent. arizona's isn't even entirely

independent. this ruling really have the potential -- really had the potential to influence politics. if the supreme court had argued that voters aren't allowed to bypass the referendum, it could have thrown these maps back to the drawing board. publicans could have added several more seats in arizona, democrats could have added more in california. it would have continued the pattern that we see in the majority of states. it would have maximized their own opportunities at the expense of the minority party. it would have inflated their edge in the state legislature. host: is there any indication that this will lead other states

to using these independent commissions? guest: this is a victory for performers. theirere is no guarantee for future success. it is worth noting that not all of them and up producing maps that produce competitive elections. in new jersey, both parties have a certain number of the appointees. you end up still with a partisan map. in new jersey, we haven't seen a lot of competitive congressional elections. the question is, how many states have the willpower to bypass legislature? how many have the power to bypass the rules in place? who will fund these efforts from state for state -- from state to

state? democrats are at a benefit. it is a lot of democrats right now who are pushing for this good government reform, or so they say. so democrats have to be careful not to let this come across as a partisan agenda to pass similar commissions in states. in reality, they know they would be at a disadvantage. host: david wasserman is with us. we are talking about the arizona decision, but more broadly talking about the issue among the states. 202-748-8000, democrats. 202748 8001, republicans.

in the case of arizona, is there any indication of who this benefits russian ? guest: there are a couple of winners. kyrsten sinema, she is a democrat who was first elected in 2012 when a ninth district was created in arizona. that district was drawn as a competitive district to incorporate parts of scottsdale. she ran for that and onewon it. had republicans been able to draw that districts to their liking, that would have been inhospitable to a democrat. under the current map, she has a

good shot at staying in congress for quite a while. it should be said that republicans in california who are at risk of losing their seats, they could have been at risk if democrats in sacramento had managed to undo the sacramento commission. there are democrats who are happy with what this potentially does to reform efforts. in terms of the immediate political benefits, i think it is even. host: in the minority opinion to the supreme court, there was a lot of objection to the expanding of the term "legislature." guest: that is understandable. it seems pretty explicit in the

constitution that this is an issue for state legislatures to deal with. it is very difficult to imagine that the framers could have anticipated the sophisticated gerrymandering that goes on in states all across the country. particularly with areas of polarization that we are seeing, geographically. with mapmakers, they can separate voters. according to our index, the number of host: is that because of the redistricting across the

country? guest: several things are in play. more americans are choosing to live in communities where their neighbors agree with their own political perspective and values. we see far more landslide states. it is also in the hands of mapmakers who have a partisan agenda who want to maximize their own number and a minimize the other party's number and they do not want to create competitive states that creates a lot of uncertainty where they have to spend a lot of money to win. we see the two trends work in concert to really diminish the number of seats that have been uncertainty when november rolls around. host: is there any state out there that has the best model for redistricting, that on the service is at least partisan -- the least partisan. guest: a lot hold up iowa.

iowa has a legislative services bureau, a state office. it is independent from the legislature. they are in charge of drafting maps for congress and the state legislature that minimize the variance between the most popular district and though least popular district. the congressional maps do not split counties. they try to come up with a configuration that tries to balance the interests and the legislature has the authority to reject it if they do not like it or traditionally in iowa, the legislature has embraced of the map. in iowa come you have pretty clean lines. iowa does not have the considerations that other states

have to take into account. it has also got pretty square counties. there are not a lot of jagged lines from -- for mac makers to overcome -- map makers to overcome. host: david wasserman our guest. we go to florida. then is on independent line. -- ben is on the independent line. caller: mr. wasserman has very many good points about districting. the fact of it is many of our citizens are not educated enough to understand what the ramifications of this gerrymandering process is.

the problem is a lack of education of the general populace of understanding how legislators minute the nate -- manipulate to their own advantage the wills of the voters. guest: the caller raises an excellent point. it is really hard to get voters to care about things that are esoteric about redistricting reform. they're very critical of understanding how we reelect our numbers -- members of congress and legislatures. the challenge for he gestured dale reform from state to state is to convince a broad enough amount of voters that currently stand rate against them and be willing to pass a set of reforms

over the objections of most state legislators that do not want to give up that power. host: all those independent commission's such as the arizona case, the year this began typically, what is the election pitch on that? why do you need this commission guest:? guest: that is an excellent question. a couple decades ago, a couple legislatures decided they wanted someone other than state legislators to determine the districts they would be running in. i think a powerful one-liner that reformers are able to use is that voters should choose their politicians rather than

politicians choosing their voters. that has been an effective line arizona has a pretty robust referendum ballot initiative process and that has benefited reformers. not all states have that kind of process in place. host: is it the first time the legitimacy's of these types of organizations or questions? guest: it was. you could point to past commission maps that could put in place in arizona or other states where both parties had wins and losses. democrats effectively got the map they wanted and republicans were upset because they had majorities in the legislature. they felt as long as the commission was drawing a map --

host: pamela in brooklyn. caller: i just was interesting -- interested in inquiring with your guest if there is any past redistricting as far as three neighboring -- re-neighboring? host: did use say -- say it again, pamela. caller: more or less allowing or believe that there is a benefit to having a level of various different classes a group of people that kind of live there. is enabling is occurring across america like i know it is, i am not sure at what particular rate it starts to impact gerrymandering or redistricting

in general. how the lines are sort of drawn on the map. guest: i think the efforts of various planning boards across the country to incorporate a mix of incomes and backgrounds in housing has played out mostly in urban settings were democrats already have really strong majorities and in fact, one of the problems facing democrats in the long-term is there -- the problems are frequently clustered and as long as they are, they are naturally disadvantaged in the redistricting process because republicans can simply jaw a line around these city cores and preserve the rest of the districts for themselves. host: a reporter here in the washington post, they write that

a panel of federal judges had a ruling -- concentrated african-american voters into one congressional district, bringing the state except closer to force them to redraw the map. they write that the costly and time-consuming process would force the general assembly that to richmond for a special session this summer. any word on that happening or what is ahead for the process? guest: i'm glad you raised it. commissions are not the only leg -- litigated area right now. we are turning our attention to the virginia case that the article raises. democrats know that they are not just suffering from an assault on commissions that just settled. they are also suffered from the fact that republicans

particularly in the south, advocated for maximizing the number of african-americans in each black majority district because, of course, the more african-american voters there are in one district, the fewer there are in another. in virginia, where the cases playing out, there is one african-american majority district, a third district which stretches on the river to richmond. bobby scott's district. all surrounding districts all five neighboring republican districts, are pretty safely republican. democrats in the state believe that if black voters were evenly distributed across, democrats would have a chance at one or two more districts in the state. republicans claim this was a partisan gerrymandering effort. in essence, they are saying, we did not draw this map motivated by race and we drew it motivated by our own partisan interests basically admitting to the

partisan plan. the judge panel in virginia said this was racially motivated. you need to go back and draw a new map. in virginia, there is a republican legislator in the moment. this could place the court in an awkward position of having to draw a new map, which is not unprecedented. we have seen plenty of courts from maps over the years but it is not a job that the courts we like to do. host: what constitutional mandate does the legislature have? is it based on population? guest: yes. this is well-established in court decisions. you have to draw districts that are equal populace at the congressional level. it typically tends to be down to the person. somebody said that requirement

is going a little bit overboard and that you should have a little bit of leeway so you can preserve the integrity of locality. at the state legislative level there tends to be allowable for state legislative districts. all districting has to be based on the 10 year. there is a texas case that the supreme court has agreed to hear brought by plaintiffs who argue the account should be based on eligible citizens, not all people counted. that is a whole other animal. host: in the district of columbia, go ahead, lou, on our independent line. caller: good morning. i'm glad you read the article from virginia.

the republican's stated their districts were drawn primarily on population and not race and i am 60 years of age and i've always heard my parents and anson uncles talk about how they were denied access to certain communities and therefore, they were not able to move out of so-called cities. he say blacks had been concentrated in the cities. they were not allowed to move into the suburbs and that is for decades. that is why most of the districts republicans have are mostly white and very few blacks exist there. i do think there needs to be a way to not allow both parties to play this game, to not allow them to draw the districts based upon race, but upon who is there , income and etc..

we need to find a way to do this or we will continually have the same people elected to congress who do not represent my point of view. guest: this is a thorny subject because it is impossible to separate partisan motivation from racial considerations in the redistricting process in states where you have a fairly dispersed minority population which includes a lot of states across the south. what african-american politicians have to decide particularly democrats, is whether it is worth preserving these hyper majority minority districts at the expense of democrats winning more districts across the country are we see a pattern across the south of only one african-american majority

district in virginia, the city, alabama, and the rest are safe we were public that no other minority candidates really have a chance outside of those particular districts. this has in an area where it has been a case of strange bedfellows, of some african-american democrats and white republicans working together in the courts to preserve these districts. but of course, it simultaneously benefits republicans who want to preserve an overwhelming share of seats in the south. host: on twitter -- i think you mentioned there was an independent member of the board in arizona? guest: that is right.

and how can you establish a process by which everyone is truly independent? you know, you cannot really establish a truly separate process from the legislature unless you were to have a total lottery system taken at random. which california has come the closest to doing. you have a couple of political and put -- appointees, two from each party, and they decide who a fair fifth member of the board should be. in 2010, the picks a health-care administrator and democrats liked her because she was someone who eventually came around to the idea of maximizing the number of competitive districts, which democrats

ultimately benefited from. she described herself as a former republican to republicans open to the idea of appointing her but came to regret accepting her on the board. host: the court is not done with the issue because the headline reflects the arizona districting panel to be revisited. what is left to decide? guest: to my knowledge come i think the arizona map is fairly settled. we are look ahead in terms of what the courts will decide on redistricting, racial considerations in the virginia map, the north carolina map, and the texas case aires with regards to how we determine who to count for the purposes of creating equally populated

districts. host: our democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for being there. i have been watching the little bit of the activities, and just their nationwide agendas implemented so well. i am wondering, i think they may have changed their names as well. host: this is the american legislative exchange council, right? caller: something like that. they are very effective. i'm just wondering, what are their efforts under alec or their new name, in organizing the districts which are crazy around the nation. what do you know about that? are they still very active?

guest: it is a conservative group dedicated to establishing best practices. it is easy for democrats to demonize because they hold conferences that are not necessarily public. they provide what democrats would call cookie-cutter legislation. they can essentially led -- handoff, but hey, when democrats have had the opportunity to draw maps to their liking, they have certainly taken the opportunity to draw creatively shaped districts as well. even if republicans were able to lock in their majority after the 2010 census by drawing some pretty torturous shapes in states like pennsylvania

michigan, democrats, if you go back to the 1990's, were drawing curious lines in north carolina and illinois this time around, democrats won one big state where they still had control of interesting shapes as well. host: what is the most interesting or unusual district shape you could think of? host: -- guest: marilyn's their district. -- maryland's district. down to annapolis and even parts of the dz suburbs. i think the nickname for that has been the upside down praying mantis. in the 2000's in illinois, 17th district northwest illinois was referred to as a rabbit on a skateboard.

we have the upside down see urgent district in pennsylvania. there are all kinds of shapes that seem to provide across the country. host: devon --david wasserman our guest, tell us about this map largely shaded in red. what is this looking to? guest: a lot of people would be fascinated to know republicans hold 57% of seats right now in the house that hold 80 percent of the country passes went area. i think that is a high water mark and that speaks to how concentrated democrats have come in urban settings. it states to the advantage republicans have had in redistricting in the pattern we see across a ton of states, that republicans have packed democrats into heavily

democratic, urban districts, and preserved their advantages in suburban and rural seats. we have seen a pattern where republicans, whatever their share of the total vote have won 4% more seats. in, it was democrats who won 1.4 million more votes than republicans for congress, and yet republicans won the house by 33 seats. in 2014, republicans won 53% of the two-party vote for congress. and so democrats may be locked out until at least after the next redistricting. i have said i think democrats would be needing one of three things to happen to take back the house before that. number one, they would need a resettlement program of their voters, which is not happening and number two, a form of broad-based redistricting reform , and the possibility is so alive or number three they

need a really unpopular republican president during midterm election year like we saw in 2000 six look george w. bush. that was enough to get democrats back into power. the first opportunity for that to happen was 2018. host: steve in pennsylvania republican line. caller: my question is if we took the registration for voting and took the party affiliation off of that, and take party affiliation off of all information for politicians, how do you think that would affect how they look at how they would want to set their districts? the only other comment i have is there was a person on yesterday on c-span talking about getting information out about unions, information on union dues for people who opt o if unions, it is not correct. you need to fact check your

people just a little bit. thank you. guest: the caller raises an interesting question. in nebraska, where legislatures in nebraska for several reasons it only has one chamber of the state legislature, but they do not have party affiliation. yet they have still drawn maps that seek to reserve republican advantages at the congressional level. i think the experiment tells us a little something about how there is always some kind of partisan motivation even when there is no label on the ballot. the caller i believe is calling from pennsylvania. it is the perfect illustration of what republicans have done when they have been able to control legislatures. the third district of

pennsylvania, one of the most competitive districts in the country. what republicans were able to do on the last round is split in the county into two pieces so that the democratic vote was broken down and diluted. as a result, third district is pretty safely republican now. host: on twitter, a viewer says -- do you agree or disagree with that? guest: well, i think we have never been able to take politicians personal ambitions out of the process altogether. as much as the framers would probably frown on the process we

see now, i do not know if they would have been able to write any england to the founding documents that could have prevented what we see. host: part of the argument was the mid--- they thought they found the ultimate source for power, the people, and they brought that definition of legislature, correct? we go to missouri, john on and out -- john on our democrats line. caller: good morning. as long as humans are drawing these lines, there will always the partisanship involved. for someone to do something like this, take the population of each state and whatever population is located, feed it into a computer and let the computer divide up the state and the district. take it out entirely and see

what happens. i wish someone would do it here it seems so simple, and let the problem be solved by computers. some of these silly districts you see around the country. i would appreciate an answer. i will comment about that. thank you very much. guest: i am grateful for the question because it raises an interesting topic we were not talking about 20 years ago. we are at the level of capability that computerized redistricting is possible. many political -- political scientists and mathematicians have drawn of algorithms that demonstrate what lines could look like if a computer were simply to draw a map. it is not easy to simply impose a map with a bunt -- a bunch of

straight lines on it with normal shapes. of course, our elections are administered at the local level and let's face it, a lot of our political subdivisions that exist have jagged down trees and curious shapes. those shapes are probably more like he to be respected by humans looking at a map than by computers. and yet, is it possible for computers within our lifetime to take over the process? i think we are probably at that stage. but i would also say it would raise a whole other set of concerns about how we protect the ability of minority communities to elect candidates of choice, etc. p have to have a level of consciousness when drawing a map to be fair to everyone. host: we of been focusing on

congress and congressional district spirit you write about the 2016 presidential election. in a recent article you put out mapping the 2016 electorate, democrats do not guarantee a democratic white house or u.s. three reasons for optimism for the democrats and three reasons for optimism for republican candidates. briefly, if you could go over some of those with us. guest: thanks for asking. sure. what we sought to do was map the 2016 electorate according to what demographic groups are likely to make up, what component of each state electorate particularly in states that are likely to be close between two parties. the goal was to project would percent of latino vote would republican candidates need to win in the state of florida? we were able to come up with early conclusions.

the nonwhite proportion of the electorate was 28% in 2012. if democratic patterns are predictive of what it will look like in 2016, we anticipate the shares will go up to 30% and that is good news for democrats. democrats won almost 4/5 of nonwhite voters in 2012 and we continue to see the republican coalition of older and whiter voters shrink. that is good news for democrats. the good news for republicans here is there is probably no magic number of latinos or asian-americans that republican candidate needs to win in order to win the white house. i think when you look at the latino population across the country, it is growing and it is often said republicans badly

need to do so much better with latinos in order to have a chance. most latino voters are concentrated in states that are not particularly competitive at the presidential level, whether it is california, texas, or new york. only in colorado, nevada, and florida do they make up such a significant portion that they can really swing electorate college votes. i ca root for candidates without necessarily having to win huge numbers of latino and asian american voters that they lost in 2012. host: could they give up at 4/5 and still win in the white house? guest: my hunch is if republicans do win in 2016, it is because they have done better with every group across the board. we have divided the electorate in the chart, available on our website, into voters with college degrees, voters without college degrees, because we have found that educational attainment has been a pretty

predictive component of the vote when you look back a couple of decades. democrats have been doing better and better with voters with college degrees and republicans without. that is another interesting aspect. host: let's get a couple of calls. independent line, robert. caller: i am calling about the thing in south carolina. there is a state that is almost 50% black and 50% white. i might be wrong about that. unless i am mistaken, there is only one black congressman. the idea with the supreme court one of the greatest votes i've ever seen. redistricting is wrong. i'm a democrat. i admit that. an independent democrat. but the point is what we have to

do is make the election fair. you take three states like texas, florida, and california, where the minorities are now the majority, and we have nothing but 90% white congressman. how is that possible? thank you. guest: there are a lot of reasons for minority underrepresentation at the moment. in a state like texas, the greatest factor at work is simply the lack of eligibility among latino residents of texas to vote. you see that even in a district for example texas, the 23rd district, up 68% latino. they still make of a big majority of all voters there. it is a district currently represented by republican.

you even see some districts in texas where african-american democrats or anglo democrats have defeated candidates in the primary because voters are eligible and do not show up in great numbers even if they are the majority of the population. the caller raised the issue of south carolina. i find that an interesting case as well. south carolina is close to 30% african-american but the color has a little bit of a point when if you were to apply that to the seven districts, it would be more logical for the states to have two black majority districts rather than simply one. south carolina gained its district in 2010 and chose not to draw an additional african-american majority district. that has been a legal football over the years. do you have to maximize the majority seats, or is it

acceptable to simply draw, to maintain the african-american share of that one seat? the obama justice department actually signed off on the republican map after 2010 in south carolina that preserved one seat. host: as we wrap appear, just want to look ahead to 2016. the safe seats, etc., where things stand this is according to the political -- the cook clinical report. 28 republicans 16 democrats nine republicans, three democrats. it does not seem like there is a whole lot of movement that will happen in 2016 at this point. could any of these decisions in the court or other courts change that? guest: it is remarkable we have

435 congressional districts and yet we only rate 12 of those as tossups between the party. it goes to show you the self sorting and gerrymandering in both parties has undertaken has really contributed to the decline of any suspense by the time election night comes around. i do not anticipate the supreme court ruling in arizona will affect that. if anything, it preserves a couple of competitive seats that might otherwise have been eliminated by bipartisan. in 2016, i think republicans stand an excellent chance to maintain the majority and the house. democrats will gain seats simply bouncing back from a bad year in 2014 when a lot of their own can situate sees stayed home in large numbers. but we need to pick up 30

misfits in the majority in 2016 it we only rate nine in the column at severe risk. another 13, even if democrats want all the competitive races -- host: david wasserman is the house editor for the cook political report. they can follow you on twitter. thank you for joining us. coming up next, we're joined by a historian and author, richard norton smith. we will talk about the aftermath of the charleston shootings and how the stories and events could impact the legacy of president obama after his presidency has ended. the now president and ceo of the

national safety council will talk about key safety issues in the u.s. such as distracted driving, teen driving, and prescription drug overdoses. all ahead. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] ♪ >> c-span gives you the best actress -- access to congress bringing you events that shape public policy. every morning, "washington journal" is live with elected officials, policymakers, by phone, facebook, and twitter. c-span brought to you with -- as a public service by your local

cable satellite provider. >> like many of us, first families take vacation time. like the president a good read could be a perfect companion for your son -- for your journey. what better book than the one that appears inside the personal life of every first lady in american history. presidential historians a lot -- on the lives of 40 inspiring stories of fascinating women in the white house. a great summertime read. available as a hardcover or an e-book, through favorite bookstore or bookseller. >> washington journal continues. host: a familiar face to washington journal viewers richard norton smith joining us this money from grand rapids michigan. talk about where things stand on

the legacy of the current president, especially in light of court decisions on gay marriage and the affordable care act, the victory in congress over the trade bill, and his recent comments on the shootings and the eulogy in charleston as well. thank you for being with us this morning. what brings you to the grand rapids? tell us that first. guest: i have moved here to undertake my next book, a comprehensive biography of general ford, and of course, at one point, i was directed to the ford library museum. a homecoming for me. it is nice to be back and nice to be back on c-span. host: we frame this conversation on the legacy of president obama in terms of how the recent events may eventually frame his legacy. when you saw those news stories

happening and this was the leak of his presidency, from a historian perspective, what do you think? guest: the word is eventually. this is a classic example of the difference between journalism and history. i am not saying one is better than the other or more reliable than the other. they are just two different disciplines. journalists, after all, are interested in bringing us as soon as possible the news as it happens. they can write about the best week of the obama presidency and the many ways, understandably so. historians, on the other hand, are trained to take the long view. it takes years and sometimes decades. an example is dwight eisenhower.

popular with the public but not so much with the academic community. the first pool of scholars rank him 26th. which gives you some idea of where a lot of scholars were coming from in their own policy. five years later, we began to get access to eisenhower's papers and very quickly, we discovered the grandfather we thought, who played golf during the 1950's, was in fact a much shrewder and frankly more manipulative and skillful leader. today, i do not think you will find any outside the top 10. when you look at barack obama, some things we know, obviously. six years into his presidency. we know he is a consequential president and that is not always

the case. we know he has pursued days ideas. he has taken big risks. whatever you think of the affordable care act, for example, history will record that he managed to do something a whole string of his that assessors had been unsuccessful in doing. he did it in gridlock, intense polarization and, frankly great suspicion of government generally and the expansion of government authority in particular. host: the headline the wall street journal talks about, the president said in a news conference that he saw his recent wins as a culmination of hard work, sort of giving the credit less to him i suppose and more to his aides. guest: and that is very shrewd.

you do not advance your cause by claiming personal credit. let me give you another example of how it president's legacy can be totally different from what we think at the time. when out of office with the lowest poll ratings in the history up to that time. 25 or 30 years later we had vietnam and watergate and all the sun we look that catch women and we saw the real deal, we saw an authentic leader, we saw someone's who had all the big things right and a lot of little things wrong. we forgot about the hawaiian sports shirts and the letters to music credits, that actually became endearing at a time when so much about politics is

stylized in kabuki theater. harry truman said i want to how far moses had gotten if he stopped to take a poll in the middle of the desert. truman became in many ways a model of a decisive leader who took big decisions, who took responsibility and by and large, history has been kinder to him than some historians were at the time. in terms of barack obama, he said he wanted to be a transformative president. that is the term political scientist use. we will not know for 10 or 15 or 20 years how transformative he was. it matters who was elected in 2016, if someone was elected carrying on the obama programming, for example, that is a factor historians will take

into account. just look at the talks on the iranian nuclear program. secretary kerry is quoted as saying it could go either way. that is hugely significant not only in terms of immediate american diplomatic policy, but in terms of legacy. if kerry manages to negotiate a deal that the country can live with and that forestalls the iranians from getting a new rear bomb for x period of time, that has real significance in the middle east and the on. it would be a huge feather in barack obama's historical cap. if he fails, the blame will be assessed against the same source. host: richard norton smith is

our guest, talking about the legacy of president obama. -- in the week of the spring court decisions and the passing of the trade bill, the bread -- the president also spoke at the funeral for the reverend shot in trust in, south carolina. the headline over the weekend from the new york times is, a eulogy that found its place in history. let's take a look. president obama: none of us can or should expect race relations transformation overnight. every time something like this happens, everyone says we have to have a conversation about race. we talk a lot about race. there is no shortcut. we do not need more talk. [applause]

none of us should believe a handful of gun safety measures will prevent every tragedy. it will not. people of goodwill will continue to debate the merits of various policies. as our democracy requires. a big place, america is. there are good people on both sides of these debates. whatever solutions we find will necessarily be incomplete. but it would be a betrayal of everything the reverend stood for, i believe, if we allowed ourselves to slip into a comfortable silence again.

[applause] once the eulogies have been delivered and the tv cameras move on, to go back to business as usual. that is what we so often do. to avoid uncomfortable truths about the president that still affects our society. [applause] to settle for symbolic gestures without following up with the hard work of more lasting change. that is how we lose our way again. host: richard norton smith, how could a speech like that affect the legacy of president obama? guest: there is no doubt that memorable presidential speech or's -- speeches are part of our popular and scholarly memory. we still quote fdr on the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, or ronald reagan on,

tear down this wall. the difference is those were scripted, the result of events that could have been planned for. one of the fact that people do not often stop to think about is that president get assessed less for standing in the pulpit and announcing the national agenda and then persuading congress and the country that this is what we ought to do. that's a start of the job, but it is how they react to the unexpected, the unpredictable. and the events in charleston were a classic example. but that speech, let's remember as impressive as it was, and as memorable as it will prove to be did not exist in a vacuum. america was shocked. by what happened in the immanuel

church wednesday night. two days later, i do not think any of us were prepared for the emotional catharsis we felt listening to all of those family members of the victims who were clearly dealing with wrenching emotions and yet one after the other, testified to their faith and fortitude, managed, in their own way, to tell the alleged killer that they forgive him. i think over the weekend, it did not matter your politics, did not matter your race, or where you are from. americans looked in the mirror and said, could i have done that? i suspect most of us said we could not have. i do think -- i do not think you can quantify that or take a poll on that, but is it within the context within the climate, not

the political climate, but the moral climate created by those people, that the president spoke in charleston? it is the interaction between the two that historians will have to weigh for years to come. host: after his legislative win on the trade bill and his victory in the courts, he was asked about his best weekend in response at the news conference he said, my best week, i will tell you, is marrying michelle, emily and saw shall being born. excellent weeks. let's take a call, on our independent line. caller: can you hear me? i'm a huge fan of mr. smith. thank you for your presence today. it totally changed my mind about

this man to die richly assumed he did nothing to stand up to or try to defuse the abuses of senator mccarthy on the house of activities commission. but i learned through his quiet dignity and behind-the-scenes imaginations, he did a lot to combat and really, ultimately ensure senator mccarthy's demised. he will do it himself and his alcoholism and outrageousness, but moving on to president obama, when he first came into office i just thought he was the essence of cool, aloofness confidence. but i believed in my heart he was more like a successful marketing campaign than a substantive individual. but since he has been in office, i believe the times, the challenges, the international

events, have really given him opportunities to develop the resume, if you will, that his prior, early life did not have ip or die give him high marks for being sane in a crazy world and also having to deal with a dysfunctional congress that is so acrimonious due to frankly the redistricting that allows extremists to stay safely in office. host: we will get a response, susan. thank you for your call. guest: the caller was putting her finger on something we do not often like to admit. every president, i do not care help impressive a resume or political career you may have had behind you, the fact of the matter is, every president has on-the-job training in this job. it is universal. before i forget, her mention of dwight eisenhower, there is a

big new book coming at the end of this month called "the president and the apprentice" and it promises to be the best book yet about the eisenhower and nixon relationship and i would strongly urge that she and others get a copy. host: let's hear from a net in chicago, democrats line. caller: yes, i am calling about the legacy of president obama. i believe he should go down as one of the best unifier's in the world because since he has been in office, he has been trying desperately to bring people together, no matter what race they are. and trying to help the american people as well, like with the affordable care act, you know, to help, you know, individuals that do not have proper

insurance or insurance at all. he helped give the lgbt community, i mean, just all the things people care about, everything people care about these days. being able to feed their children and find jobs. barack obama has been working desperately to try to get all of those things for regular and everyday people. i also think you should go down as well as the president where republicans say hey, and i do not they give it is because his race or what but sometimes, i question whether it is or not because when he was doing the state of the union speech, a guy stood up and called him a liar. the total disrespect of this man, with so much hatred toward him, you have got to ask yourself, why do republicans hate him so much and why don't they care about everyday people? host: thanks for your call.

guest: there is no doubt we are moving through an era of intense polarization and i think in some ways, you can say there have been other times in american history where the parties have been at each other's throats. the difference now has something do with media and the way we get information that we cannot escape it. the nature of the 2 -- the new cycle and the internet, it has empowered, frankly people who appear to have no other particular agenda than tearing down whoever might be in office. the fact is, four of the last five of american presidents come you go back to ronald reagan, or polarizing figures. one reason is because they were agents of change. woodrow really -- woodrow overlooked -- woodrow wilson famously said, if you want to make an enemy in washington, try to change something.

whatever you think of the changes they were trying to pursue, and some were conservative and some were more liberal, the fact is i think history will accord each of them was a consequential president, a president who made a significant difference in the lives of their countrymen and of the world. by its very nature, that upsets the status quo and in turn generates a lot of opposition and mistrust that you allude to. but i think you are right it is amazing if you look at lincoln and fdr, if you look at frankly, even ronald reagan. you look at president who today are widely admired, the fact is they were, at the time detested by some who were unusually vocal. host: we are on twitter.

a couple of tweets -- a caller talked about on-the-job training as president from your perspective as a presidential historian, has any president come in with meeting that sort of on-the-job training? guest: i think all of them due to some degree. i think the exceptions are those who do not. for example, look at the first george bush, who many people think of as a primarily foreign policy president. that skill set and that temperament, diplomatic, if you want to call it that, happened to be in the white house at a

time of really critical decisions, the end of the cold war, which, by the way did not have to end as peacefully as it did, germangerman reunification did not have to take place relative of ease. and that is another way that we judge presidents. not only by the programs initiated, but by all of the terrible things that they present form happening -- from happening. the fact that george w. bush didn't go to collapse the berlin wall. that may seem an audit example of leadership, but it was an example of self-denying leadership. he could have gone at the

expense of alienating --, whose country was falling apart. he put together the international coalition against pseudomonas say it. so sometimes it is what the president's don't do that over time, entitles them to the appreciation of history. host: let's hear from tony on the independent line. caller: i don't approve of your job of trying to make decisions as to who shouldn't look good and honest. the world trouble that we are in we are in trouble with everyone. we are not the good guys here. iran is going to fall through as we are demanding outrageous

rules. they are not going to put up with it. it is obvious that oprah winfrey showed that we can take anybody off the street and pay for them to take the president. and for people to allow such things to go on, it is the degradation of the united states. and then for you to do your job and not face the facts, i just don't understand. i don't understand how everybody is being kept so quiet, how the monopoly on the media and the rest of the united states is just held hostage and kept in the dark. host: we will hear from richard norton smith, he talked about making a president look good.

you think that is part of your job? guest: no, on the contrary. i was suggesting that the danger of the journalistic perspective forming opinions -- and by the way, this is a classic example. the last time i checked, the media seems to be open and diverse in terms of the opinions of that were being voiced, not least of all on the channel that you are watching. host: on our republican line. caller: yes, i was going to say about obama's legacy. as far as our foreign policy goes, it is a disaster. as far as race relations go, i have never seen this country more divided. i am only 38 but worse than

they are right now. i would like to know what mr. smith has to say about that. host: foreign policy and race relations with president obama long term. how will that play out? guest: in many ways, foreign policy is the most treacherous ground, particularly for this president. i already mentioned the iranian nuclear program and the future of those talks. clearly there are a lot of people who are disappointed in the president's policies in the middle east. there are people who believe that he has not been adequately support his of that traditional ally. people look at the arab spring which has curdled into something on springlike -- on

unspringlike. those are legitimate questions. there are questions that you can be sure historians will be debating for a long time. but that goes back to my point. like him, dislike him, whatever. the fact that barack obama and whatever his legacy is willing gauge the interest and attention and the support and hostility of historians and others for a long time to come, it only testifies to the significance of his presidency. and to the magnitude of what he has attempted. host: richard norton smith is our guest.

this conversation grows out of the reporting after the trade deal, and also out of the affordable care act and expanding same-sex marriage. they called that obama's best week ever. guest: you mentioned the supreme court. here is something we know and can measure. a significant part of george w. bush's legacy is his supreme court nominees. chief justice robert and justice alito, and a big part of obama's legacy will be his appointment of nominees. the two bush nominees -- the two

obama nominees. host: let's hear from jay in south carolina. caller: i was at a party the other night, and people were talking about inauguration addresses. they talked about jfk, and then someone mentioned gerald ford. it is a pretty awesome inauguration address. i was wondering how that came about? guest: that is a great question. the president used to laugh about it. you have to remember, this was a unique inauguration. because of the unique circumstances surrounding the transition from nixon to ford, he couldn't prepare an

inaugural address. so this was something that was put together at the very last minute. he looked at it the day before he delivered it. and there was a line that he thought was over the top. he thought it was harsh. it is the line that we all remember, "our long national nightmare is over." and -- went to the mat and said that it was the phrase that people would remember. he was right. he was the first to acknowledge in later years that he had misjudged it. if you want to read a great inaugural address read woodrow

wilson's first inaugural address. delivered in march, 1913. host: that is not in our video library. are you still there? caller: yes. host: what struck out to you as being great? caller: the brevity of it. he seemed to be the right person at the right time delivering the right speech at the right moment. he just seemed, his humanity came out. host: i'm glad you joined in this morning. let's talk to john from maryland. caller: i think it is a little early since he has 1.5 years left.

and so many things can happen, as we have seen with the week that was, with the trade success and the two supreme court decisions. by the way fdr tried to stack the supreme court so he could get more favorable rulings out of his appointees, and that didn't fly. but when president obama put elena kagan in there, they were his people. they think like him. sonia sotomayor was caught saying, we are not supposed to say this, but we do make policy. and that should have knocked her out. elena kagan, she never s

erved as a judge. she was solicitor general and her main case was obamacare. of course when obama came to the supreme court that didn't work crews what people were thinking. it sounds like as a presidential biographer, you are in the same load as michael bash watch. he was bragging about obama being the smarter person -- link the smartest person to ever serve in the oval office. "what is his iq? " host: all right, richard norton smith, any thoughts?

guest: i would suggest thomas jefferson and john quincy adams probably are the most cerebral of american presidents. i think woodrow wilson is up there as well. host: the american political science association did a ranking of where the president's stand. lincoln is at the top. of the modern-day presidents, he eisenhower is placing ahead of president obama. clinton and jfk and george bush also ahead of obama. do presidents receive a more favorable view, does absence makes the heart grow fonder? guest: that is a great question.

generally speaking, presidents leave office at the -- of their reputation. what happens is, once they leave office, they cease to be in our face. they cease to be political figures, party leaders, they graduate to the serial position of older statesmen. they go off and visit earthquakes and raise money for charities. this is another reason why it takes time before the first draft of history journalism, becomes the second, third and fourth. the more controversial a president is, the more

polarizing, the longer it takes for those emotions to cool. richard nixon was one of the more controversial presidents, it would take 50 years before anyone could write about him with objectivity. we are coming up on 50 years there are several new books out. that is another point. there are three new nixon books this summer. there are three new books on fdr. it reinforces my point. i'm not saying that we have to wait 50 years or 70 years to pass judgment on the obama presidency. but it will be a wild. host: the business insider headline "the last week cemented obama's legacy." caller: i honestly believe that

in the final analysis, this president will go down as the most divisive president in the history of this country. so many of us democrats and republicans, have spent a lifetime creating a seamless society, a homogenous society ringing all people together collectively. it seems to me, ace on his background and his affiliations, based on what he fails to do, he is creating a divisive society by design. the reason, i don't know. what are his true politics? it isn't the true democrat, as my father knew. it is very difficult for someone like myself to get a handle on what he really is intending to do.

i don't think that the republicans dislike him as much as they distrust him. not because of his race, but because of his programs. how he ramrod it through nancy pelosi the affordable care act. how he did all of these things without regard, without an attempt to meet with leadership on the other side of the aisle. host: we will hear from richard norton smith on the divisiveness of obama. guest: the caller is entitled to his view. i would suggest that abraham lincoln was the most divisive president. his election caused several southern states to leave the union, followed by several more. for most of his presidency, he was regarded as a mortal enemy for half of the union. it is only in retrospect that

lincoln has been sanctified. lyndon johnson 70 white house and listen to people outside -- and listened to people outside ask how many kids did you kill today? it doesn't get more divisive than that. it has become unfortunately, the norm. i think we should ask ourselves some tough questions about how we got to this point, and why there is such a bipartisan distrust, not only towards government and people associated with government, but whoever happens to occupy the presidency. the whole industry of this country, there are networks on the right and left that thrive on the basis of denigrating

whoever happens to have that job. it is a significant development that say, ronald reagan, who could go on tv and summon thousands of people to make phone calls to southern democrats to pass his budget. those are no longer available to an american president. the caller has talked about this president being different. part of that is responding to the different media environments. it is not your grandfather's presidency. the bully pulpit has been it transformed by the internet and other media. so the presidency is a work in progress. host: some of that is social media. -- agrees, "a generally

disagreeable fellow." maverick says, "republicans will go down in history as least productive, promising and failing to repeal health care law." now we go to pat. caller: i would like to know how you think history will remember the white house being praised in rainbow colored paints. host: test to hear. he said how do you think history will remember the white house being bathed in rainbow colored paint. guest: history will pay much more attention to the decision and the process that went to the

decision, rather than the white house's choice of colors. host: let's take one more caller. welcome. caller: there are three parts to the obama legacy. as far as verbiage goes, i think "you didn't build that your." i think as far as the other callers, obama being the most divisive president, black first white, gave her straight. you have to admit that this will go down history as the worst recovery at any time since probably the war. host: richard norton smith, let's and on the economy. -- let's end on the economy. guest: again, this is a work in

progress. you cannot fail to contrast where the economy was on the day barack obama first took office and where it is today. i think history will give this president more credit than contemporaries want to for the economic -- for bringing us back from the brink. i think that both bush and obama is of a a lot of credit for working together during those critical months the interim between their presidencies at a time when the economy could have gone over the brink, and it didn't. at the same time, there is a legitimate argument to be had about the nature of the recovery . the pace of the recovery. above all, the income in

equities that many people see resulting from the jobs. which for the most part, they pay less than the jobs they are replacing. it illustrates how much there is -- how fruitful of a debate we will have. not just in 2016 a long time to come. host: richard norton smith, he is working on a new book on gerald ford. he is also on our first ladies series. thank you for joining us. guest: my pleasure. host: next up, we will hear from deborah hersman, she is the ceo for the national safety council. she was the former chairman for

the ntsb. she will talk about distracted driving, workplace safety, and prescription drug overdose. but first, senator warner will be here on wednesday to take your questions about the gig economy. americans are stringing together jobs. we recently sat down with him at "we work." we talked about the geek economy. here is what he had to say about student debt. >> there are proposals that people have made, the challenge is how you pay for that. so there are a couple of smaller ideas that i have looked at that i think make sense. i would love to hear more from bethany about what you are doing. one is that the higher education

choice is probably the most important aspect you will buy in your whole life, other than your house. and yet the data you have before you gorgeous cool, your chances of graduation, getting a job you have none of the transparency. we collect all that data, why isn't there a user-friendly website for hundred -- for higher education? some schools don't like it, they don't like how bad the completion rates are. number two, i have to build with marco rubio. you have a bunch of options your number one default options. if you are just checking these options, make income-based payment your first choice. the default rate is typically the first after the first three

years out of college. and so then that gives you more freedom early on to take risks. and the third, a no-brainer, would be that if you work for a company, why not allow the company, if you agree, to take up to $5,000 of your salary and allow them to apply that against your student debt pretax? it doesn't solve the whole problem, but it doesn't cost the company anymore. it is a great retention tool. these are some of the things, these are not the kinds of transformative pieces but they are bipartisan ideas of how you can move forward. you can share with us afterwards about the new refinancing platforms that are out there. host: join us on wednesday at

8:30 eastern for more on the gig economy. next up, we are talking about safety issues. joining us is deborah hersman. she was the head of the ntsb, she is now the president of the national safety council. we're going to talk about some of the issues that you dealt with under the ntsb. thank you for joining us. guest: good morning. the mission of the national safety council is making our world safer. they were founded over 100 years ago by the business community they said they needed to take better care of our workers while they are on the job. also, safety in the community and through transportation.

host: a weekend of a lot of travel, a lot of people taking time off. what are some of the key summer safety issues that your work addresses? guest: unfortunately we see holiday weekends during the summer like fourth of july, we had friday night, saturday night, we see a lot of people traveling for vacation. and because the economy is getting better and ask prices remain low, the fatalities on the roadways are going up. we have seen in the first 3-4 months of this year, they have gone up. we are seeing potentially the most deadly year. host: what does your organization do to help

individuals drive more safely or to address interest driving? guest: we do research. we look at advocacy, it is about getting the word out, and advocating for the right in -- the right interventions. some of the things that are the most simple are like the ones being safe behind the wheel. putting your phone down. buckling up. don't drive drunk. it is about getting those messages out so we don't see a holiday where we have a lot of deaths on the roadways. host: let's talk about texting while driving. it seems like a couple of years ago that was a focus of the administration. in some ways, the bush administration that it seems like the problem is worse than ever.

guest: if you drive, you see people who are distracted. there are a lot of distractions. some of it is in vehicle. some of it is nomadic. we are bringing devices in the car. not just cell phones, in fact, the nsc put an estimate out that one quarter of all the crashes on the roadways are attributed to cell phone use on the roadways. we have seen that texting is an attributable offense. this is not a surprise. host: deborah hersman is the head of the nsc. she is here to talk about the industry's role. we are at

http://twitter.com/cspanwj if you want to tweet us. how is that causing more distractions? guest: when we talk about distractions, we talk about all of the information entertainment systems that are in cars. we see people connecting the a headset, people can update facebook pages, order movie tickets. there are a lot of promotions about wi-fi in cars. we have to think about the human beings who are driving the vehicle. we want their attention to be on the road. we want them to be responsible for what they are doing behind the wheel. the good news side of the technology in cars story, is that there is so much that has

been put into cars. everyone knows about airbags. we have new technology like that got cameras, warning systems automatic bracing -- automatic braking systems. there is so much going into our cars, it is important for us to understand what it is and how it works. if you want to learn more about the technology in your car, you can visit my car does what website. host: in the washington post, the amount of technology in a car and that causing a distraction. a cop will pull you over for texting while driving. but the federal government can mandate that car companies fit

their cars with lights and buzzers that are objectively more distracting, and that is ok. he is seeing the government having a role in making things more distracting for the driver. guest: there are a lot of features that can enhance safety. but they need to be working in tandem with the driver. some of that distraction is because people don't know how they work or operate. read your owners manual, but if you want other information, you can visit mycardoeswhat.org. host: i want to show viewers the nsc report for unintentional death rates. the state with the highest unintentional death rate is west

virginia, new mexico montana oklahoma and kentucky. what is defined as an unintentional death? guest: unintentional deaths are led by three distinct causes. for young adults, it is car crashes. we see teen drivers affected by car crashes. in middle age, it is prescription painkiller overdoses. and when people get over, it is falls. we see older americans affected by falls. we see people who could live longer, healthier lives, and their lives are cut short. unfortunately, unintentional deaths are all preventable.

car crashes, prescription painkiller overdoses and falls. host: the states with the lowest, maryland, new york, california washington, d.c.. guest: they are doing some great things. they had teen safe driving coalitions. they are out there to help be teenagers and their parents make sure that their driving experience is safe. the nsc have supported these coalitions, and we have seen improvements with the team death rates. washington d.c. have passed good samaritan laws -- four overdoses.

family and friends of people who might be taking these drugs they can be very deadly and dangerous. and people cannot realize that they have taken too much. washington, d.c. also has a prescription drug monitoring system for physicians and pharmacies to update every 24 hours to make sure that people aren't doctor shopping. host: the nsc, chartered by congress in 1913. what does that mean? guest: the nsc was founded over 100 years ago, and then later we were chartered by congress. we are a nonprofit organization. we get to funding from the government. we have a lot of shared focus and mission when it comes to safety. host: let's hear from mike. caller: i want to compliment

you. you are a beautiful woman. when i was growing up, there used to be a lot of national safety commercial's on tv. why is that? is that because of budget cuts? you are a beautiful looking woman. guest: thank you. we are so proud of the history we've had some wonderful spokespersons, people like bob hope. people would get on and share messages, a lot was about safe driving. it is expensive to do that. there is a lot of competition out there. we have a lot of people who will share that message, like being on washington journal today. host: in texas jan. caller: hi. i would like to reiterate what

you said about teenage driving. in my day, we were taught to drive at 15.5, and got our learners permit through the education system. i'm finding in my neighborhood, parents are asking not to take the liability until 18. possibly not being able to afford the insurance. therefore we have so many inexperienced drivers on the road, and in texas we have a lot of roads that are divided roads. two lane highways. i would like to address those two points. the second being the infrastructure. maybe make them three lane highways with a left-hand turn lane. or some shoulder. something where you aren't

having headlights right at you. guest: thanks. you make a great point. texas has the distinction of the state that has the highest amount of teenage driver the talent he's. we need to do better. and it comes to some of the problems that teenage drivers have, it goes to inexperience. getting the experience behind the wheel is so important. the first year and the first 100,000 miles are the deadliest time. for parents, it is important that once they get that drivers license, it doesn't mean that they become a better driver. you want to stay in the car with them, ride with them as much as possible. they need your help, even though they act like they don't want to hear what we have to say. they are looking to you to be the model for them. it is important for parents to model the behavior.

that means putting down your phone, and making sure that when you are behind the wheel, you are making sure you are showing how to operate the vehicle. host: she mentioned the behind the wheel. are we better off or worse off for not having it done through public schools? guest: a letter states have changed how they do teenage driving. some of it is still done at the local level. some of it is paid for and parents have to make a choice. one of the most important things that we could tell any parent is that you are your child's best teacher. whether you pay for them to go to a high-end driving school with high-performing vehicles. or you are getting them help on the local roads, you have to get back into the car and make sure

that the lessons they learn are the right ones. i know many of us had a different experience growing up. i remember getting my license and i don't think my parents road with me --rode with me again. the first year is the most dangerous. you can think about this as a challenge for anyone. jim talked about left-hand turns. those are hard to judge distance, how much time you have to get across, that is where they need your help. merging onto interstate traffic. things that are complex, you have to build that skill set up. key points, don't have other teenagers in the car. one additional teenager means you are more likely to have a crash. nighttime driving is a dangerous time to drive.

take their phones away when they are behind the wheel. guest:host: what first got you in safety issues? guest: i was working on the hill and there was a train derailment. the national transportation safety board came in and informed us on that. that really started my love for that. i was an air force brat. i have always had some of that in my blood. host: we go to georgia. caller: i drive a commercial vehicle, have been driving one for years. we have a lot of regulations on us. but i see it happen all the

time. now they are driving and texting when a commercial vehicle goes in motion -- they need to mandate the cell phones to quit texting when the vehicle is in motion. guest: thank you for being a safe commercial driver. we count on you all to be professionals. i bet from your vantage point you see a lot going on. texting is a big concern. people don't realize it, but they are looking down at their phone for the average length of a football field. that is very dangerous. none of us feel comfortable with that. we have taken polls, the interesting thing is that the

majority tell us they do not like other people talking or texting on the phone when they are driving near them. but when you ask the same people if they have talked or texted on the phone over the past few weeks, most will admit to doing so. it is a do as i say, not as i do. we have airplane mode on our cars -- on our phones. why don't we have car mode? we want everyone to be safe. host: with that be an issue that your organization would lobby or speak to congress about? guest: we have recommended that states ban the use of all devices behind the wheel. there is a big disconnect between people understanding that it isn't the fact that your hand is holding fee phone, it is that your brain is cognitively

distracted when you are talking on the phone. if it was a your hand, we would have outlawed stick shift cars. host: does all of this build a case or bolster a case for autonomous vehicles? guest: i have had the fortune of driving in a number of different cars with great technology. i have driven in google's car twice. it was one of the safest rides that i have had in a long time. for a lot of us, it is about making sure we are getting where we are going safely. we are talking about older drivers, fatigued drivers, drunk drivers. autonomous vehicles have the ability to solve a lot of those issues. host: up next is gene in

arizona. caller: i am new to the area in arizona, i am a survivor of a deadly car crash due to two distracted drivers. i lost my job because of it. i lost a friend. i got very active in advocacy work with brain injury people and tzd. i had an emotional speech that i try to do as much as i can. i am wondering how i can reach out with my story and help teach these teenagers and elderly is about the dangers of distractions. guest: i'm so sorry to hear about your crash. i'm glad you are all right. it sounds like the impact has affected you tremendously with friends and loved ones, but also with your livelihood.

we have a survivor's advocate network at the nsc. we would love for you to join the network and help us. certainly in arizona, but also in other ways to get the message out. unfortunately, people think it won't happen to them. sharing your story will help people to understand that they need to change their behavior or someone they love may be affected. host: a charge from the nsc don't worry about dying from the wrong thing. and looks like the deaths from a car crash is one in 112. next up is michael for deborah hersman. caller: good morning.

i would like to put a gender spin on this subject of texting and driving. i noticed that when i am driving that women refuse to put those cell phones down. they are texting overtly or they are hands are down -- or their hands are down. i rarely see men texting so obviously. is there a study or statistic about that? guest: i'm not familiar with any studies that talk about who is texting more behind the wheel. we did put out some information at the nsc recently about distracted walking. we are seeing more injuries associated with distracted walking. we saw that women were more represented in some of those

distracted walking injuries. but those were at home, not behind the wheel. i can tell you that my experience at the ntsb, we investigated many situations with aircraft, helicopters drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers. i saw many of those incidents were men. i don't know that there is a gender specific distraction. some of it is because we have been conditioned to check them all the time. our brains receive a hit of dopamine when we get a positive reinforcement with those messages. somebody calling texting posting about you on facebook. unfortunately, i don't think that system knows any gender boundaries.

host: in terms of the technology some of the cars are already set up. it is built for you to work in a hands-free situation. guest: i remember during the super bowl there were a number of commercials about a granny updating her blog. the car had wi-fi. there is always going to be one person in the car, that is the driver. when we are talking about the technology available it is important to think about how it is impacting the driver. we know that so many things are caused by impairment. we want to make sure that the drivers are doing a better job driving. host: a viewer tweets about his own wreck. >> a kid tried to do his cell

phone out of his pocket, messed me up good. i would ban them in cars. host: this was all over facebook this weekend. the headline was a partier tried to launch a firework off of his own head and died instantly. a number of states have loosened their regulations on fireworks. is this an area where nsc is involved? guest: absolutely. we put out a lot of tips for the fourth of july. many of those deal with injuries from fireworks. the best thing to do is to go to a show. you have to be especially careful when you set off those fireworks at home and in neighborhoods. we see too many deaths each

year. even for nfl players, we have to be careful at what people are doing. host: we have 10 more minutes with deborah hersman of the nsc. 202748 8000 for the eastern time zones. 2027 48 8001 for the mountain and pacific. go ahead. caller: i heard one gentleman saying that you see a lot more ladies answering their phones then gentleman -- than gentleman. they get distracted a lot faster because they are texting and driving. that seems to be more true with women. they have a tendency to pick up their phones to text and check e-mails and want to be on facebook.

and also, i agree with the gentleman, she is beautiful. but the technology in cars nowadays seems like the car dealerships are putting more technology wi-fi, you see which car the kids prefer the one with wi-fi or without wi-fi. it seems like they are trying to cure the public towards being in a more updated cars. host: do you text and drive? caller: no, i don't text. i am not into the texting. it takes me too long to try to write. host: thank you for your call. let's go to california. caller: good morning. my question is with the new

cars, i do not like these new cars driving themselves. or any other wi-fi stuff in there. the reason why is, even if it has gps, if i go a quarter mile down the road, and a bridge gets roster out -- gets washed out and the gps says the bridge is still there. and the next thing you know, i am floating down the river. guest: there is no doubt, there is a lot of complexity on the roadways. we kill about 35,000 people a year in car crashes. so many of those are preventable. we absolutely can do something

about that. we can do better when it comes to how humans behave behind the wheel. crashes involve three things. impaired driving crashes speeding, or distraction. those are things that we can address as a society, but we have to be effective in doing that to eliminate those behaviors. they are very prevalent. i think technology can help us with some of those behaviors to prevent those crashes, whether it is full -- it is through a fully autonomous vehicle or locks for dui offenders. host: what do you think is a decent timeframe for when we are at a point to go to autonomous vehicles in this country? guest: i think we are quite a

bit off from fully autonomous vehicles. it is important for people to understand that every year, we are making progress towards that. there is more and more technology in our vehicles. there are lane departure warning systems. there are collision avoidance systems. these are things that can automatically apply brakes or steer cars into their lane. i have a 2005 minivan that has adapter cruise control. that can slow down and speed up based on the following distance of the car in front of me. there is a lot of technology in cars now, and every year we see that increase. it is coming, but we have to have that fidelity there. there are challenges that need to be worked through. host: here is max in columbus

ohio. caller: a new issue in columbus are bicyclists on street. s. they don't stop for traffic they ride through traffic lights. sometimes they get in the left lane which might be a turn lane ahead of a long line of cars and traffic gets gnarled. cities like columbus are building more and more bike lanes or pathways. they are on the streets, and it seems like they would be better advised to walk thereeir bikes across the street. they are banned from sidewalks. what is your take on that? guest: you raise a great

question about the safety of roadways for cyclists and how they share the roads with other vehicles. there is a lot of complexity when we talk about roadways. when you are on a bicycle, you are much more vulnerable. many cities are getting aggressive with building bike lanes to better protect cyclists. it is important for people to understand how to drive around those bike lanes. the roadways may change. signage may not be clear. sharing the road with bicyclists is so important. there are so many people who use bikes as their primary transportation to get around. there are more people who are using them to stay healthy. we have to figure out how to share the roadways. also everyone has to share the

roadways and practice safe behavior. host: gregory tweets about highway safety "no one in america is safer without money. shut down the dmv for safety." in your opinion, have states but more issues -- put more money into safety issues? guest: states are dedicating funds for safety. whether it has bike lanes or other things. but the nsc joined to work on the transportation reauthorization to make sure that states have access to incentive grants to promote things like distracted driving grants. with partners like aaa and the insurance community, we are

trying to advance these grants. host: they face a deadline at the end of the month? guest: there is a lot of pressure for them to either reauthorize or put an extension on it. we think these programs can be enhanced. last time, very few states qualified. host: we are going to mike in philadelphia. caller: good morning. i would like to ask you a question, i was a tractor-trailer driver myself. there are regulations, you have to keep logs. we deliver freight across the country. there are services called expediting, where they use vans. they are still moving freight. my question is, these expediting

services are making their drivers run on there because the dispatchers make the bid on there, for 24 hours straight. a gentleman fell asleep and crashed and the company said he wasn't that hurt, they went and got the van, left him in the road, and fired him. why aren't they regulated like the tractor-trailers? when this was brought up to the owner, he thousand they're not going to -- he flat out said they are not going to do nothing about it. host: all right, mike. guest: we see critique is being a huge factor across the board for all people in transportation but not just of them, but all of us as americans. it