and actor-producer tim daly talks about his documentary "polywood." "washington journal" is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] host: executives from the nation's largest banks will meet with the federal reserve to execute executive compensation. don't forget to set clocks back one hour tonight. this is "washington journal" for october 31. a three-hour program for you today. for our first half-hour we want to talk about jobs numbers, specifically jobs that were created or saved by the stimulus spending by the administration. yesterday those numbers totaling about 640,000 jobs created or saved. we want your thoughts on those numbers. 202-737-0001 for republicans. 202-737-0002 for democrats, and independentents, 202-628-0205. 640,000 jobs saved by stimulus. call in or twit tesm r us now. this is their front page. "jobs saved hailed by the white house. " this is sarah o'connor writing out of washington. 640,000 is the number we mentioned. she goes on to write with the jobless rate expected to stay about 9% next year, republicans have adopted "where are the jobs" to criticize the program. the white house tried to counter this yesterday by championing the data and adding videos to its web site about how the money was being used. the figures showed half the money was in education and 12.5% of those jobs were in construction. the los angeles times also takes a look at the release of the numbers. they headline this differently. this is from their web site version. their headline is "inconsistent messages" on the obama stimulus package. the ad mrgs. the white house leadership has made complaints that have at odds with facts put out by the administration. down in this first page here is where i want to focus. "jobs saved or created by stimulus. " it goes on to quote the council of economic ad videor's chairwoman. if asked if she would -- if she knew the number of jobs created or saved, she said it is hard to know because you don't know what the economy would have done without it. roemer released -- and vice presidential advisor jarrod berrestein said looking back it was clearly too optimistic. that's some of the stories looking at the stimulus program. other stories, several new sources saying that the afghan elections, the runoff between hamid karzai and abdullah abdullah is in jeopardy. we'll bring you that as far as the associated press and others how they are reporting it as well. we want to talk about jobs that are created or saved by stimulus. the numbers are on your screen if you want to comment about what you think of the actual numbers, comment on the specific jobs created in your area. those numbers on the screen. from lawrence county, alabama. where is lawrence county located? >> huntsville, alabama. >> go ahead. caller: i was on the tv yesterday, on c-span and they were talking about voting down the small business loans on the stimulus package, but they are going to have a revote. i was kind of confused because i thought the stimulus package was supposed to be for all the banks and the whole population of growth in parts of states, and big cities and major cities that were having problems with money, you know? and so they were talking about jobs and everything. it is -- the money is supposed to be for everything basically. the stimulus package could be something the president could use to pull out of the depression like the hoover days. we've been in gas over 20 years running in foreign countries. host: what -- caller: over -- since i can remember, i'm 46 years old, i'm 47 years old, i just had a birthday october 1, but i think the economy is in bad shape, talking about the economy. the unemployment rate is down but we haven't got a raise. we just got a raise athis year. we don't even have a cost-of-living expense. host: we'll leave it there and talk with chris on our democrats line. caller: happy bee lated birthday to that guy that just called, and i just want to say i am so proud of the obama administration. i think it is amazing. the republicans were talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. meanwhile, the stimulus package goes out in increments a few years. so it is not like all money just came in. a lot of people were just complaining and republicans -- republican governors in congress and the senate, they need to find out what those governors are doing with the money. you know, they really need to check that instead of just putting it on the obama administration. thank you so much. host: appreciate your call. philadelphia, republican line. caller: can retirees -- host: as far as on social security? i don't know the answer straight off to that one. tampa, texas, are you next. caller: my problem with the jobs is they don't seem to be very constructive. administrative, pothole fixing, that is a waste of taxpayers' money in my opinion. host: according to "the financial times" it said half the jobs were education jobs and it said 12% or so were in construction. caller: still, it is not productive. it is nothing being produced. it doesn't create any wealth of any kind. it is just taxpayer money being used up. host: so focus on different types of jobs? caller: yes, that's the answer, yes. host: the vice president has been out to talk about it. he has been overseeing this process. hear some of what he will to say regarding the jobs created or saved. >> ladies and gentlemen it is laying the foundation for recovery not based on a new bubble, not based on a dot com bubble or another bubble, look at our high-speed rail, green jobs. quite simply, the recovery act is operating as advertised. again, my grandfather, it wasn't on one horse to carry the sleigh to get us out of this ditch, it is performing as advertised. it is playing its part in lifting americans back up and moving us toward genuine recovery. host: our next call is from columbus, ohio on our democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i want to comment on all the negative comments and other things the parties have been saying about the president. you know, if he hasn't done the stimulus package, we probably would not have created or saved 50,000 jobs or more. let's look on the other side of this. if we had decided not to do anything, that means we will have about 600,000 people going to reply for unemployment. -- going to apply for unemployment. i was listening to what the california governor said before the show came on. he said they get criticized, but they all know they all at one point in time benefited in their own state from what the stimulus package did. so i believe what the president is doing, we cannot think all the jobs -- save all the jobs that have lost. but we can try to save some and let's try to support this president and move forward and let's see how we can make this country a better place. if you go to other parts of the world, europe and all that, they have their own problems. but in most parts of the world -- host: if you want to contribute your thoughts on twit tesm r, you can do that. host: a caller writes in -- dim dotzier writes in, "we need miles millions more in stimulus money." caller: good morning. host: you are with us. go ahead. caller: it is not about crit sizing -- criticizing obama, it is about what that person is doing and not doing. my thing is 640,000 jobs are great, but unemployment has still gone up a minimum of 2% since he's been in office. i loved obama at the beginning. it's not who he is, it is what he is doing or not doing. in california, the employment is 20% up. i mean it is 20%, which is unbelievable. and then there are other states that are 17%. but when bush left office, it was 8%. you can correct me if i'm wrong on that. you know, unemployment has gone up. host: that was sarah on our republican line. from plantation, florida, we hear from ron on our republican line. caller: i was doing a little math about the number of jobs they claim they have created, and it -- they claim it comes out to -- if we would give that money to the people who were unemployed, they could live for the next year, and some of this stuff that's going on in washington right now with the people that are running the show that are very radical. i was a republican for 50 year, and they disgusted me so now i consider myself an independentent, and what i plan to do is vote for the one that i feel is best. but my overall opinion is, we need to clean house in washington. people like biden, the vice president, he's been there 42 years. what does he do? all he does is talk. host: the "new york times" looks at jobs added or saved and it starts with mont going down. bonnie on our democrats line, go ahead: caller: i just want to comment on the jobs creation. i know i heard on c-span yesterday there were jobs created, but they were temporary jobs. they were counting those. just to comment on green jobs, i though that -- i know there is military, there are a lot of folks joining the military also, and to use those people in jobs that are available and we're paying those folks anyway, you know, through the government, and to create jobs that way. that would be my comment. host: centerline, michigan, jim on our republican line. go ahead. caller: this administration is running this country like acorn. they are overwhelming the system with debt. what it is going to do, they are going to cause a crisis. and like all the administrations said, you can't get a -- let a good crisis go to waste. it is going to cause a debacle financially. i think they will try to seize more power from every american in this country. thank you very much. host: talks between afghan's president hamid karzai and his election opponent abdullah abdullah have broken down, according to a source close to afghan leadership. according to a source abdullah will likely boycott the election which had been scheduled after intense diplomatic arm twisting by the united states. the former u.s. ambassador to hamid karzai said that he predicted that the country would soon be governed under a power-sharing deal. i think there will be power sharing, he said, the difference is karzai wanted to be the one declared the winner and then offer something from a position of strength while abdullah abdullah wanted to go a second round but have a power-sharing agreement without the vote. again, that's the latest information regarding next week's half began runoff. south hampton new york. our independent line. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. i listened to governor schwarzenegger on your program who complimented president obama on funding the teachers. i have an ysmed i teamp an m.b.a. program. -- i teach an mba program. all the oil that was bought because of the iraq war for the war reserves was like 10 billion of oil. give that to the airlines at cost. it was given at $20 or $50 a barrel. that will giver you a couple hundred,000 jobs in the airline industry. as far as trucking firms flt united states, give them the oil that was bought at $20, $30, $40 a barrel and the end result it will bring down food prices to the consumer. clinton did that in 1997, 1998, 1999, and oil went down to $20 a barrel. i think we can get another million jobs that way. host: one author writes, ylan mui, "the end of the popular clash for lunkers, overall spending fell .05% in september from the previous month, the biggest decline in nine months. that was primarily due to 7.2% slump in purchases of durable goods, fueled by the expiration of a government credit up to $4,500 to buy new, fuel-efficient cars." we're talking about jobs created or saved by the efforts of the stimulus, and we want to get your thoughts. caller: when president bush was in office there was 8% unemployment and at this point he made mention that there were certain states where there may have been 20%, 17% unemployment. and in watching and listening to the various news channels and readings and things of that nature, it strikes me that no one seems to use common sense about it all. our current president has been in office less than a year. does anyone see or get the notion here that things have not worked. he has not been around long enough to make the changes that everyone is expecting? host: the front page of "the financial times" this morning has information released from the securities and exchange commission recording bernie madoff. it says "madoff amazed at escaping 2006 check." mr. madoff told the securities and exchange commission that it was amazing he had not been caught earlier. he said basic checks would have uncovered a fraudulent scheme that ended up costing investors more than $21 billion. mr. madoff said that the two officials, one of which he likened to television detective columbo for his man rhythms veffed his trades with the depository trust and clearing corporate, the body that settles market transactions. they go on to say the checks were not made because they were not looking for a ponzi scheme, a fraud where returns are faked and investors are compensated with funds gathered. instead they saw evidence of "front running." he said. looking at also the financial sector, there is a bloomberg from "the washington post" this morning saying that executives of the nation's 28 largest banks will meet with federal reserve supervisors monday to discuss the feth fed's plan to police banks' compensation policies. the central bank would possibly veto pay policies that could cause too much risk-taking by bank executives, traders, or loan officers. pennsylvania. caller: with regard to this stimulus package creating jobs and everything, i met some of these people that that have gotten these jobs and they are telling me that this isn't a permanent thing. this is for a few years. it is sort of like a government program that will expire after so often. some of these people can't go out and get car loans or get a mortgage. it is being reported that this is such a wonderful thing. if you break it down, this is 13,000 jobs for each state approximately. really, what is this accomplishing? it is better than nothing, i agree. i mean, what this man has promised, what he ran for office and what we had are two entirely different things. an earlier caller said we have to give a time. he wasn't saying that in the beginning. this was supposed to all happen with the wave of a wand. the only thing i can say is that because of all the things that he promised and talked about, i just hope he is one of those changes at thend of four years. host: from the people you talked to, what kinds of jobs are we talking about? caller: there are numerous ones for industries, there are things that have been created for road working, house building, stuff like this. host: and you talked directly to these people? >> yeah, some of them that have been fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time. they are saying this is going to carry me a number of years but now i have to look for something along the way so i can get something permanent. maybe after being so many years i can get a private contract. i wish them nothing but luck and success. host: flawed daily, florida. -- fort lawed -- lauderdale, florida. caller: the reason a lot of people are out of work is because their driver's license are suspended from child support. how can you work if you can't drive? i'm a plummer, and i can't get a job, you know, because i'm unable to drive because of child support. it's ridiculous. i'm on welfare. it doesn't make any sense. there is no common sense. >> what was your occupation? >> my occupation -- i'm a plummer. i've been a plummer for 15 years. host: have you had any opportunity for job training? caller: what job can you -- worst job you can get are being a plummer. i'm 52 years old. my days of going back to school are over. there are plumbing jobs out here. i can't work them. host: we'll leave it there. here's "the new york times" this morning. here's talking a little about the jobs that were gained by the stimulus. michael cooper citing this morning that most were teacher's jobs. although the stimulus was initially sold in large part as a public works program, about 80,000 of the jobs claimed friday were in construction. of course, counting jobs that were saved can be a squishier proposition. teachers have laid off some, and budget officials have said there would have been more layoffs without the stimulus money, but it is dull to say with certainty how many teachers would have been laid off without that money. are you there? let's go to our last call -- republican line. caller: 640,000, $787 billion. that's almost $2 million per job. who stole the money? yesterday there were dozens of politicians getting kickback from the military contracts. no wonder the wars never end. i hadn't heard you talk about this stuff, jim moran of virginia, maxine waters with the banks. do hours on the politicians or will they take c-span off the air. it is growing. are they going to sweaksqueak this under the rug now? when they have electrics we say they are corrupt politicians. yet we have more scum in this congress that anywhere in the world. thank you. host: "the washington post" brings it up about a number of legislators being looked at. they profile several. this is connie mac of florida, mack being the republican from florida. again, this is just a small number of those on the list. laura richardson, the democrat from texas, all of them have specific paragraphs about what they are being looked at. you can find out more from the "the washington post" villa the web site. it is page a-6 by the way if you get the hard copy. caller: i'm calling in regard to one of the gentleman that said that president obama promised things virtually overnight, and that's not true. president obama said repeatedly during the primaries that change is very hard and that change would take time. and we need to give this man time. bush took us down in eight years. it's easy to bring someone down or bring a country down but it is very, very difficult to build it back up. we just need to give this man credit for what he is doing. the republicans, most of them, are nothing but haters. so we need to give president obama all the support that we can. he did not say that change would happen overnight. he said that it was very, very difficult. it would take time, and we know that change is hard. we know that change takes time. it may take many years to get back to where we need to be. thank you. host: that will be it for our phone segment right now. but stay with us. we have another one coming up about an hour from now. up next, we will talk about iraq, specifically what is ahead for the government and our people there. our guest is sam you'll parker -- samuel parker. we'll be right back. >> do you look at what people who have thought in 1789? >> supreme court justices trade views on terpg the constitution in a changing sothe today on "america and the courts." >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is sam parker. he's from the office of post conflict peace and stability. give us a sense of what's happening on the ground as far as stability in the region, only mill tarle what's happening on the ground but within the government as well. >> overall i would say u.s. policy is generally on track. we have seen a few causes for concern recently. most recently the bombings and the bombings that occurred two months ago in august. these are concerns to protect iraqis but also about their cohesion and penetration by militants, foreand -- foreign and domestic. but overall deaths are still low and iraqis are increasingly taking control. we have recently had trouble passing legislation for elections currently slated for january, national electrics, which is key because president obama's plan is based on these elections happening in january and being there to provide stability. host: why are the elections important? guest: because these are the second second elections under iraq's constitution ever order. it is the second time you have seen a significant transfer of power. you have seen the iraqi state come back. the iraqi army is much more powerful. the state has returned. and there is a lot at stake. there is a question of whether -- will a new power be transferred peacefully. will they transfer loyalty to newly elected leaders and will the iraqis be able to transfer power without scaubling? there is a lot of moving parts. all in conjunction with planned u.s. drawdown of forces. host: are the explosions a protest of a transfer of power? guest: yes, days direct challenge to the president's claim to have brought iraq back from the brink. it is a planned attack tho to show that al qaeda and others can strike at the heart of the iraqi government. host: what progress has the government made working in a democratic style? guest: well, it is certainly a fractious body that can't agree to much, but there are a lot of legislative bodies like that, including our own. but overall there has been a shift toward the political process as being the forum in which the process has been contested. that overall is good. from the standpoint of the govering governing capacities, performance is still poor. corruption is still high. security forces have improved. that is a trend historically in iraq that security forcers are by far the most powerful and respected institution. the broader questions are a generational thing. host: as far as parliament, do they regularly schedule discussions with each other? in the initial part of it, they would meet, break, something broke dournings meet again. has that come to a place of regularity as far as meetings are concerned? guest: the meetings are very regular. especially around issues that are highly contests, like this elections law. they have a number of other issues. it has become a much more vibrant body. host: our guest is with us. you can do so by 202-737-0001 for republicans and 202-737-0002 for democrats, and 202628-0205 for inds. -- independents. how does the public perceive the government? guest: it supported the iraqi prime minister in the january elections giving him three times as many votes largely based on his claim to have brought back the government and provided security and stability and for herb shoing -- eschewing religious rhetoric and created a much more secular message and the iraqi people responded popularly. they are skeptical about the long-term ability of the iraqi government to provide for their needs. >> do you see that same kind of support as far as people voting with their feet going out to the electoral process coming forth in january? guest: i do. we saw 50% turnout in the provincial elections. there was le less at stake in those. i think you will see something along to 50%. like we did in the last elections. host: what is the broader conflict? >> between baghdad and the kurdistan regional government is about territory. who controls oil-rich territory and also oil. who is responsible for the management of oil riches found in kurdistan and there are a range of other constitutional issues, all of which have to do with how powerful is the kurdistan government veesvee baghdad? the kurds have produced a strategy of facts on the ground designed to buy us long-term resolution of these issues in their favor, and they have been able to do that because the rest of iraq has been in chaos with itself, very fragmented. now that iraq has come back, you are starting to see central actors coming back, trying to challenge their hold on the established areas but also taking particular legislation as a means to combat kurdish efforts to e. panned their position. host: is there any resolve possible? guest: yes, on some of these issues that are more critical. i think it the u.s. has so far let the u.n. lead this effort but it will have to step up following the electrics to bring the iraqis -- following the elections to bring the iraqis to the table. the kurds long-term calculation is that time is not on their side. especially as the u.s. draws down their ability to make a deal with baghdad is reduced. baghdad thinks it is the opposite, thinks it is an internal matter. the u.s. will have to focus on getting them to bargain. certainly since we'll be there in relative levels of force for the next two years, there's time, there's a window for it. host: because of the kerkok. there are unexploited resources in the north of the province that have not -- no contracts have been signed with regard to those. now, the kurds want to establish kirkuk. they think the ministry ought to -- the kurds have gone on and made a number of deals to develop their own resources independent of baghdad. now, the major oil companies have stayed away. they don't want to get on baghdad's black list because the real prize is the oil in the south. so the kurds have signed deals with norewiegian oil, but these are small players who are hoping that the k.r.g. long-term will be able to honor those contracts. it is a very dicey situation legally. host: our guest is from the u.s. institute of peace. he is with us to talk about iraqi. illinois. linda on our democrats line. go ahead. caller: i want to know why is it so pertinent that the united states is always -- we are always at war with people about their commodities and different things and we've been over there at war for eight years and we have wasted so much money and lost so many lives and everything. i can understand why the president would be hesitant to send more people over there. really, war isn't good for anybody. we should be able to resolve or differences by communicating and not -- we're like strong arming people in other countries. i can understand why the iraqis and the afghanistan people and different ones retaliate the way they do. because if i wanted something from you, i would have to come in and buy it or we would make a deal and we come to an agreement on that. there are young men over there saying, yes, we're fighting for our country, but they are not really fighting. host: sorry. i didn't mean to cut you off so soon. guest: i would agree with the caller, and i would point to iraq wur our -- where our alliance is a much more strategic alliance. despite the cat strask -- catastrophic loss of life, the dramatic loss of resources, and the relations with other parts of the world. yes, we have a lot at stake with the iraqi government, supporting the growth of democracy in iraq and developing this long-term alliance which will be in the u.s.'s interests long-term and has positively affected the regional balance of power. host: next call from phoenix, arizona, on our republican line. caller: i think i have something important about jobs going forward and afghanistan, the u.s. and iraq. i think the way to do it, i heard mr. biden, vice president biden mention, that [unintelligible] i think you start a new company or you buy up an existing one, you get loans to retool. we could make solar panels, wind turbines, cell phones or whatever they need in iraq and join this money together. you give it to them but you don't give it to them. it's combined. you become a 100% employee-owned k they dotch better. they retire early. employee owned companies should be started up. one more quick thing. solar in colorado is 100% american-owned. why can't we set up something here and something similar in other countries through the s.b.a., we have a template we use their plan and how their business plan works and we make a template of that, we send it all around the country. you get these loans, they are paid back to payroll. we have got to get alternative energy going. i have four sons and 15 grandchildren. my sons, i am having to support them. we lost our trucking company. if we don't get new jobs out here there will be no new democrats lekt elected or republicans. we'll throw the whole bunch out. guest: u.s. loans have been particularly useful in iraq. it gives u.s. military the commanders the ability to contract directly with the iraqis and loan out money as you described to local businesses. this has been key for the anti-al qaeda effort and for the iraqi government. i would also say though, especially in iraq, there is a certain point at which those lending efforts, extending lenders like us tend to work against the development of long-term financing insurgencies for iraqis, and that iraq has a lot of money. we all need to keep in mind what the long-term consequence is of flooding local money with businesses will have on iraqi institutions long term. i definitely agree that it is an important tool in our strategic kit. >> you talk about the improvement in iraqi forces. is there some type of equality there. as far as the upcoming agreement as far as our sources -- forces going out? guest: i think it is important to recognize that a lot of the s.o.f.a. has gone in effect. a significant control of the balt space shifted to iraqi security forces. then june 30 of this year u.s. troops withdrew from the cities almost without exception. you really don't see that many americans out anymore and that the iraqis already have taken a large measure of control and that the u.s. hand is off the bicycle seat, as they say. so a lot of this prans transig has akurd and a lot of this now is our longer mission of providing air support, intel, all that, but in terms of implementing operations, we are not doing that anymore. we need to keep current troop levels there as a buffer to safegathered this upcoming -- safeguard this upcoming political influx. host: how many security forces are there? guest: i haven't seen the latest figures. about 50,000 i believe for iraqi police which are locally orient ed, beat cops, not heavily armed, and then the iraqi national police is like a swat team. we don't have an equivalent thing in america, but it's about 30,000 troops. plus 80,000 what are called the sons of iraq which are private security companies i guess is a better thing to call them. private security companies. the u.s. has made deals with them to provide local security and provide intelligence about al qaeda and other militants operating. the status of them whether they will be incorporated in security forces or fired or given government jobs is unknown at moment. host: as far as the security forces, do they get the idea of allegiance to country? guest: that's a good question. i think the jury is still out. you have seen the army wage a number of operations, basra, and you haven't seen the large-scale defragmentation of the force given the fact that they are attacking their own people in many respects. you did see flaking off in the basra operation, but it is similar to the exception that proves the rule. certainly loyalty to state or political actors is cause for concern, because the prime minister has been accused of politicizing the army and creating separate divisions that are oil only to his, like the lieutenant level. so there is cause for concern. but overall compared to 2006 when it looked like the iraqi army was just militas and not greater than the sum of its parts, the picture is night and day compared to that. host: next call is wyoming. adrian on our republican line. caller: my comment is -- first i have a comment and then i have a question. my comment is i want to inform the american people that i don't see these wars endeding -- ending any time soon because our politicians are too busy here getting rich off all the contractors there, and my question to the gentleman is, are you appearing now on iraq? i heard details that they are thinking about not having the election and therefore we will be stranded there with our troops even longer. that's my question. guest: i think the elections law will get passed probably within a couple weeks, and that might push the elections into february. they are currently slated to january 16. there is some give built into the iraqi electoral process. i think it is definitely a bump in the road and i think our people at ambassador hill are weighing heavily to get a law passed. i am overall optimistic about the prospects for passage i would say within two weeks. host: baltimore, maryland, on our democrats line. caller: i want to ask the question why is it that the united states press mass media don't talk about how many iraqi people have died? over a million people have died. they don't write about the largest multimilitary airbase in the north of iraq and how bad one of the largest embassies that the united states has built or any other country has built in the green zone that the infrastructure is falling apart. the electricity doesn't work, the walls are falling down, the plumbing is terrible, and also how long do you think the united states is going to stay there? i didn't hear what you were going to say earlier. namaste to all. >> first of all, the casualty figure you recited is ridiculously inflated. the iraqi death toll count is counted, you can google that and find it. the upper regions is 150,000. i'm not trying to denigrate or make little of that. it is a tragic loss of life. but a million is way out of proportion. second, i think you're right, the u.s. has faced a lot of difficulties in building its u.s. embassy in baghdad, and it is unfortunately a very typical story about large-scale u.s. government contracts in iraq that there is a great deal of corruption and shoddy work. i don't know much about afghanistan but i would say it is most likely happening there as well. i would agree with your assessment. finally, how long we stay there is a good one. the status of forces agreement calls for a complete u.s. withdrawal by 2011. now, that is an unrealistic deadline given the dependencey of the iraqi security forces on u.s. support. most iraqi politicians acknowledge this both behind closed doors but also publicly. the prime minister spoke at my institute, the u.s. institute of peace earlier this year and he opened the door to a longer-term u.s. military presence to train iraqi security forces. i think that will be a hard sell to the iraqi public that don't want to be occupied, but it is also essential to the internal integrity of the iraqi state. at least until 2015. it is hard to put a date on it. i think what we're looking at is the renegotiation of a sofa, not unlike what we have in countries in the gulf like saudi arabia or kuwait. >> the next call is st. charles, missouri. caller: i would think the way forward would be to get out of iraq. i believe everything we were told about iraq was a lie. i believe that there has been over a million iraqis killed, four million refugees. the intellectuals have been assassinated. why don't you do a show and bring donald rums felled and paul wolfowitz back on the air so they can explain all the lies that were told to us that brought us into iraq. we are never going to get out of iraq, but i look forward to the time when the iraqi people run us out of there just like we were run out of vietnam. guest: i appreciate your call about their leadership which brought us into this debacle. i would say that while i am sympathetic with your call, and i think a lot of americans are, we are in the position now where even if it wasn't worth the cost of getting to where we are in iraq, we shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face. what we have going forward is an iraqi government that by regional standards is very democratic in terms of having free and fair electrics, if -- fair elections, if not in the broader terms that we mean electrics as in rule ever law and tansparnsey of government, but more importantly than that, this government wants to be friends with the united states. that is hugely positive for broader u.s. interests in the region. anywhere from oil, the dependence of saudi arabia is the swing producer of last resort, if 10 years down the road iraqi oil would get back online we won't be as dependent on saudi arabia and we will a diverse set of partners in the region, and then counterterrorism, to have a partner having replaced declared -- replaced a declared enemy to the united states. all those things are positive. i think we are going to reduce our force a great deal and that by 2012 we will have a small fraction of what we have now, but the iraqis will continue to need support. host: in your estimation, what is the best-case scenario in terms of how it factors into being a regional player and what it means in terms of the other countries involved? guest: i think the most important idea for the region is get as much support as they can now because our support is on better terms and doesn't come with the strings attached that support from iran would have. so what they want to do, to the extent they can, is to continue to have us prop them up so they can be a balancing force to iran. to a certain extent i think iran will have to live with that, acknowledging that iran has a capacity to effect on any number of fronts, political, it just has a lot of leverage of influence, and that the new iraqi government, is going to be on much better terms with iran than special saddam was. that's not an overall negative for the u.s., especially if we can create a credible partner -- before we might have thought of iraq as the buffer between iran and the rest of the arab states to more think of it as a bridge. especially if we can get some measure of economic development going that it can be a forum for common endeavor as opposed to a source of division in the region could be something of a unifying force. host: looking at infrastructure, is there more consistent electricity? is there a better water supply? is there a stronger free press in iraq? guest: in terms of infrastructure, you have seen some improvements. you have certainly seen a lot of u.s. money and iraqi money put into large-scale infrastructure projects. the problem with these water, electricity, a variety of things, the problem with these is not given the initial construction done, but the operation and maintenance of those facilities going forward, you know, moving forward, that requires more administrative capacity and sophistication than the iraqis currently have. a lot of the people that used to run the country are gone and there's a big learning curve, plenty of corruption that keeps the iraqi government from functioning properly. on the press side, there is -- it is still a largely free media , but not a very professional one. media is weak, and it is not so much sectarian as it is beholden to specific political interests that sometimes get expressed in a sectarian fashion. there is not a great degree of press freedom. that may change. as iraq comes back we are starting to see in some respects a reversion to authority state control, so it is definitely a policy that we need to push to keep as much as we can. . in addition to the broader strategic concerns that are going to impact any decision the u.s. government makes about the persian gulf region, primarily oil and to secure the continued flow of oil out of that region and keep control of oil from falling into forces that are hostile to the u.s. and broader, the west and the international comme. so it was a -- economy. so all those forces combine with a severe misassessment or mistaken belief in the capacity of the u.s. to go and create another government in a hostile foreign culture and in a much sorter amount of time and requiring far fewer resources than have ended up being the case or we've ended up spending, and we've fallen far short of what the democratic vision that motivated the war if the first place. host: so why did you request the question you did? caller: he knows why we're there. we're there for greed. iraq was a stable country before we went in. host: we'll have to leaf it there, but if you want to make some tinal thoughts. guest: certainly oil plays a part in the sents that we need to secure the flow of oil. but if you mean u.s. companies were going to get sweetheart deals, that's not happened. and if you look at the latest bidding round, u.s. companies have done very poorly. china and the british are doing much better than we are. but, yeah, i mean, i think in general oil is going to play a part, and an american who benefits from a global economy, i'm not going to say that shouldn't be a calculation in america's strategic decisions in the region. host: samuel parker with theuni peace. thanks for your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: in a couple minutes we will take on the discussion of childhood obesity. i want to tell you about our "newsmakers" program you can see tomorrow. senator dick lugor was a guest on our show. he talked about ask, specifically the president's decision on troops to afghanistan. >> if the president does come forward with a plan or plans, he must make that very explicit. he must state stake his own political career on that decision and that is a big quest. it will not do to have a tentative feeling that now you see it, now you don't. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] hear about the court's history and traditions from the justices themselves. own your own dvd copy of the supreme court, home to america's highest court. >> on your screen is tracy fox. she is the president of food, nutrition, and policy consultants. and what is that? >> i'm a consultant. i've gone to school to learn about nutrition, and what i do here in washington is i work with federal government agencies and other companies to kind of help them promote policies that make sure kids are eating well and exercising. >> and because of that initially the government just put out a report not too long ago looking at the health of school lunches. what did that say? >> what it found was that is it made some nice recommendations on how to improve school lunches. while school lunches aren't so bad they could do a better job. so what this report did is made some recommendations to school lunch folks saying this is what we need to do and this is the direction to go in in order to make sure your lunches are getting better. >> what would a lunch look like if the recommendations were taken? >> at lunch you would have the choice of three fruits or vegetables as well as a grain product. and what they're recommending is at least half of that time that grain should be a whole grain. and then a lower fat type of lean meat. and that cup of milk. that needs to be 1% or skim, not 2% or whole. >> and the current lunch in schools, how far does that deviate? >> that's a good question. there is more fruit and vegetable recommendd in this report that came out last week than is currently in place. and what we also have are recommendations that specify, for example, grain. right now you can have any kind of grain you want, white bread. what the report says is at least half needs to be whole grain. and we know that has whole fiber and more nutrients that we need. u it is increasing in fruits and vegetables, whole grains and requiring only low fat or skim milk. right now is there is an option. >> does the report talk about the volume of food served, how much of a portion they get? >> the school lunches have done that in terms of recommending portion sizes. in some respects, they provided a good example of what a normal portion size should be. we're so used to super sizing in fast food rest rauntsdz that i think we've gotten away from that. it does have recommendations on calorie ranges so it has a minimum and maximum. . >> our guest will be with us until 8:30. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. what else asigh -- aside from the initial findings will be important for the audience to know? >> i think it is important to know that the lunch program has been in existence for many years really ever since world war ii, and it really has done a good job of providing the food and newt rents that kids need. we know there's room for improvement. but it's important to know there are a lot of other opportunities at school for kids to eat. there's vending machines and other things to buy in addition to the school meal and those are far more problematic. >> because? >> the vending machines are packed with sugar sweetnd beverages, salty snacks. and the department of agriculture has very little authority on all those other foods. we call those competitive foods. so what we do see is the school lunch is pretty good and it's going to get better. we have a real problem on the other side of the equation in terms of all the other foods kids have access to. you can walk into a cafeteria and in addition to your school lunch, you can get a sports drink, done nuss, just about thing you want. and there really isn't a as much control as we had the recommendations last week. there was a set of recommendations that came out two years ago on all these other foods and we're really hoping usda and congress will make moves to make sure in place strong standards for those other foods as well. >> so currently it's more of a voluntary effort for a school to decide. >> exactly. and we have seen some nice progress. in montgomery county they've banned some. we haven't seen it gone far enough and we want that to be the whole envimplete. >> is it fair to say that's because those machines make money for the school? >> absolutely. but what we've also seen, and nice progress, you don't have to get rid of the machines, just put water or juices or low fat milk, healthy snacks in there and some schools are making as much and possibly even more money. >> so the larger issue of childhood obesity says that about 30% of children are overweight, about 15% of chilled are considered obese. if we know so much about food and nutrition and exercise as we do, why do these figures keep happening? >> it really is a matter of energy in and energy out. the amount of calories has increased, the amount of calories they're expending has decreased. that makes it sound really simple but unfortunately it is scomplcate. if it is that simple we would have solved it. but i think there is a larger anvirmtal issue. i think school lunches are pretty good. we talked about all the other places and ways kids can get food. we also know in many neighborhoods there's not access to fruits and vegetables, to healthy foods because there aren't grocery stores. or if there are, they're really hard to get to for a lot of populations. so we see it as an environmental issue as well. clearly personal choice is involved. but you need to have the environment to make a healthy choice. >> good morning. thanks for taking my call. i'm 58 years old and when i was younger i think i was a lot more active than kids i see now. you see most of the kids sitting inside the house rather than doing things outside. i was always outside. i think that's one thing that attributed to the fact that i would never see fat kids in my class when i was growing up in school. and another thing is when i would come home from school, we always had supper, the family had supper together. and we didn't have snack foods for supper, we had meat, potato, and gravy and a vegetable. we drank whole milk. we didn't have to drink skim milk. we didn't have it back then. and i think those are two things and i think a lot of the food additives that you see now , you see a lot more additives in the foods that you buy. if you look at nutrition, what they write about nutrition on a package of food, there are so many additives in it that you never used to see as much of that before. >> those are great points and i'm glad you're reading the food label. it sounds like you're a very conscientious consumer. but i think you raise a couple good points. when you were young, you were more physically active, going outside. you're absolutely right. there isn't adds much free time or free play for kids. they're not going outside as much for whatever reason. maybe it's an issue with safe neighborhoods or parents not feeling comfortable sending their child outside. we do know today two and a half times kids are more -- less likely to walk or bike to school two and a half more times than you did when you were young and going to school. so we have seen that dropoff. and we do know that kids who do walk and bike to school tend to be less overweight. so we do see a pretty good correlation there. and i think your other point about family meals, i do think that we live in a pretty high stressed society and kids are always going to organized sports or tebniss less sns or sometimes -- piano or staying afterschool, mom and dad are working several jobs, so they don't have that opportunity to have that sit down time. we know kids who eat meals at home tend to eat healthier than kids who eat in fast food restaurants. we really do need to shift that balance to get more physical activity into the day. whether that also means making sure that we're spending money on parks, safer routes to school. we also want to make sure that families don't feel pressed and they can have time to sit down with kids and teach them what is a good diet and healthy meal is. >> are kids better educated about nutritional and more importantly do they follow submit >> those following it well, but i think there is some nutrition education in school, but that's another area that needs big improvement and that report made a specific recommendation. we all know we need to eat more fruits and vegetables. suffice it to say you're supposed to have about seven or nine servings a day. we know whether or not we need to do, but we don't do it. the education, modeling of parents, we need to teach kids in a fun way beyond a pamphlet and a poster and there isn't a lot of resources devoted to that. i do think in some respects, they don't know enough. importantly we're not giving them an environment where they can choose a healthy choice. we are putting road blocks up. >> and thank you for not asking directly. >> i'm interested in additives, and three of them come to mind. i don't know how familiar u are with additives. but the three that i'm concerned with is number one, msg. from what i understand, msg is a food enhancer. however, the buy product of it, the sintsdz tick type that they use is mono sodium glutemathe and what it does from what i understand is if you took rats and fed them this to food, they will become obese. if you look at all the foods that we have, the fast food type of things, chips, they have this. in other words, the msg suppresses the appetite suppressor system, so the food industry figured out that if you eat these type of food laidnd products, you will just keep eating more. host: lets go with that one, we want to get other calls in. guest: thanks for the question. i do think that it's important and some of the recommendations we were talking about earlier in terms of the school lunches we would like to see more whole grain products, more low fat dairy products. and many of these things don't have msg. i don't know a lot about the specific research you're talking about but i do think msg does also provide sodium in the diet and we know that we get too much of that. so clearly another recommendation is to reduce the amount of sodium. and that would include looking for things like msg in the label. and the reading the food label is important. i think it's important for everybody to turn that label around and take a look at it if you're still confused with what that label says, the food and drug administration has a really good amount of information on their website geared towards consumers so you can understand and interpret the food labels more clearly. host: austin, texas. guest: i found growing up that being interested in food was a lot of fun. and eating out wasn't always just fast food, junk. but anyway, i wanted to get into where she's really going with this and i was curious if eating a whole grains and leafy vegetables leads to digestive problems such as co 2 gas. guest: there could be some individuals who handle certain foods a little bit better than others. but in general, the recommendations to increase whole grains and leafy grains and those types of things really are based on good science. because what we do see with people who consume more whole grains, they tend to have lower risk for diabetes, card yo vascular disease, some types of cancer. so the recommendations are based on that. but there may be some individuals who have a more difficult time digesting certain foods. that would be something to talk with your physician or health care provider about. host: how are schools handling gym classes and the like? are they still required courses guest: don't you wish. there's only one state in the country that requires physical education and that's illinois and even there are some waiver issues going on there as well. but we have seen a marked decrease in physical education throughout the years. we've also seen a marked in-- decrease in things like recess. a lot of times it's cut down to five minutes or ten minutes. or we can't have it because we need to study for that test the state requires us to have. we see a decrease in physical act tivity. host: are the cuts from staffing or what's the main cause guest: i think the main impetus is we have all these tests and academic performance requirements and oftentimes pe, music, and science are some of the first to go. so we have seen a decrease in that. there are some efforts across the country real strong advocates and parents are saying you know, we really want our p.e. back. we've seen some evidence to show that if you increase p.e. you don't change test scores and in some respects you have improved test scores. so we're trying to get that whole body, whole mind emphasis back and we don't have it right now. host: next up, arkansas on our democrat's line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling because of the childhood obesity. host: go ahead. caller: i had the question she makes the point about the meals -- the children. it even goes to the adults. look at the adults. when i was a kid, the cafeteria people actually cooked, they did not invest in a meal being brought in. they were actually cood at the school. -- cooked at the school. now, everything is just already cooked. there's no one planning the meal. it's just you think. but i'm an adult. they brought in a cafeteria, functioning cafeteria and brought in pop ayes duncan do nuts. i can't even get a vegetable durgs the day. >> my husband used to work at the pentagon and i remember when all the fast food courts came in as well. we do see that a lot of times the fast food restaurants, the calories are very high. we're trying to get menu labeling so you can see immediately how many calories are there. but in terms of the school lunches things have changed over the years in terms of a lot of schools have kitchens so they'll prepare the food ahead of time and bring it to the school. i know there are some places that are trying to revert back to getting more equipment so they can actually do the meals on site. and in fact, there were some stimulus funds provided to school calf fearias so they could get salad bars, to get equipment to store fresh produce. there have been changes. but i do want to go back to the school lunch. even though there is room for improvement there for sure, there's a lot more going on in the school environment where kids have access to unhealthy foods. we do see that kids who have access to vending machines and other competitive foods tend to not eat the school lunch. if they ate the school lunch they would be a lot better off in some cases than if they went to the vending machine or bought some items that weren't part of the school lunch. so there are improvements but i think we're going in the right direction. host: as far as the vnding machine versus the school lunch, what would you advocate guest: i would advocate for changing out the machines and improving the quality of the items in there like juices and low fat milk and water as well as healthier snacks in the vending machines. but i do think that i would much prefer number one get rid of all the competitive foods. you have a good breakfast program, you have a good lunch program, that's what they need. they need those two meals. that's going to provide room for improvement but that's going to provide a good diet much better than any of the other competitive foods. host: has the president made this an issue guest: in the coming months there's a big piece of legislation called the child authorization and determines how the school lunch is going to be run, and how they're going to do breakfast and school lunch programs. we're hoping to see changes in there. some of the changes need to be changed through law and some u.s. da can do. so we're hoping legislation will make some changes. we also know the president and his wife have been phenomenal role models in terms of healthy eating and the garden. so we do see that there could be some improvements in the competitive foods as well. senator harken from iowa has a bill now that calls for usda to be able to regulate all those foods, not just the school lunch. host: hunts vi, alabama. thomas on our independent line. caller: accolades to c-span. we need to bring back intramurel sports, volley ball, basket bal activities that exercise children. and local farmers could supply fruits and vegetables in most cases. even in new york city they have in the parks they have farmers coming in from new jersey and connecticut and long island bringing fresh fruits and vegetables. and we need to educate our parents to send lunches that are new trishes for our kids. guest: i couldn't agree with you more and i appreciate your comments about the farm and there is a strong initiative, certainly in new york and across the country, for farm to school programs really trying to get local produce and local farmers to be able to contribute to the school meals. and so i think that's an excellent point. and i do know again in this piece of legislation i talked about i would imagine we're going to see some emphasis on that again because of the administration's in that area and certainly the first lady's but right now that can go on. u.s. d.a. launched a know your farmer, know your food initiative. and people like you who are interested could go on and see is there a way for me to do this. i would like to see more emphasis on this area. i think your point about sports is a good one. not all kids are going to be on the football team, not all kids are going to play volley ball. i do think that it would be nice to bring that back in as well because those are life long skills. we really want kids to acquire a fondness for being fit and working out on a regular basis, not just as part of a competitive team. host: does your interest extend to health food marketed to children? guest: absolutely. that's also an area that we hope to see some more progress in that area. right now there's a lot of industry self-regulation that the industry determines. some of them aren't bad but we think across the board they could be stronger. host: you think it's working as far as their efforts are concerned guest: i do think we do need more federal government government role in that because we haven't seen it improve as much as we would like to see it report. and there was a report out last week and it shows that the majority of cereals are less healthy than those markets to adults. more sugar, more sodium, less fiber. and there's clearly and specifically marketing to kid. and so we need marketing in that area. host: camebridge, minnesota. go ahead, please. caller: i called to talk about the thing that you aren't talking about and that is the epidemic among our young children. i was talking about i'm calling to talk about the epidemic between our young kids right now which she is not talking about of depression and being put on medications a lot. because i suffer from depression and i know for a fact that i used to be very, very thin and until i went on these medications now i can't lose weight because it's affecting my thyroid. so she might want to talk about the epidemic of depression between our kids and the medications that doctors are putting them on are contributing also to the obesity of our children. guest: that's a good question. i'm not -- i know a lot more about the childhood obesity epidemic in general. in terms of specific medications and their interaction, i don't know. that's a good question, i think it's worth pursuing because we do see more kids on certain medications and i wonder if there isn't a little more of a link. but i'm not up on the medication link area other than to say that what we have seen is that kids who are overweight do tend to have lower self-esteem and do tend to be a little more depressed. so there is a diagnose there. in terms of the medical condition to ebees -- obesity, i don't know about that. host: one more call. good morning. caller: good morning. what i'm about to expose is a crime so dibebolcal and so huge that puts chills through your veins. ms. fox, are you familiar with a corporation or a trade organization called code ecks almen tear yuss? guest: i am. yes, i am a little bit. caller: thank you. you know who started that company? guest: no. caller: it was convicted nazi war criminal by the name of demares. he was the head of a company who supplied all the poiseance for the nazi gas chambers. while he was in prison he came up with a codex, and hooked up with the u.n. and others when he got out. in 1969 they wrote their papers of mission statements. in those papers which you can read it states on december 31, 2009, codex worldwide implementation of food values will go into effect. in the first year, 3 billion people will die the first billion through starvation, the second billion to starvation related diseases. congress a few months ago voted codex food implementations to go into effect in this country mandatory december 31, 2009. host: kig did -- congress did that by how? caller: they do it through regulations, through hooking up with monsanto, which is another corporation involved in ue jenics. host: we'll leave it there. you can respond if you wish guest: i had i would have to look into that. it's utch to each country to determine what role they're playing in it. host: standards for food nutrition? guest: they do nutrition, standards across the board for a number of things. host: as far as your role in this, how do you navigate between the government and the white house or the congress or hhs or whoever is involved? what's your role? guest: a little bit of everything. i mentioned this piece of legislation that's coming up for review, the child nutrition and reauthorization act. so involved in a large alliance of a number of health and nutrition organizations and we're basically going to congress and their staff and talking to them about the importance of including certain things in that piece of legislation. so we work with congress in that respect because they're the one whose are going to review this legislation and hopefully revising some of the current legislative provisions in that bill. and then we'll also work with u.s. d.a. because there's a lot that they can do right now even short of the child nutrition reauthorization act. you mentioned that report that came out last week on school lunches. we do know there are a number of recommendations that usda could do soon through the regulatory process. so we work with usda in that way as well. we've also met with the white house staff folks there taking a look at some of the domestic policies like child nutrition and talk to them about our interest in really trying to curb the obesity epidemic. so promoting policies at all levels, whether in congress, the agency, with the administration o try to urge them to use their bully pul pitt which they've used quite well to make a stance against childhood obesity and doing things we can in the environment to curb it. host: tracy fox, the president of food, nutrition and policy consult nt. we have a phone segment coming up. first, we want to take a look at the week's news, this through the lens of political cartoonists. >> for our next half hour we want to get your thoughts on recent policy decision by the administration. this talked about in the "new york times" this morning. there is a photo of the president signing an order that took place yesterday, which would allow folks which have been tested for positive for the aids virus to enter our country. here's the lines yeah can call. the administration overturns the hiv ban admission into the united states. this is stemming in the "new york times" this morning stemming from a story yesterday looking at a list of names released under investigation by the house ethics committee. calls started coming in to the committee staff offices friday questioning why they had been named in articles as targets of investigators. representative connie mack said he was on the committee list even though he was not a target himself and had just been questioned about the activities of another house member. in the "washington post" there is a list of folks that lawmakers under scrutiny. and here's it. connie mack who was just mentioned in that story also appears in this segment of this page of the paper. this is just a small portion of the folks on those lists. you can get a larger scope of who is involved in that in their web site. back to our question this morning about the administration overturning a ban that would allow those with hiv to enter into the united states. caller: good morning. i disagree with that simply because right now our government is not doing an adequate job in taking care of our own people who have hiv and aids in our country, and it's my understanding that other countries won't let us into their country if we have this disease. host: pennsylvania, craig on our republican line. caller: thy. just curious about that big bold headline it was initiated by george w. bush. i'm curious why the press would make a bold statement when it was already initiated by george w. host: why do you think that is? guest: media bias, liberal bias in the media. i'm not sure. and to that woman who was talking about hope and changes, change shouldn't take place when you've got control of the house and the senate. it should be easy. 6 host: once the ban is listed, foreigners would not longer be required to take a test for aids. new jersey, john on our independent line. caller: on september 11, 2001, the terrorists won and the administration of george w. bush and the congress, senate and house, surrendered mine and your rights to the terrorists. and then began to station hall burton's attacks -- tax free oil pipeline guards in iraq and afghanistan. now we have still eight or nine years later we still have oil pipeline guards stationed in iraq and afghanistan. host: before you go too far, what does this have to do with what we're talking about as far as the overturn of this ban? caller: we have no rights. we have no rights to privacy of persons and papers in this country. host: cleveland, ohio. caller: hello. host: you're on. caller: iffing calling to make a statement about the president overturning the hiv ban and i think that it potentially endangers the american public and i don't understand why he would do that. host: why do you believe it potentially endangers the public? caller: you've got these people coming in from other countries who knowingly have this hiv vires and they could try to infect other people in our country. host: inston, salem, north carolina. you are next. caller: good morning. i'm against this hiv ban. it's the gentleman who called in who said our nation is full of disease now. there is a description you can think of and opening the doors to bring in even more chances of disease i think is ridiculous. i can't believe this administration, with the situation we're in in this country would want to do something like that. i'm thoroughly against it. host: we'll continue on with our topic but wanted to look at other stories in our paper. this goes back to 2004. it goes on, madison, wisconsin on our independent line. talking about a decision to overturn the ban on those with hiv into the country. caller: someone has got to explain what the definition of representative form of government means. if you're going to have 98% of people voting against this, how can somebody possibly sign a bill to allow it? host: shreveport, louisiana. joyce on our democrat's line. caller: i'm wondering, if c-span will take a look at the origin of the aids virus and i have seen a special on one of the pay channels that the origin of this disease was from the bellingance when they decided to interject all of the people in the congo and i think there should be more understanding. i appreciate the president signing this because we need to get some kind of understanding on what is going on with this virus. i've heard several times that everybody was required to take the aids virus, a seer rum that they took for monkeys and they interjected everybody to prevent this polio. and i was wondering if c-span would take a look at that. i've seen it several times and it seems like that's something that really could have happened. and for people to be isolated i think it's a good idea to find out what's going on with this. host: so dounge that understanding will -- do you think that understanding will improve to allow more hiv people into the united states? caller: e i certainly think they found out this is not transmitted very easily through meeting with people. like you said, families are being torn apart because one member has aids and they can't come in. i don't see anything wrong with it in the sense that it's not going to cause people to have some kind of communicable disease to get spread. host: on the issue of climate change, the financial times talks about the european union as far as what they would like to see done as the measure is concerned. this is tony bar ber in brussels. the headline says the eu proposes rich nations give up 50 billion a year in climate fight. host: michelle on our republican line. caller: it's my opinion that in the long run lifting the ban on hiv individuals would put a tremendous strain on our health care system. for example, if the individual coming to the united states who has hiv stayed in the united states, the united states would have to be prepared to take care of that individual in the future should they not leave the united states. and also, it seems to me i recall hearing something about there was already a provision in the law for certain individuals who had hiv and they had to have a sirn amount of money to -- certain amount of money to cover the cost of future health care. and, therefore, i'm against this ban. i think the ban should stay there. thank you. host: our next call comes from richmond, virginia on our independent line. caller: i think that it's great that we are taking an acknowledgment of it. just from my personal knowledge from what i've obtained and reading and watching things on television is that like the last caller that was just on the lady talking about the vaccinations for polio, the -- they manufactured the vaccine in philadelphia in a laboratory in philadelphia and i think it's a major pharmaceutical company that's doing business to the this day that manufactured that vaccine that had the monkey aids virus that got transmitted to humans. and for us to be shut off because of a disease and it's not -- that we can catch it in the air,, you have to have sex with someone or touch their blood. i think it's wonderful that that is happening. host: pennsylvania we're going to go to. but first i'll just give you a kind of context about what the president had to say about his decision to overturn the ban. consider 22 years ago in a decision rooted in fear rather than fact the united states instituted a travel ban on entry into the country for people living with hiv aids. now, we talk about reducing the stigma of this disease yet we've treated a visitor living with it as a threat. we lead the world when it comes to helping stem the aids pandemic, yet we are one of only a dozen countries that still bar people from entering our own country. if we want to be the global leader in combating hiv aids, we need to act like it. and that's why on monday my administration will publish a final rule that eliminates the travel ban effective just after the new year. congress and president bush began this process last year and they ought to be commended for it. we are finishing the job. it will encourage people to get treated and get tested. it's a step that will save lives. host: go ahead on our republican line. caller: good morning. i just don't understand why our president and our politicians are coming from. they actually took an oath to protect this country. and i don't know why the president, the c.d.c. in atlanta didn't consult with them anyway about letting people into this country with communicable diseases. such as hiv. i think everyone sees what happened with the h1n1 virus with just people traveling to and from mexico by plane or however like the kids in new york that started it when they went to mexico for a trip. and can you imagine the way our politicians wanted these tens of thousands of truckers to disburse through all corners of the nation to have that requires h1n1 virus, there would have been a pandemic in the united states. and they took an oath of office to protect us and they're not doing it. host: the front page of the "new york times" has this story writing about what is described in the headline as a deal in the senate on protecting news sources. you can also join us on twitter if you want to get some input into our question this morning. fayettville, knows. good morning. you are next. guest: yes. i think that one of the major problems is that people's fears overcome people's sense of fairness, because like the last caller, you're catholic, you're religious and everything like that. and if you look at the history of how a lot of diseases have been created or like a lot of things have done, were made just in the cost of for profit and money and things for starters for just money, i think that realizing that we shouldn't live in fear and we should try to help people and do what needs to be done with these diseases and everything, i think president obama is just trying to open people's eyes and get people out of liing in fear and living in fact. and i have to commend him on that. but a lot of times like there was another caller who said about how diseases got started. just like the tuss kegie airmen , it's just too many things have been spread around the world for profit and i think that this disease could be one of them. host: point lookout, new york. joe on our independent line. caller: good morning. that guy from pennsylvania really had it connecting it with the swine flu pandemic that's sweeping our country. we just let people in willingie nillie and -- i mean, obama is just talking about health care and making it more affordable. is this how he plans to make it more affordable by inviting people in with infectious diseases? what next? people with meningitis and tuberculosis and the black plague? you know, after the bush administration, i had high hopes for obama but this guy is turning out to be a joke. host: there's a photo in the philadelphia inquirer this morning of the reverend bern niece king and there's a story accompanying her position now. this is out of atlanta. texas on our republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you so much for having me. i was going to comment on mr. obama. i'm a republican. i was a great reagan fan, i'm a great obama fan. i mean, we haven't even given him a chance. we're in a deep recession. and as far as the aids virus, they have come a long way. but it seems like this country has little compassion for a lot of people these days. it's not like it used to be when you had more compassion for your fellow man or anything else. i am a christian. and it's just like -- that's just like prejudice to me. a disease or the color of your skin or whatever or your religious belief, that's prejudice. and i reserve my right to be a christian. i respect anybody else's right to be whatever they want to worship, or be an athiest. but quit being so judgment yl about so many things that obama is trying to accomplish. the man has got so much on his plate. and everybody is blaming obama and i watch congress and i watch these meetings and these hearings and everything, and no wonder nodsing ever gets done. and i realize they're complicate issues. but there seems to be no common sense. host: we'll leave it there. there's a story out of the "washington post" this morning about what's known as c.i.t. group. and it's identified as a major lender to small business. it's preparing to file chapter 11 bankruptcy protections early this weekend according to sources. brooklyn, new york. michael on our democrat's line. caller: good morning c-span. i would like to at least say the last caller, that's a christian i could believe in, being from the other side of the political spectrum. kudos to that man. and also, it's true that george bush did end the ban in july of 2008 but he didn't finalize it. he left so many different loopholes and different ways of making it difficult for people to get into the country that finally obama had to end this and make sure that people have a right to get in here. here's the scenario for you. what about all -- maybe there's somebody out there with cures for all these diseases that can't come to conferences in america because they're hiv positive. you're making things so difficult for people when it should be a matter of compassion, compassion was a good word. the man used it and i'm going to use it again. compassion is what we need. that's basically the main thing i want to say. being an hiv positive person, i'm here already. and bringing a view thousand people over here from around the world and most of them are going to be citizens just because they're hiv positive that shouldn't ban them from having a life in america. that's kind of un-american. isn't it? thanks a lot for taking my call. >> we have one more call to take. caller: good morning. my concern with lifting the ban is that hiv seems to go from person to person a little bit differently in some other countries. it seems to transmit easily amongst families. and should we let those people in here, we may end up with a whole different problem than we have now. we may end up with a problem where people are catching it in ways other than sex and blood transfusions and needles. and so that would be my concern, is that we could end up with a whole different problem with hiv than what we have now because of the way it communicates itself in other countries. host: and we will leave it there. thank you for all of you who called in and participated today. we are going to talk about afghan and pakistan in just a second. but in relation you will want to turn into our "newsmakers" prom at 10:00. senator dick luger is the top republican. a lot of the discussion. but also the discussion took place as far as what the president should and should not be doing in his deliberatetive process. fdfd. . special pro,s at a time in which we're running a deficit of $1.4 trillion last year and that much predicted for this year and all sorts of ominous signs, how long can this go snon well, not as long as some people may think. this is why i've been criticized or why i have criticized the president for instituting a large health care reform, for going into cap and trade in the climate change business and for a whole lot of other things which are important in this world and important to americans, but i think virtually impossible to do on top of the budgetary stresses and the economic crisis we have as americans.($(+ the president might disagree and say this is what i came to office for. i inherited the war. i didn't start one. however afghanistan is a war of necessity. well,çó bush administration. fair enough, but it's his responsibility. if he didn't get economy and the war right, the rest won't work politically. i think he has a chance for success on both grounds. >> and that's senator dick luker of indiana the top republican on the senate foreign relations economy. you can see him at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on this station. and joirning us the assistant secretary of defense for 2007-2008, our discussions will take place 20e6r 207ics of afghanistan and pakistan. mr. chin mr. shin, then reports about concerns over the runoff elections, what would you say as far as what you're seeing as far as the potential breakdown of theseñr elections and what does it mean overall for afghanistan? >> i think there's been a particular crisisñr in afghanistan for the time of our formula for strategy. but i would disagree with some statements with the senior members of this administration that the political crisis in afghanistan means we don't have a partner we can work with. i think it's bretty amaze that we had an election at all and the delay brie the president and his advise ors in reaffirming their strategy in afghanistan combined with a political crisis in kabul is not doing any of us any good. >> is there a sense in your mind that this can be resolved? i know some of the issues were about another clean election, or at least that's what's coming from abdullah abdullah? >> yes. i that had opportunity to visit abdullah abdullah in kabul a few weeks ago, and he was4 obviously not pleased with the results of the election but looking forward to the possible options of a national skilings government, some sort of coalition that would maintain the governance of the election and the war. >> host: as far as the ability to power share, is that a good stradge? guest: i'm not sure it's a good strategy but at this point it's the best strategy. host: why is that? guest: well, there's no doubt that never neet the political landscape in afghanistan we still have the historical divide between the pashtuns in the south by whom president karzai represents offensely as a pashtun and the representatives of the northern alliance. and in some respects, this election was a kind of shadow boxing of these people -- these deep-lying ethnic things and whatever the formlation and the rules they agree on is one way to get around that. host: as far as actual turnout for the election, what's your estimation as far as how many people actually go to voting booths? guest: that's a tough one. the security situation, particularly in parts of the south and east isn't very conducive to daily life, much less conducting an election. host: so security is the top issue? >> yes. i'm guest: i'm impressed by the allegiance that the afghans have to self govern nance, and the pride they take in actually having conducted a peaceful election for leadership. this stands in rather remarkable contrast to the taliban. that i never held an election. host: you can call our republican or democrat line and or our independent line. our guest is jamesñi shinn, the former assistant secretary of defense 2007-2008. mr. shinn, turning to pakistan, how would you describe the impact of secretary of state clinton's trip there? >> i would say she's probably had mixed results. al although endeference to any diplomat who visits pakistan, that is long shlod, and the pakistanis are understandably prickly about criticism from outsiders when they in fact are engaged they must ins a fairly desperate struggle with their particular domestic flavor of the taliban. host: one of the folks responding to the secretary of state says quote please for give me but we've been fighting your war. well, it's no tchute it's their war. if you count it brie the number of people who have been killed or injured by these bomb attacks there's me to question that the pakistan taliban areçó engaged in that war against the government islamabad and i think all the pakistanis know that they just don't appreciate criticism from the outside. 40eu7 and as far as secretary of state's criticism, have they been severely pointed? sultal? how would you define them? >> the only thing that sticks in her mind is the statement that al qaeda still has sanctuaries in pakistan, which is true, but if they are there how come the pakistan government hasn't been able to identify them. on the one hand there has been some complicity in the past obviously the pakistani government in maintainingçó sanctuaries for some elements of the taliban, but on the other hand, the -- al qaeda has declared war, as i said a minute ago on the government of pakistan itself. through the -- to say they are complicit with al qaeda at this point i think is a stretch. host: our guest will be with us for about 25 minutes or so if you want to ask him questions about afghanistan and pakistan and their policy. marty on our democrat's line, go ahead. caller: how are you doing today, sir? my question is afghanistan is getting to be like our war, we were fighting against kids, families, now if this young man talking about hurry up and send troops over there. we're fighting a losing battle. i was there and a lot of republican senate have never been in a war in their life and they are sending kids there. paid their way out of it. half their sons and kids don't go there and clean shave in a suit saying we need to send more bodies over there. they need to cut that stuff out. we're in a losing battle. we need to end it. and i'm threw wit. then you want to criticize the president for not going. when the bodies come in, go talk to the families and get to criticizing that. it is very wrong. host: mr. shinn while i would disagree with the caller politely on two points. first, this is not another vietnam. i know vietnam is the analogy that's in the minds of most of the decision makers as we ponder the strategy. but the differences are so substantial. they are so substantial that i wouldn't draw that conclusion. but the most important thing he said that i don't agree with is that this is not winible. it's been serious for a long time in afghanistan but it can be turned around, and i think that the strategy that the president announced, by the way. the president has announced his strategy for afghanistan. it was done in considerable detail on march 27 of this year. and followed up on by an assessment by general mccrystal who is the commander in chief's commander on the spot, and he felt -- he, himself, states in the assessment that it's winible and goes forward to lay out ways in which this can be done. >> i urge other callers to take a look at eff her -- shortly after it was submitted to secretary gates and reproduce indeed large part in the postpartum. >> peace in the financial times this morning talks about what is like about the veto inflame moment around one of the paragraphs goes like such -- >> the war in afghanistan is viewed as a proxy for a larger ideological battle today against is -- islammist terrorism. in both cases the president is askedçó is to take take a gambl on the response of complex far away societies that are fleetingly understood. guest: if you can go to the very end of the -- host: i'll be looking. go ahead. guest: where he says it's true the vietnam analogy tends to occupy the minds of those making decisions and we're trying not to make the same mistake but in an effort to avoid that mistake you could just make a whole different set of mistakes. host: i couldn't find the actual. i'm try topping stand for it but as far as different set of mistakes, what does he mean by that? >> you know, if -- iñi think th most obvious mistake would be to -- the common one that says well the vietnamese, the swreet kong had a sanctuary in cambodia, the taliban have a sanctuary in pakistan there therefore this war is unwinible. i don't happen on the think that's the case, and i think most people agee thuke restore the security situation in afghanistan and achieve most of your objectives even with a degree of sanctuaries in pakistan. host: and as our guest pointed out. it is in the last paragraph, the white house wants to avoid thexd mistakes and make new mistakes. guest: but i think one of those mistakes would be the public hand wringing on the part of the president but then by the white house about what strategy to actually undertake. the sense of resolve here is very important. if you look -- if the readers were to look at general mccrystal's assessment, the one from august. as i recall even like in the second paragraph, he says, there's a real question here of resolve and of the -- to sustain support to afghanistan. after three decades of civil war and destruction, i think most people still remain to some degree fence sitters. an they, as well as the pakistanis and the iranians and everyone else with an interest in what goes on in afghanistan are inclined to hedge their bets if they see that the u.s. for whatever reason is waivering. either in terms of its commitment or objectives for the war in afghanistan. so time really matters. time really matters in the president and in the obama administration. in their decision on its strategy in afghanistan. >> boston, massachusetts, susan, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just heard you refer to the afghan complex or war as a long, hard, shlog. and i agree that the vietnam analogy isn't fair, because in my mind vietnam is more palletible to me in hindsight because at least you had a country that was even though it was a sophisticated culture, it had -- it didn't have, you know, a primitive, tribal way of life, you know, the afghan and pakistan that you say is a winibleñi conflict where we can achieve an objective is so primitive, it hasn't faced modernty, but in the end it will be a wasteful one. most upsetting to me is the loss of life. i just -- i met a young man who is in "the masters of magic" national guard who is being de -- >> who is in massachusetts national guard and who is being deployed and i never met a such a strong person andmg i felt h was being sent to the slaughter. i just don't believe in what you say, and i don't believe it's winible. and in the end i don't think as a u.s. citizen it will benefit me in any way. and i just feel very strongly about that. and -- host: susan, we'll leave it right there and let our guest respond. guest: well, i was old enough to have been in vietnam around was in 1974 before the final collapse of the south vietnamese government war effort. and i agree although it was greary and had a rich sophisticated structure, including a state structure. but i would disagree with her that that's the case in afghanistan. afghanistan is not the sort of desolate tribal moonscape that is commonly described by a lot of fairly insightful people. and it struck me when i was there two weeks ago. there's a lot of devastation, but this is not a wild, tribal society. they have a long tradition of sophisticated culture. there was a functioning state, a state apparatus up until 1970's when it -- and then the taliban incursion and then the next civil war. but fundamentally elements of that remain, and it's really i think in the ability of the afghans to reconstitute those governance -- government structures themselves on which this war will turn, and that is really the thrust of general mccrystal's strategy. 4 says we're not here to go kill taliban. what we're really here to do is do provide a window of opportunity for the afghan security forces, the army and the police to get large enough and robust enough to first hold the taliban at bay and then to gradually retake the rest of the country. but most importantly, the most important thing for that window is for the afghan government itself to rebuild its ability to extend governance down to the district and village level. because ultimately it's going to be the allegiance of the afghan citizens to the government based in kabul rather than their allegiance to the taliban on which this war is going to turn. it is going to take a long time, though. i had an would, by the way, also agree with the caller about the just remarkable bravery and dedication of the soldiers, the men and the women who are engaged in this fight. it's a long way away and an enormous sacrifice to risk your life or in many cases to give it for this cause. host: we've heard a lot about general mccrystal's counterinsurgence strategy, what do you think of that? guest: i think you can see that already in his decision to withdraw forces from some of the forward operate k bases called fob's or fob's along the border with pakistan and to pull the troops back and both from the border areas and concentrate them in the population. i think about 80% of the potchings of afghanistan population of air force base air force base is essentially urban. and if you can re-establish zphuret kandahar, kabul, can deuce and herat. you can establish a relatively firm security situation there and system atically roll it out into the countryside as both security and governance improves, then you have a viable counterinsurgent strategy. that's the first thing. the concentration of troops. and the second thing he's done, and it's -- i think it's remarkfully insightful and requires remarkable brave roy and adaptability by our troops and by our native allies is to move away from concentrating troops in heavily-protected bases and in fact it gets them closer to the people to go on foot patrols to really establish the kind of length to -- links to local security forces and governments that's the essence of counterinsurgent as i. host: republican line, you're next. caller: good morning, gentlemen. for all your viewers crying out, i would like to offer two websites that give hope. the first is light party.com. testimony second is the venus project. i am self-proclaimed to you the heart beat of america, most are vietnams or swrets and i served 1964-1968. i'm going to tell you something, every time you declare war you're going in the wrong direction. we had no fwons declare war after 9/11, it's an act of war it's a criminal act. i don't know fur old enough to remember them pounding a shoe on the table saying we're going to fwurry you. the soviets are building a missile and we're imploding trying to make america all over the world. that's the u.n.'s job. we're the ones to set the example. host: mr. shinn? guest: we do set an example. but i do -- i think i would differ in the caller again, respectfully, on what started this war. we didn't start this. we were attacked. by al qaeda. it hardly bears remembering but several thousands of our citizens killed just about two miles south of the studio in new york where i'm sitting, and we know who perpetrated it and to find them and bring them to justice we had to invade afghanistan. so this is not a war that we started. and it's a war where we continue to have substantial stakes. host: next call is from washington, d.c. jackie on our democrat line. caller: yes, good morning. good morning, mr. shinn, according to the caption, it states that you are the former assistant secretary of defense, 2007-stwathe. which is one year. so my question is to you. yet you say you were in afghanistan within the last couple of weeks. first of all, what purpose were you there and what organization were you representing? because it seems you were either a holdover from the bush administration, because while you have a mild tone to you, you're advocating war but throughout the entire morning there has never been a mention of bin laden. al qaeda is no longer in afghanistan yet we're beating the drums of war. i think this is insidious when we continue to put people like you on tv who seem want to have a rational discussion about wanting to take us into another war. it's abottom dabble. there's no al qaeda in afghanistan and we need not waste another american life. guest: well, i don't think we agree that we're currently in a war. this is not about starting a war. i was in afghanistan for a private citizen. i don't work for the government i resigned last year and went there with another friend of mine who spent a lot of time in afghanistan in the 1970's he lived there before the days in which the government fell apart. we checked into a hotel and drove around the country so i don't represent the government. host: donaldson in missouri. our independent line? caller: thank you, very much. first of all, i applaud mr. shinn in giving an extraordinarily good review in just a few minutes in the situation in afghanistan and pakistan. i want to point out that for the first time in many years, pakistan has a civilian government and that increasingly her bearing the real brunt of fighting in pakistan. they really are. and the second thing on the point out is that a lot of the problems karzai has that governing is the right amount of corruption in the government and still fighting among the different groups. and he representings a large groupñi involved in the invex, you will, as a pashtun. but here's my question, what can the united states including the president do to meaningfully put some pressure on karzai and all of the people fighting amongst each other to cut back on corruption, and what can the united states do in terms of increasing civil involvement in rebuilding the infrastructure. "the informer" of this country? thank you. -- the infrastructure of this country? thank you. guest: if i could pick up on the first observation, pakistan is at least as important a piece of this puzzle as afghanistan and i think it goes to the previous caller's objection about where is al qaeda? i think she's right. aside from a few hundred fighters who are in the south associated with the taliban insurrection, most of al qaeda as we know it is to the east of the duh ran line, which is the border area between afghanistan and pakistan, but the point is afghanistan and pakistan as a skiret puzzle will have to be dealt with together. it's very difficult to imagine how you could assist the government in islamabad. the democratically-elected ghoth pakistan as the caller observeded. and in their long struggle against both their homegrown taliban and against al qaeda. without having success in afghanistan. if you withdraw from afghanistan, and let the government there crumble in the face of the taliban invex. insurrection, not only do you risk a repeat of the situation before 2001 in which al qaeda re-establishes its training camps and its planning bases in afghanistan, no doubt to attack us again somewhere, whether it's in western europe or our allies or in the united states, but you'll also create a situation that makes it even more unstable to the east in pakistan. and there are, i mean, if you look at this sin surwrex as sorlt of a pashtun problem there's twice as many pashtun ins afghanistan as there are in pakistan. maybe 12 million in pakistan but;v easily twice that number pakistan and border communities like karachi and so fundamentally, you have to deal with afghanistan and pakistan as -- as a pair, and you need a strategy to deal with the both of them. i would say that the strategy outlined by general mccrystal until which presumably the white house is going to embrace any day now, is -- you know, that provides a fairly clear way forward. it's pakistan, which i think is the much murkier and difficult proposition and tools we have to assist the government in its pursuit in the war against their taliban and their al qaeda are much more limited. host: fort lauderdale, florida, john on our democrat's line. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i have to say, mr. shinn, i strongly disagree with your political analysis of the governmental structure. you seem to be advocateing a top-down structure for the afghanistan government. straledsed roll. centralized role. it doesn't surprise me. you have that cultured background of culturized and secretary of state you're controlled to be crenscrurized. i believe that's a fallacy, sir. the war lords are in charge over there. they are very pro inventory shall and parochial even admiting the army would have to take over the country in order to take control. you in your own words stated there's a conflict that is not going to be settled by this top-down government, your theory that you advocate and that you support in your own culture, yourself, sir. guest:, well, first of all, i agree with you that rebuilding of governance in afghanistan is going to be a local issue. you know, there's limits to how top-down you can drive this whole thing, so i hope i haven't threast misimpression. but you do have one central government in afghanistan. you have to have one. not the least because you have to have one national army rather than an army of locals or war lords. but it is also true thoo that progress in both security ando govern nance when it takes place is going to have to happen down in the district orvilleage and that's the objective of the strategy that general mccrystal has proposed to the president. host: getting down outside the wire. guest: in the provinces in the district. call. michael on our republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate it. sir, when was the last time you turned into an afghan citizen and dictating into what they should need and do? who made you the snort lastñr time i checked 19 highjackers came to this country and plotted and destroyed towers. it's me the an drove thol to think you're going to go to a third world country and hunt down and attack and kill people that are trying to kill us. they came here, they had passports they did everything on their side to destroy us. guest: but they came on a mission that was planned and guided from afghanistan for goodness sakes. caller: they came on a mission. 2k3w0eu7 that's why we went after them. this is an historical fact. caller: then why don't we go to saudi arabia since they came from saudi arabia let's go there and hunt the rest of them down. are you going to attack every country in the world because somebody attacks us and sir let me ask you a question. host: first are you calling on the republican or democrat line? caller: i'm an exmilitary republican and serve this happened military for nine years and i have the right as an exmilitary military person just because i'm republican to speak out against things that are horrific. you never served in the military i doubt so you don't have the right to talk to me like that and it breaks my heart when american soldiers lose their lives because of the thought that we're going to a third world country and pay them back. guest: i would remind the caller and i have great respect for his military service and views. the reason weaver in afghanistan. the reason we're in afghanistan is not a unilateral decision by the united states. we are operateing in afghanistan as part of nato. and nato is operating in afghanistan under a united nations mandate. the united nations which is about as credible a political organization as you can find, has formally mandated this operation for the support and rest ration of democracy and governance in afghanistan. host: james shinn has been our guest for the last half-hour, served as secretary of defense for 2007-2008. we thank you for your time sir. guest: thank you. host: up next discussion about how celebrities influence and affect the political process. tim daily is our guest the executive producer of an upcoming documentary that will appear on showtime called pollywood. first one more segment from our newsmakers program featuring senator dick lugar from indiana looking at issues as far as the administration is concerned and particularly when it comes to deliberating on as far as what to do as far as policy is concerned he talks about what the president should and should not do. >> we're in a war in which americans are losing their lives and tens of billions of dollars are being appropriated and reappropriated and special appropriation at a time in which we're runing a deficit of $1.4 trillion last year and that much predicted for this year and all sorts of ominous signs. how long can this go on? perhaps not as lodge as some people may think. this is why i've been criticized or why i have criticized the president for instituteing the large health care reform. for going into cap and trade in the climate change business. for a whole lot of other things that are important in this world and important to americans. but i think virtually impossible to do on top of the budgetary stresses and the economic dries sis that we have as americans. >> sunday on book tv, join our discussion with autism advocate and author, diagnosised with autism in 1950rks this professor discusses her disability and how it developed humane ways to handle livestock at processing plants. on c-span 2's book tv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: next week on the showtime network you'll get a chance to see a documentary looking at the knicks between hollywood and politics. it's calledñi poliwood and here the trailer. >> politics for better or worse is the -- zemb has to put on a good image whether it's a real image or not. >> they've had to become actors themselves. they have to pla4gñ the media. >> i do have a skill or credential it's being able to communicate. >> you guys think you speak for us. you do not. >> a lot of people think celebrity advocacy is a way of getting your name in the papers, that's the last thing i'm here for. >> cnn will have just as many hollywood celebrities on'h as political figures. >> now they are simply ready. it's all theater. >> i think the camera makes a big difference. >> it's hard to wipe the cameras out of your head. they get in there. >> we are about this far away from the political version of miss america. host: joining us from new york is actor tim daily. can you talk about what was the genesis of this project? guest: well, the creative coalition that i'm co-president of the was going to the conventions and some of the debates and eventually the inauguration, whoever was elected and ewe thought it would be a great idea to sort of document this will journey and to pass it along to the public so that they could get a glimpse at what the political process was. when barry levin on the got involved, you know, barry is a really astute observer of our culture, and his take on it became sort of fornle him. the movie is called an esse, chit really is. -- essay, which it really is. so it's about this collision between media celebrity and politics. anyway, that's the genesis of it. host: was this done in part because of a certain president that was coming into office or was this interest started in the previous administration? guest: it was started in the previous administration. it hadñi nothing to do with who was coming to office around it was a non-part son advocacy group made upñr of prominent people and arts and education -- we were dedicated to going to both conventions and to the inauguration whoever was the ultimate winner. host: you talk about the mix of hollywood and politics, how do you think that has happened over the years and is it taking place more than now that you're seeing it than in previous? guest: well, yes, i think it is sort of a growing trend. although, it was interesting, because i remember at the democratic convention, there was a lot of talk about how mr. obama was nothing more than a celebrity and someone who gave good speeches. and i thought back to ronald reagan who was a celebrity and a great communicator. i had an thought that's maybe the genesis of it. he was an actor who was eelected as president of the united states. so i think this has been coming for a while, and certainly what politicians need is spotlight. and what celebrities can give them is the spotlight.+ you know, i guess from their point of view they are using celebrities in a way to get their message out, and interestingly enough the celebrities point of view is that they are, i think for the most part general -- host: how long have you been a political observer? guest: really for a long time. but it changes as my life changes. there was a time when i was knee-deep in child rearing and everything went by the wayside except cleaning, feeding, homework, soccer, but as i've had more time,xd my kids are grown up, i've become hopefully a more astute observer of politics. and really a student. one of the things that i personally wanted to accomplish by being part of this film is to be able to communicate this experience back to the public. because you know, forñi better for worse, whatever you think about it, i was granted special access to the political process during this political cycle, and i think a lot of people are disconnected or don't feel they know what actually happens at conventions and debates, and it's a very unique and peculiar world. host: our guest is with us until the end of the show and if you want to talk to him about the end of the project and now is your chance to do so we've divideed the line by parties. republicans, democrats and independents. you talk about how you wanted to appeal to the public with this project, how do you think the public per receives celebrity in the political process? guest: well, i think that, you know, talking about celebrity or talking about hollywood as a whole is sort of a dangerous thing. clearly there are certain celebrity that is have noñi ide what they are talking about, and however, i would say there's a lot of pundits, politicians and celebrity whoñr don't know what they are talking about and those that are very active and do good. if you blanketly said keep celebrities out of politics, you would be cutting off a guy like bono whose helped tens or millions of people around the world or even bill gates who necessarily isn't a hollywood celebrity but in business who run it is largest philanthropic organization in the world. host: el paso, texas, tom on our republican line, you are our guest. caller: thank you. nice to see you on tv, i appreciate the work you've done and enjoy watching you on the series "wings" i really enjoyed that. guest: thank you, sir. caller: i don't agree with you on the comparison with obama and president reagan. they are the opposites of each other. couldn't be more opposite. reagan was a champion of american freedom and what we are seeing right now in the white house is a radical left wing agenda that is now taking over the white house and has been propelled by the folks in hollywood. and you know, that is the course that we're on and it's very unfortunate because it's very un-american and the situation needs to be dealt with, because it's not something that's going to be dealt with and as a country we won't flat-out put up with it. that's why we're seeing so much pushback from the conservative side of the political specktrum. guest: well, thank you i guess that was more of a statement than a question but i respectfully disagree. i think that the fact that mr. obama was elected is distinctly american. think there's nothing un-american about it. and you know, whatever the side of the political fence you're on, we have this process, and the united states of america decided to create this, you know, this administration that represents something vastly different than administration that came before. i would argue that a lot of the crisis that we're seeing now is a result of the president sifment i mean, this was the guy that took the solar pams off the white house and raised the mileage on cars and started the deregulation of the financial industries. so you know, and mr. obama's presidency isn't even a year old so to call it un-american suspect fair at this point. he should be give an chance, and i also don't believe his presidency is celebrity-driven, because one of the things that i point out to my republican friends overp and over again is that it seems to be republicans who elect actors to public office. sonny boneo and reagan and the democrats i think have so far been wise enough to leave actors out of it. host: missouri city, texas on our democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: mr. daily, just made it fun for me just made a point for me. the point is ronald reagan was more of an actor than our current president. obama. because this man is a politics. he came up through the hard knocks of those. president obama was a harvard grad. and he is really what you would think a president should be. he is a christian, first of all, who is compassionate. he talks about the poor. as the scriptture says. and i'm nervous, so that's all i have to say. host: mr. daly. guest: thank you, very much, and again that's a statement but it's interesting how, you know, the media and -- can change our perception of people , and i remember during the elections how mr. obama was painted as an elitist when he is the epit i of a american dreams, he was a welfare kid who pulled himself up by his boot straps and educated himself which is the most important thing anyone can do if they want to enter politics. fairness to president reagan, there's an assumption that somehow celebrities or actors are born into a monarchy in respects where we see children of actors, i'm a child of an actor, we see them rise to a certain level. but i think the majorityçó of people who are celebrities in the entertainment business have started from either middle class or lower backgrounds. one of the things that i found, particularly when going to the republican convention, is that when you strip all the noise away, people have a lot more in common than we think. there's a lot of rhetoric about you know, my side around your side as if we're talking about baseball teams. and when in fact, you know, human beings backstretch want the same thing whether you're republican, democrat or an afghani or an iraqi. you know, you want to take care of your family, do a and have your kids have a chance to have a good life in education. so if we can get to a place where there's social discourse that's you know, really real. where we actually listen to each other, i think all all of us will find a common ground that will hopefully let us move forward. host: when you talk about work with your documentary, what kind of parity was it between the celebrities at the deafment convention and the republican convention? guest:, i think there were probably more celebrities at the democratic convention. . but it's interesting because i will say that there was a kind of nervousness among the democrats, because of the this -- you know -- this i don't want the say attack but this idea that you know, mr. obama was pandering to celebrities. and he, as far as i'm concerned was not. there wasn't a lot of special access to him or his people. and you know, i think honestly, republicans and democrats all like their celebrities equally. you know, for better or for worse, and i can't really say whether that's a good thing or not, but you know, people like hanging around with people they've seen in the movies or -- host: janet on our independent line? caller: yes. i was doing a documentary way back in the early 1990's, because i bought into the president reagan's you know, window of opportunity where he put down for an abatement of because he was a celebrity and happened to know history he wanted to make way for new talent to come on the field and fast track, what is the problem with our national security not to be able to have an equal opportunity of a plug on the gap between political corruption? so unfortunately, as a consumer , able to afford, to launch this reform that they are coming up to nowt. now private trust people being able to do no-profit -- over the gap. while seeking trials of what happens when a mother who doesn't have the theory of this is my job, that this is my child's life. i need fight for my child's life, because there's no cure. because congress is only interested in pork page product? host: garon there was something that would directly apply to mr. daly, but i'll let you answer that. guest: i actually appreciate what you said and i didn't understand it at all. so -- i don't know if we can try something else. host: we'll take another call. tom go ahead from pennsylvania. caller: hi there. tom from mount bethal. i missed the beginning of the show but i see the point here is hollywood's influence on politics. and i guess i don't have a question i they are other than to comment that it seems like when hollywood has an influence on politics, knows hollywood have a grand stage, where as individuals don't have the grand stage, and yet what makes a hollywood personality any more qualified than snon comment from mount bethal and austin, texas, and i'll leave that to you, mr. daly. guest: you're right in that there's absolutely nothing that makes them more called. all i'll say this -- and i said this earlier on the show. i think celebrity it's cannot be taken as an entire group. can political pundits or members of the media. there are people who are very knowledgeable, who have very informed opinions. there are people who are very partisan, just clacks for their particular cause and there are people that don't know what they are talking about. so i think it's difficult but important for individuals like you and meñi as citizens to try as hard as we can to ferret out the truth in all this noise, and part of what the movie is about is the fact that there is so much noise and it's so dot arrive at snag reaccidentalibles the truth about an issue or a cause. i think that you know, the instant information we get all the time has made that even more difficult. i also think that the public has an idea that hollywood, i think is sort of been reduced to you know, the young women we see melting down on the coffer of tabloids. and i think we forget often that there are a lot of dedicated, hard-working family people who you know, their job happens to be being an actor or musician or, you know, an athlete even, and that some of those people are, it's like everybody else. i'm sure you have neighbors and you think this person doesn't know what the hell they are talking about and you have other friends who you think are very smart and you respect their opinions even if you might disagree with them. host: chad from omaha, nebraska. go ahead. caller: thank you. hello, i had a question on your position of whether or not you feel hollywood in general felt that 911 men was a declaration of war on america. what's the buzz there in hollywood on that? i don't know if you rub elbows with a lot of celebrities or not. but that's pretty much my question. thanks. guest: well, i really couldn't speak for all of hollywood. think i there's probably a varying opinion about that. the one thing that i will say )tainly ly, is that% it was a violent attack, which -- but you know the idea of being at war is something that i am personally somewhat uncomfortable with, mainly because the american people with the exception of the people in the military and their familys are making no diserinible sacrifice in order to support this war. i'm from a strongly-democratic family, but my father, my two uncles and aunts all served in the military my aunt was at one point highest-ranking woman in the military. he was the a life-long military person, my uncle was in the f.b.i. my grandmother was in the cia. i come from a -- democrats who believed in public service, and i remember the stories they told about world war ii when everybody was sacrificing for the cause of this war. and i remember how shocked i was when we were attacked that, you know, the advice we were given as a people was to go shopping. and that didn't seem to me like the behavior of a countryñi tha was at war. it seemed that we should be, if we were truly dedicated to a cause that we should be sacrificing something behind this effort and behind the people who are putting they must ins harm's way. >> tell us a little about the documentary. >> it's calleds "poliwood. premieres monday november 22 at 7:30 and believer it will screen continuously on showtime and directed by the academy award-winner barry levin on the and it's an interesting piece. i hope everybody sees it. >> mr. daly was executive producer on that. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> tomorrow on our program a three of hour program that will start at 7:00 a.m. a political round table looking at elections. and preliminary analyst and byron york as well. greg ip of the "wall street journal" and we'll talk about foreign policy and that program starts at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow. tanks for watching today. we'll see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] . >> this is c-span, public affairs programming courtesy of america's cable companies. of next, a senate hearing on the problem of distracted drivers. in a conference on israel and palestine. >> now a senate hearing on distracted driving with transportation secretary ray lahood and the fcc chairman . jay rockefeller cheers the transportation committee. this is one hour and 35 minutes. >> hello, frank. this social event will come to order. i am going to give my opening statement, and then the ranking member, kay bailey -- kay bailey hutchison, will do at the same. then i will call on an interesting, very successful beginning political person from the state of new york, i think. the hon. charles schumer. yes, yes. >> [unintelligible] >> thank you so much. i needed that. i needed that a lot. at this very moment, right now, drivers on all parts of the road are holding an electronic device. they are sending an e-mail to their office on their blackberry. or they are looking up directions with the gps system. that amounts to -- please note -- 812,000 distracted the voters -- distracted voters at any given moment. those 812,000 expanded drivers -- distracted drivers are not focused on the road. they are focused on their devices. this augurs much danger. they are putting their own lives at risk. that is their right. they are putting their passengers' lives at risk. that is not their right. and the lives of everyone else on the road -- which is not the right. their right. in september of 2008, a 13-year-old person by the name of margee was riding home on the school bus. a truck driver who by his own admission was distracted by his cell phone slammed into the back of the bus. the bus happened to be stopped with flashing red lights on. the bus caught fire and margee was killed. her terrible story is just one of thousands. last year distracted killers killed 5,800 people and injured 515,000 people. one almost doesn't know how to respond to something that awful. deaths like margee's are absolutely devastating, and as interesting they are totally preventable. we define distracted driving broadly. reaching for an object or eating while behind the wheel, it counts. but cell phone using and texting in particular have increasingly -- increased in recent years and the number of accident and deaths that they cause. we stand by and enjoy our blackberries and all the rest of it, and i want goes on. commercial motor-vehicle operators who were texting are 23 times more likely to cause a crash or near crash. texting takes your eyes off the road. long enough at high speeds to travel the length of a football field. cars and trucks with a distracted driver are deadly weapons, in fact. and we have a responsibility to get them off the road. several states already have taken action, but not enough states have done the right thing. so, with senators hutchison, lautenberg, schumer, thume and vetter are now all co-sponsors of this magnificent piece of legislation to undo a horrible part of our life. the centerpiece of this legislation is a grant program for states to enact laws that prohibit texting and hand-held cell phone use while driving. we're all guilty. we're all guilty. to qualify a state would have to enact an absolute ban on texting while driving. and you ask the question, well how does that work? well we're going to have to figure out how that works because it's going to have to happen. and i want has to carry significant penalties for any driver who causes an accident and there are no exceptions. states also would have to limit cell phone use to devices with hand free capabilities. but no driver under our bill under the age of 18 could use a cell phone at all while still gaining experience on the road. to truly make our roads safer, we need to think bigger and more comprehensively. and so this legislation models a new national education campaign based on the tremendous success of the drunk driving and, frankly, the seat belt advertising campaigns. this particular are senator remembers ignoring the seat belt law for a period of years. i can't explain to you why. maybe it was because it was law, maybe my parents were talking to me about it. i ignored it. what a fool i was. but i overcame that foolishness and i'm still alive. so, we can all do this without raising our deficit one cent. the new grant program and advertising campaign would be paid for by redirecting unused surpluses from the current seat belt safety program. to wit, no new costs. we shouldn't have to mourn the tragic loss of any more precious lives and needlessly cut short. it's time to bring a new sense of safety and shared responsibility to our roads. this is a major subject for this committee. i call on the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank you for calling this hearing and for taking the lead on the bill that we're co-sponsoring. i think this is a very important issue, and i think that the way we have directed the legislation is the right one, and i will talk about that in a minute. driving while distracted, unfortunately is not a new phenomenon, but as technology has developed we're no longer talking about just on a cell phone. we're now talking about blackberry, gps systems, mp-3 players, televisions and texting on the phones as well as just listening and other computerized devices. it means we do have to take action. the national transportation safety board reports that in 2008 almost 6,000 people died from crashes that resulted from distracted driving. this accounted for 16% of all traffic fatalities last year, up from 12% the year before. i think most of us would agree that driving while distracted poses serious safety risk to the drivers but also to passengers and anyone sharing the road. unfortunately, studies have shown that while people are aware of the safety risks, caused by using cell phones and blackberry, they still participate in doing it. a number of states are addressing this issue and have enacted different types of laws that will regulate the use of cell phones or sending text messages. the areas have been addressed in different ways and i think that our bill will clarify what would qualify for the grants. but most appropriately, i think, too the states should handle this issue. the states should devise these laws that best meet the needs of their states. that is why i was very pleased when we worked on the bill together that this is a piece of legislation that takes the approach that states rights will be respected. i do not believe states should be threatened with a loss of their federal highway funds for not enacting these laws. but day believe offering incentive grants to states that do enact laws that combat this is a healthy way to address it. it would be funded through existing programs so we're not spending one additional taxpayer dollar. i think this is another very important component. i don't think i could have possibly signed on to a bill that would increase our debt but this does not. i look forward to working with the chairman and other committee members as we consider this legislation, and i also will say i hope we take up the motor coach bus safety legislation as we are also looking at this safety measure, because i think that these two steps would take a major direction change for the states and for our country if we would address these two important safety issues. thank you, mr. chairman, and i look forward to hearing from chairman genachowski and secretary lahood. >> and senator schumer. >> and senator schumer, of course. we know we'll hear from him. >> yeah, you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i very much appreciate you and senator hutchison extending me the hone for of testifying before our great commerce committee today. i want to thank you. members of the committee. secretary lahood and fcc commissioner genachowski to being here to discuss the importance of combatting distractive driving. when my two daughters first learned to drive i worried about their safety. that's when cell phone use was pretty widespread and i worried about them talking on the phone and driving but text messaging wasn't as popular as it is today so in a few short years the roads have gotten only more dangerous. ten years ago most of us didn't know what texting was. now, it's become ubiquitous. last december americans sent over 110 billion text messages and that doesn't count the billions of emails sent by blackberry which is greater. the technologies is a blessing and a curse. it's a blessing in that it improves communication but it's a curse because when used improperly such as a driver behind the wheel it causes enormous risk and we have all seen the research which concerns what we know, it's extremely dangerous for a driver to take his or her eyes off the road, send, receive text messages. this summer along with several senators, together we introduced the alert drivers act which would mandate states pass law banning texting while driving. more and more states are passing texting bans it remains the case that fewer than half the states have banned the practice as of today. and mr. chairman i'm thrilled that you've introduced legislation and look forward to working with you on both our bills as we move forward to enact a ban on texting. chairman rockefeller and our bill is slightly different. senator rockefeller's approach focus on carrots in the forms of grants to states to help them enact texting bans while our bill uses sticks to get states to ban cell phone use. we think the best way to go is both carrots and sticks. you, mr. chairman, have co-sponsored our bill as well as senator lautenberg. so it's my hope and belief in the end we'll have a bill that combines the best of both worlds. i just want to explain, take a minute to explain how the alert drivers act worked and why we crafted at any time way we did. it takes a tough no excuses approach to a texting ban. it requires the states to enact bans that meet federally set minimum standards or lose 25% of their federal highway funding. we thought long and hard about how to write this bill and ultimately modeled it after the national minimum drinking age law which passed in 1984, which also withheld a percentage of highway funds from any state that did not have and enforce a minimum drinking age of 21. we did this because we saw that the drinking age before that law, the country face endemic young at driving in 22 states. three years after the law passed, every single state did, and the pattern has been repeated with similar federal laws, and not any case in any of these laws has in the state lost a dime of federal funding as a result. of course, it is a federal responsibility. ever since the national highway act has been the federal responsibility. public support is growing. ford motor co. endorsed our deal. so did the american trucking association, even though their members will be affected by this. textor on the road, just like outlawing drinking while driving hasn't stopped people from getting behind the wheel after a few drinks. incidentally, sticks show it's more dangerous to text while you drive than to drive drunk. an astoundi ining statistic tha counterintuitive but true. we owe it to the american public to promote safe driving, passing a ban on text behind the wheel. i look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with you, mr. chairman, and your committee to do so. thank you for the chance to testify. >> thank you, senator schumer, very much. >> thank you. >> and i would ask now secretary lahoud, if you could come forward and perhaps at the same time chairman jankowski, could do the same. so you'd be both at the witness table and we can question you both. mr. secretary? >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member hutchison and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the most important issue of distracted driving. chairman rock fell i especially appreciate your leadership and the leadership of others on this committee. transportation safety is the department's highest priority. distracted driving is a dangerous practice that has become a deadly epidemic. our research shows that unless we take action now, the problem is only going to get worse especially among our nation's youngest drivers. this trend distresses me deeply, and i am personally committed to reducing the number of injuries and fatalities caused by distracted driving. four weeks ago the department of transportation hoechted a summit to help us identify, target and tackle the fundamental elements of the problem. we brought together over 300 experts in safety, transportation research, regulatory affairs and law enforcement. more than 5,000 people from 50 states and a dozen countries also participated in the summit, via the web. we heard from several young adults who had engaged in distracted driving and who discussed the terrible consequences of their actions. we also heard from several victim of this behavior whose lives have been changed forever. mothers and fathers who lost children and children who lost a parent told their story, and i want you to know i personally promised these families that i would make this issue my cause. we were privileged to have senator pryor and senator klobuchar as well as senator schumer participate, and i want to thank them for attending and for dedicating time and energy to addressing this problem. the unanimous conclusion of the participants is that distracted driving is a serious and ongoing threat to safety. this conclusion is borne out by the facts. our latest research shows that nearly 6,000 people died last year in crashes involving a distracted driver and more than half a million people were injured. this is not a problem caused by just a few negligent drivers. to the contrary. aaa foundation for traffic safety, a nonprofit educational and research organization reports that 67% of drivers admitted to talking on their cell phone with the last 30 days while behind the wheel and 21% of drivers indicated they heard or sent, excuse me, had read or sent a text or e-mail message a figure that rose to 40% for those drivers under the age of 35. as shocking as these numbers are, it is clear that this problem is only getting worse, and that the youngest americans are most at risk. while the worst offenders may be the youngest, they are not alone on any given day last year, an estimated 800,000 vehicles were driven by someone who used a hand-held cell phone at some point during their drive. people are all ages are using a variety of hand-held devices. such as cell phones, personal digital assistance, navigation devices, and they're behind the wheel. however, the problem is not just confined to vehicle on the road. it affects all modes of transportation. experts agree that there are three types of distraukzs. number one, visual. taking your eyes off the road. number two, manual, taking your hands off the wheel. and number three, koch in ative, taking your mind off the road. koch in a cognitive. all impacts safety, texting is the most troubling because it involves all three types of distractions, and the word of dr. john lee of the university ever wisconsin, this produces a perfect storm. for all of these reasons at the conclusion of the summit i announced a series of concrete actions that president obama's administration and d.o.t. are taking to put an end to distracted driving. the president's executive order banning texting and driving for federal employees is the cornerstone of these efforts and sends a strong, unequivocal signal to the american public thatty stracting driving is dangerous and unacceptable. the order prohibits federal employees from engaging in text messaging. in three ways, while driving government-owned vehicles. one using electronic equipment supplied by the government while driving and while driving privately owned vehicles when an official government on official government business. the ban takes effect government-wide on december 30th '09, however, i have already advised all 50,000 d.o.t. employees they are expected to comply with the order immediately. d.o.t. is has working internally to formalize compliance and enforcement measures that we are in close consultation with the general services office and office of professional management providing leadership and assistance to other executive branch agencies to enforce full compliance with the executive order by all federal departments and as the no later than december 307b8g of this year. d.o.t. is also taking other con creed actions to reduce distracted driving across all modes. for instance, one year ago we began enforcing limit aces on texting and cell phone use throughout the rail industry. we are taking the next step by initiating three rulemakings. one, codifying restrictions on the use of cell phones and other electr electronic devices in rail operations. two, consider banning text messaging and restricting the use of cell phone by truck and interstate bus operators while operating a vehicle, and, three, disqualifying school bus driver, convicted of texting while driving from maintaining their commercial driver's license. we will work aggressively and quickly to evaluate regulatory options and initiate rule-making as appropriate. more overover, our state and low partner, the key to success. we have in addressing distracted driving. i have encouraged our state and local government partners to reduce fatalities and crashes by identifying ways the states can address distracted driving in their strategic highway safety plans and commercial vehicle safety plans. and to assist them in their effort i have directed d.o.t. to develop model laws with tough enforcement features with all modes of transportation. there are other affirmative measures states can take immediately to reduce the risk of distracted driving. for example, we are encouraging the installation of rumble strips along roads as an effective way to get the attention of distracted drivers before they divert from their lane. education, awareness and outreach are also essential elements of our action plan. these meshers include targeted outreach campaigns to inform, key audiences about the dangers of distracted driving. we are still researching the effectiveness of combining high visibility enforcement with outreach campaigns in the distracted driving context but are hopeful such efforts may prove effective in the same way we've been able to reduce drunk driving and increase seat belt use. all of these measures are the beginning. not the end. to solve the problem of distracted driving. d.o.t. will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to collect and evaluate comprehensive distracted driving related data needed to better understand the risk and identify effective solutions. and the administration will continue to work with congress, state and local governments, industry and the public to end the dangers posed by distracted driving and encourage good decision-making by drivers of all ages. we may not be able to break every one of their bad habits. we're going to raise awareness and shape the consequences. and i want to particularly thank congress, this committee, for its dedication to combating distracted driving, and i look forward to further collaboration with this committee and other committees of congress to tackle this menace to society. i look forward to your questions. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, secretary la hood. now, chairman jankowski. >> thank you. chairman rock fell ranking member hutchison and other distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to testify on the import topic's distracted driving. i commend your leadership in holding this hearing to address this urgent problem and the introduction today of bipartisan legislation, the fcc hopes to be a resource to you as you consider this legislation. i also want to commend secretary of transportation la hood for his excellent statement and consistent leadership on this issue. let me begin by giving context to the serious and dangerous problem of distracted driving caused by the use of mobile communications devices. and then describe some avenues that the fcc is pursuing to be a constructive part of the solution. first, context, mobile wireless devices and networks are a major contributor to job creation in our economy. have become a fixture of everyday life. wireless cap expenditures from 1998 to 2008 totaled more than $200 billion. growth in wireless devices astro tonic. in 1995 only 34 million sub described to mobile phone service. summer ever 2009, 276 million subscribers and we heard earlier today the compelling data on the amount of text message usage we are seeing. today the vast majority of teenagers, four of five, have mobile phones as parents well know. mobile devices connect us every day to family, friends and colleagues. they hold the promise of helping meet many of the nations most significant challenges from empowering first respoernds to providing instant medical assistance to letting us effectively operate an energy saving smart grid. the popularity of mobile devices, however, has had some unintended and very dangerous consequences. according to aaa nearly 50% of teens admit to texting while driving. the national highway traffic safety administration reported in 2008 that driver distraction is the cause ever 16% of all fatal crashes and 21% of crashes resulting in injury. there's no way around it. this is an urgent challenge with literally fatal consequences that must be addressed. there is, however, as others have said, no single solution to this challenge. the responsibility lies with all of us. individuals, companies in the wireless base as well as government. one necessary step is to develop a cultural norm that driving while texting is completely unacceptable. in this regard i'd like to acknowledge the work of ctia, the industry trade association, and in coordination with the national safety council for initiating a joint campaign with the slogan "on the road off the phone" focused on educating teen drivers on the dangers of distracting driving, they've devised a website for parents and teens that includes suggested ground rules tore driving and ruled out psas warning of dangers while texting and driving. individual wireless carriers launched educational campaigns. i hope the results of these campaigns will be measured and continually improved based and their results. on the federal level i applaud secretary la hood an the department of transportation for leading an active, coordinated effort to increase public awareness of the dangers of distracted driving, and i salute the leadership the president has shown including the issuance of an executive order prohibiting federal work herbs texting while driving on the job or when using government vehicles and recognize the central role of the states in this area as the legislation introduced today recogniz recognizes. according to the goorcher's highway safety association, 18 states as well as the district of columbia made it illegal to text while driving but, of course, the majority of states have not yet and we've heard discussion about that already today. the fcc has a role to play here as well. we hope to educate the public in problem solving. to this end, we in the commission can bring our recent owl -- experience to the digital transition to increase the awareness of the public of the dangers of distracted driving. we will explore collaborations' to support the safe use of mobile devices involving state and local counterparts and local consumer groups. already, our consumer and governmental affairs bureau is preparing a broader educational campaign. we hope to serve as a resource to a variety of organizations. irected the agencies consumer and governmental affairs bureau to provide educational information on the fcc website on the importance of reducing distracted driving with links to other organizations working on this issue. in fact, the bureau has already launched a web page onty tracksed driving and is working hard on other educational initiatives. new ideas advances in technology and entrepreneurial thinking can induce changes in consumer and driver behavior and otherwise help address the serious problem of distracted driving. parents want tools to help keep their new teenaged drivers focused solely on driving while behind the wheel. insurance companies may want to encourage safer driving given kig counts for people using such technologies and employers to prevent employees while texting because the fcc licenses and for mobile services and approved devices for use in consumer marketplace, the fcc can play productive role in incentivizing and enabling technology and encouraging the deployment and development of marketplace solutions. in the past, the fcc authorized spectrum use for the purpose of promoting safety around various forms of transportation. in connection with communications technology and distracted driving, smart fones and other technologies allow users to control with voices their mobile phones in vehicle systems. some suggested these technologies might be used by drivers to avoided dangerous distraction of looking at screens and opportunities to use rfid sensor technology and key chains that disable selective functions on a driver's mobile device activated by the start of their car. in addition, there is what some call hackettic technology. simulating a touch creating buttons or controls on flat surfaces could be used to div drivers more control over cars and electronic devices keeping eyes on the road? could existing voice technolo technologies be used to improve safety or are these too dangerous while in the car? all questions to be explored. the fcc can play a part in encouraging innovative technologies to reduce injury and loss of life due to distracted driving. examining ways to allow consumers and industry to allow more options in addressing this serious problem. finally, with respect to fcc staff, i have been urging fcc employees to set and example regarding this issue. irene forced to agency employees the importance of complying with the president's executive order banning the use of federal devices to text while driving as well as banning the use of personal devices while driving government vehicles. i've urged fcc employees to go furpter and avoid texting and driving at all times and encourage families and friends to do likewise. in closing, i look forward to continuing to work with the committee with secretary la hood, industry, unoh vaters and consumers on this important issue and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i will start the questioning. the -- it seems to me, if you're talking about 812,000 people at any given moment and they are driving lethal weapons, and if they get away with it, that's fine. had they don't get away with it, we already know that 5,000-plus people die and half a million people are injured from the grossest kind of negligence, and yet it's a part of our lives. nobody's ever really sort of done this kind of thing before. we've got to stop it. we've got to outlaw it. arkansas, at senator pryor will discuss, has done this. but then again, i don't know how you -- how you change cultural habits. texting, if you watch the president give a state of the union, half the congress is texting. that's a little exaggeration. maybe a quarter of the congress. i doubt there's much value in that texting. but on the other hand, they're doing it because that's what people get trained to do. everybody texts around here. you got to text. if you don't text, you're not with it, and you're not educated. so you text. and -- but i mean this. i mean this seriously. it's lethal behavior when you get in a car. now, when you get in the subway of this capitol building, but when you get in a car, it's lethal. and i am skeptical about being able to change people's behavior simply by passing a law, and with respect to that, i mean, we're going to do it, and it will either be the, you know, chuck's harder one or senator schumer's harder one or our carrot one as he referred to it. but the point -- the only point is that you've got to make people stop. now, my first question to both of you is, how, and i'll start with the secretary, how do people know if somebody is texting? for example, if there are two other passengers in the car, and they perceive the texting and know that their lives are at risk, again, the figure of the football field is terrifying to me, if that's an average texting experience is the length of a football field. all kinds of accidents and deaths could take place in that amount of time. that could -- they could turn the driver in. they could use their cell phones, since they're not driving, to call somebody up and say, this guy's you know -- i don't know how you stop it. even with laws. i mean, this is incredibly serious stuff that we're doing here, and it's new, but you know, the state police aren't going to do it, because they can't see it. they can see it if they get at the right angle. particularly on a cell phone. the feds don't have people. we don't have federal, state police so to speak. so how do you observe? how do you make people feel that they're being watched? and that -- my second part of that question, is the only way you can do this, through technology? that, in fact, you can't change people's behavior? because that's the way they operate. that's the way they exist and live. that's the way they talk to each other. brothers and sisters text each other. even if one's on the first floor, another on the second. they don't talk, they text. they don't read newspapers. they read it off of -- iphones. it's all different. and yet this is a dangerous national problem. so can i have your thoughts, sir? >> well, this is an epidemic, mr. chairman, and -- but it can be stopped. the classic example is point 08. who would have thought ten years ago we could get drunk drivers off the road? we've done it. every anothers what .08 means. strong law enforcement. people lose licenses. in illinois for three moss and have to go to jail and serve at least five days for your first offense. click it or ticket is something that people understand. that's why people put their seat belts on now. so there's three ways in my opinion. education, number one. we have to get into driver education programs that when you get a car you put your seat belt on and you put your cell phone in the glove compartment. we have to begin to teach. part of education is peer pressure. saying to teenagers, if you see your friend texting, tell him to put the phone in the glove compartment. do not text. we have to make sure that we persuade parents not to try and call their children when they're driving to school. and employers can't be calling employees when they're driving home from work, and we have to break these very, very bad habits. part of it is education. part is personal responsibility. telling one another, this is bad behavior. you can't do it. you can't drive safely while you're texting. and then i think enforcement. we know that enforcement works with .0al and we know it works when it comes to click it or ticket. people do get tickets for not wearing seat belts. something law enforcement can observe and we know when law enforcement people arrest people driving over .08 they get arrested and thrown in jail. and there are -- you can put tough penalties on these things. look, there's a law in washington, d.c. you can't use a cell phone. it's illegal. but any time you drive down the street in washington, look around you. we're hooked on these things. so it's personal responsibility, it's education, and it's enforcement. and that's what happened with .08 and click it or ticket. we cannot give up on finding solutions, because this is an epidemic. we will save a lot of lives and a lot injuries finding ways to do this, and we have proof that we can do it. >> mr. secretary, i'm overusing my time here. the -- if somebody's drunk driving, state policeman, can usually see that. in fact, they don't approach the car. it's not the individual that they're looking it's a. it's the motion of the car. and they can have a sense of that. and you say it's stopped it. i would say it hasn't stopped it. i would say it's diminished it, and maybe, you know -- and that is a worthy goal. but what occurs to me is that you almost have to put this out of the control of the driver, using a cell phone or a text, so that -- some kind of technology which the fcc will come up with by the end of next week that as soon as you enter a car, your cell phone and your texting, your -- you know, your texting equipment is just disabled by some electronic impulse. i don't know how else it gets done. i don't think you can train people to do this, because people -- because people do it down here. you know? they talk up here, but now they can -- they can have it silenced. many of them -- i don't think they're going to change. and i don't think drunk driving -- i don't think it's a proper connection, because people are looking at the car. you can tell. you cannot tell if people are texting. >> i would say this, mr. chairman, if somebody's texting they're weaving and and bornlg. they find out they haven't been drinking they can say, have you been texting on your phone? if there's an accident ant the law enforcement person shows up and the person hasn't been drinking what caused the accident? were you texting on your phone? and maybe taking the phone and looking to city they were texting. there's a young woman in my hometown of peoria, all by herself, 16 years old, ran off the road, was killed. was on the front page of our peoria "general star" newspaper. they looked at the phone and discovered she'd been texting. these things can be detected by law enforcement, but there has to be good education, there has to be not only in driver's training programs but by law enforcement. we can't give up -- there's ways to do it. maybe .08 isn't perfect, but we've taken a lot of drunk drivers oaf the road and saved a lot of lives. click it or ticket has given people the idea if they fasten a seat belt they'll save and injury or loss of life. >> i'm way over my time. i apologize. senat hutchison. >> i so believe that our approach is right, because i don't think we ought to get into states' rights and have regulations that don't fit a state. and the states have addressed is in very different ways. very different ways, but many of them are addressing it. so, mr. secretary, i have to say that you have, through rulemaking, indicated that you would ban texting altogether by truck drivers. well i think that is the responsible role, because truck drivers are interstate. but yet we have a problem with school bus drivers that really ought to be dealt with at the state level. so i want to ask, mr. chairman, if there are technology ways that we could use for helping with an issue like this, or is there data collection that might be available at the commission? i want to say that you look at the telecommunications industry, and here the organizations that are supporting our bill. verify rising, at&t, t-mobile, ctia, the wireless association, american trucking association. advocates for highway and auto safety. i think the telecommunications companies are being very responsible here. they want to prevent these kinds of horrific accidents. so what can we do that doesn't encroach or states' rights but gets to the heart of this problem? >> senator, i think there has to be a mult i agree with secretary law could -- secretary lahood. friends to not let friends text while driving. i agree technology has to be part of the answer. that may be in ways we cannot anticipate right now. one of the things we can look back at the sec is, one, can we get better data -- we can look at at the fcc is, one, can we get better data? can we find ways to incentivize the development of different kinds of technologies that may work? parents may want their kids to have a particular technology. employers may be interested in a particular technology. i am an optimist about all the ways technology can drive solutions. in some ways, a technology will respond to market demand. helping parents understand what the issues are -- i think many parents do. the more the awareness, the more there will be market demand for technologies, and at the fcc, the weekend see if there are ways we can incentivize technologies -- we can see if there are ways we can incentivize technologies. >> mr. secretary, i know you have studied with the different states you are doing. and you were also acting in your own capacity -- do you have suggestions on what you think the best practices are of the states or any other data- collecting that you might be able to have from agencies that are studying these accident statistics? s usual, the states are ahead of the -- they're the incubators on this. i think there's 18 or so states that have already passed very tough laws against texting. i'm proud of my own home state of illinois. they just passed a very tough law on elimonetting texting while driving and i think it will save injuries and lives, and i think it best thing for us to do, senator, give you the best practices from the states, because they really are the ones that have taken the lead on this, and we'll be happy to provide that, not only for the record but for you personally. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. in order of appearance, senator? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you both of you, and i did think that the conference, the summit, was very good idea and brought national attention too this issue. i wanted to maybe go up in the air a little bit with this distracted driving issue. secretary la hood, as we have in minnesota and then into wisconsin, the ultimate example of distracted driving, and that was distracted driving at 37,000 feet, or distracted flying. as we found out this past week. i first want to thank you for your agencies for taking prompt action. i know that the licenses have already been suspended for the pilots and the ntsb is still completing their investigation, but their preliminary findings, not final yet, seem to point to the fact the pilots were actually distracted. they didn't fall asleep, were looking at laptops and checking out crew schedules while they had hundreds of passengers in the back, and flew for 91 minutes out of not answering their radio signals. could you just shed some light, secretary laho hood on what we coulding dpob about this in addition to distracted driving? look at it as an aberration? try to ban laptops for private use in cockpits, already the delta rule, or should look at some kind of loud buzzer in the cockpit so they can hear it? it's almost ludicrous to think about it, but i wondered if you had any ideas. >> we think any distraction whether driving a train, a plane, a car, a school bus, a transit bus, a light rail, you can't do it. you just can't do it. can you not drive safely, and there are many people, almost all of us, who boshd a plane or a train, children put their -- put their children on school buses with the idea it will be the safest way to get where we're going from one point to another, and we're not going to equivocate on this. any kind of distraction, train, planes or automobiles, is a distraction, and we should figure out ways to get these cell phones, the texting, the use of cell phone, the use of laptops, out of the hands of people who are supposed to be delivering the public some place safely. >> and right now while it is an airline rule not have laptops for private use in the cockpits, it's not faa rule. is that right? is there something we could add? >> we're going to look at this, but we have the ability to suspend the licenses of these two pilots under -- >> even because of the fact they weren't following the rules? >> that's correct. >> all right. thank you. then back to the distracted driving issue. you know, one of the criticisms that senator rockefeller brought up is that it's not effective, beaux you can't enforce these, yet i never heard ta click it and ticket thing, secretary la hood, a nice jingle. could you explain why they're not much of a penalty for the seat belts, at least initially there wasn't and somehow it changed an entire culture. how did that happen and how could you see that lesson being learned for the texting issue? >> because i think if you say something, all of us that have been in politics know if you say something often enough, people start to believe it. if you tell -- >> even if it's not true. >> even if it's not true. >> exactly. >> in the case of ticket or click it it is true's. if you put your seat belt on you'll save an injury or a life. we do it year in and year out. a big promotion. i went to a school this year near by. we had a click it and ticket assembly, talked to kids about fastening seat belts and we know that it works. notwithstanding what the chairman said, i believe everybody, most people in america know what .08 means. and they know if you're above .08 you're going to lose your driver license, lose your privileges, you may have to serve time in jail. ten years ago, most people didn't know about that. if you say something often enough -- in driver education classes, if you tell kids, you cannot text and be safe, and teach them that -- >> or if you text it you'll wreck it? just thought i'd throw that out there. not bad, you guys. probably cheaper than an ad agency. >> right. >> can i ask you, i was trying to think of that as he was talking. you said that digital tv transition, that you -- that you picked up some ideas for how can you do public education campaigns. we all know that was sort of slow in starting and picked up speed and eventually worked, the digital tv transition. thank you for that. talk about the lessons learned that could be applied here. >> no substitute for hard work, and over the dtv transition, staff members of the fcc worked very hard, one at the agency, in thinking about how to craft a message that people could understand. and, two, went out to where the most relevant audiences were in lots of different way, whether it was at shopping malls or sports games to communicate with them. there were off-line -- a combination of an off-line strategy, online strategy. we'd be happy to get back to you and think more concretely about what the lessons learned from dtv that would be applicable to an awareness campaign around, around distracted driving, and i think a good exertion exercise to do in general, to identify the elements of past campaigned whether drunk driving or seat belts or others and pull out lessons learned. this isn't the first time and not the last time that we'll be sitting around talking about the importance of educating the public about new dangers, and technology and mobile communications, i couldn't feel more strongly about the benefits they bring to all you us, including around public safety. if you get into a car accident on the road, being to communicate through the mobile device with someone is a huge benefit. we want our first respond irs to have broad band 21st century communication devices, we can both want that, and want to have a very clear campaign that being distracted while driving because of technology devices is just wrong. the problems will keep on coming up and i think trying to isolate what we've learned from past awareness campaigns, education campaigns especially around technology can be an important part of this. >> thank you very much. thank you, both of you. >> thank you, senators. senator pryor? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. mr. secretary, let me start with you, if i may. and i appreciate you inviting me to your distracted driving summit. i thought that was very useful, and i think the people there got a lot out of it. in your opening statement you mentioned basically the major finding is that we've got a problem with this, and it's a major problem all over the country. but my question is, are you all preparing a set of specific findings and then maybe some steps that we can all take as a follow-up to that summit? >> absolutely. we are putting our team at d.o.t. is putting together some very, very good information, some very good recommendations. we're, we have three, what we call rules or, you know, three enforcement actions that we think are very important. our people are working on those, but we are putting together some of the key recommendations, and some of our enforcement actions that we'll be taking, and we are putting that together. >> great. and we look forward to seeing those when they're ready. i'm not trying to draw you into this legislative discussion that we're having, but i would like your thoughts on the carrot versus the stick approach. if you have a preference on how that would be structured? >> i like both, senator. >> okay. >> so you think we can do both, huh? okay. that's fair enough. now, let me ask, we don't have the nhtsa director. >> trect. >> do we know when one is going to be nominated? >> soon, and what does that mean? >> state tuned. >> okay. >> well, i think -- >> let me put it to you this way, senator. we -- it, it's imminent. >> and it would lep to have someone there. we all know that. >> we have a very good acting administrator, ron medford, he's done an outstanding job. i don't know that there's -- well, he's a very good safety guy. he's done a great job. >> and has the federal motor carrier safety administration looked at initiating a rulemaking for commercial drivers? >> yes. >> and is that underway right now? >> yes. >> and for the fcc, thank you for being here. has the fcc looked at the technologies out there that might make this world a little bit safer when it um comes to texting and drirching and how much authority do you have and where does your authority end and other people's begin? >> we haven't yet done a survey of the potential technology solutions but it's something that we plan to do. we plan to understand the technology landscape better and to ask questions about what we can do to help accelerate the developments of technologies that would help address this. with respect to our authority, we're just at the beginning of thinking about this. i know the legislation, if adopted, would give the fcc some concrete tanks and we look forward right now to being a resource to the committee as it looks at this, involves communications technologies, of course, involves transportation and this is something that i hope we can all work on together to pursue the multipart strategy that we need to tackle this. >> are you aware of any wireless firms who are taking initiatives to educate the general public on this dangerous major? >> i believe they are. senator hutchison has noted, the trade association has. some carriers have. what i hope we see, to me, not simply the launching of those campaigns, which i commend, bought prubut a process to measure and track results, to see what's working in terms of educating the public and constant improvements of those campaigns against measured results. >> my last question is really for both of you. i know that some car companies, the one i'm familiar with is ford. i'm sure others have it as well. ford has a technology called sink which apparently it's sort of built into the vehicle, that somehow your wireless device will sink with the vehicle. not sure exactly how it works. i'm assuming fcc that a little piece of that because it is wireless communication. i'm assumen nhtsa has most of that responsibility. have we thought about trying to make that type of ampproach mor widely available and perhaps even required in all u.s. vehicles, have either of y'all looked at that? >> i was just in detroit, senator, and i visited ford, gm and chrysler and i will tell you this -- from my point of view, in any distraction is a distraction that takes away from driving safely. ed you can put it right in the middle. it sinks all your numbers. -- syncs all your numbers. that is the latest technology. i think you -- if you are eating a hamburger, shaving, using your cellular phone, talking to somebody -- all of these things detract from your ability to drive safely. >> one last thing, mr. chairman. he mentioned -- you mentioned that arkansas has laws on the books. 21 states have banned teenagers from talking on cell phones. arkansas is one of those. 18 state banned all drivers from tax thing -- texting and arkansas is one of those. i am glad we are dealing with this. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. next -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the hearing. i have learned a lot. and i hope that the authors of this legislation, for which i have the greatest respect and affection, will allow me to be the devil's advocate for a moment. and possibly the skunk at the garden party. we have heard the discussion about whether we should use the stick or the terror. the secretary likes both approaches. if forced to choose, i would use the carrot. but i would also suggest to my colleagues that we might want to lead the states to continue to work on this -- let the states continue to work on this for a while longer. mississippi, my state, is one of the states that has already acted on this. we have heard learned members of this committee today say that states should handle this issue. multiple states are beginning to handle this issue, and some states are quicker than others. . we also have heard testimony today that states should be the ink cue laters for this. inch cue baiters for this. that we need to decide what best practices there are, and we need to be involved in data collection. i would suggest that the best way to do that is to allow the states to continue to do as the ranking member suggested, that there may be rifs reasons for states to have different approaches on this issue of distracted driving. we would all like to do what we can at the federal level, and what we are empowered to do under the constitution to -- to prohibit tdistractive driving. i agree with the secretary. i think eating a hamburger is a lot more distracting than talking on a cell phone. and so perhaps we ought to include eating a hamburger. in this legislation. since it almost goes without saying that that's more distroocting. and don't misunderstand me. this is personal with me. after my daughter's first year in college she was driving back from sharmtsvill charlottesvill mississippi to tupelo, mississippi, interstate 40, the driver of a vehicle reached down to get another compact disc, and she ran off the interstate highway, interstate 40, and the car turned over three times, and my daughter was in the hospital for quite a while and suffered head injury, and thankfully is okay, and is expecting my first grandchild now, but it might be that some states would want to experiment with talking about that kind of distraction, mr. secretary. our chairman has said he is skeptical about how any this is going to work. and yet hez seize we'll go through with it and we're going to do it anyway, regardless of whether we might be taking an approach that would be determined to work better if states were allowed to experiment more. let me just read to our witnesses and to my colleagues. 49 uscs 30105, restriction on lobbying activities. no funds appropriated to the secretary for the national highway traffic safety administration shall be available for any activity specifically designed to urge a state or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislator proposals. pending before any state or local legislative body. so we prohibit federal employees from urging the adoption of legislation at the state or local level, and yet with this legislation, we're going to say, unless you as a state legislature take certain specific actions, and we are specific about it. there's a total ban in one respect, and then there's a nuance bans base on age, and we say that it's okay for us as a congress not only to specifically urge legislatures to take certain actions, but there's a pot of money out th e there, and some of you are going to get it and some of you aren't going to get it based on whether you follow what we in our wisdom in washington, d.c. feel should be the approach. so count me as -- as someone who wants to listen about the various approaches. who appreciates what the secretary has done with regard to interstate commerce, and to say that i have confidence in the states to take testimony just as well as we can, and to act on think, and so i would choose the third approach, and that is to continue letting them be the incubator on this issue, and i thank the indulgement of my colleagues i. thank the senator. senator dorgan. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. with respect to senator's comments, i'll be chairing tomorrow a hearing on the ntsb reauthorization. i assume we'll talk about distraction in the cockpit tomorrow with the national transportation safety board. i listened with interest to my leagues, senator wicker, i've been involved in these issues for a long while. my mother was killed by a drunk driver in a high-speed police chase. so i got involved in wondering, in how many states in the nation was it perfectly legal to drink and drive at the same time? put your key in the ignition, have one hand on the neck of a bottle of jim beam and drive off happy as a lark, completely with the law. the fact is, a good number of states allowed that. in fact i think a few still do. you just can't be drunk. you can drink and drive. just can't be drunk. you know, i've been involved in these issues with drunk driving, and madd. mothers against drunk driving. we didn't make progress because we entreated people to take this seriously. we made progress because, yes, we used carrots and yes, we used sticks. doesn't work without it unfortunately. i think here the issue is pretty clear. there's -- there's, there are people losing their lives because of a change that's happening in our culture, and people are texting on the road. we awe see it. we drive and watch and see what's going on. i do think, you know, with due respect, you can eat a hamburger without looking at the meat. you can't be involved in texting without looking at the text. so when you see people text on the road, they're looking down at this language, and i do think there's a problem here. so here's the proposition, seems to me. you talk about technology. frankly, i don't know that there's going to be a technology that addresses this. i mean, there are technologies out there, i suppose, in which we talk about high-speed police chases in which the police, you could put something in an engine of the cassius the police could shut down the car. we can't allow that to happen. that technology probably exists. the -- i think that the car company, some of them, are advertising built-in blue tooth capability. right? and incidentally, i think it's also -- i think this text issue is separate and rises way up here with respect to danger, but distraction in the car? take a look at these cars that have these sophisticated consoles up in front with map, navigation kpabltsz and 130 different channels of satellite ra radio and so on right here. in fact, if you get some some taxicabs, they've got a suction cup and put them right in the middle of the driver's window almost. distraction? sure, i suppose it is. light xwat i mean, it gets back to the, to the point there are a lot of distractions, but i do think having said all that, this issue of texting while driving particularly rises to a different level. so i don't -- i mean, i appreciate the work that the chairman and the ranking member have done here. i think it's a step in the right direction. i tend to agree a bit with mr. la hood, secretary la hood, that almost always on these kinds of issues whether it's seat belts, drunk driving, required driving on high-speed police chases when it's appropriate when it isn't, almost always carrots have been required to be added to a stick of some type, and then things change completely. when i started working on drunk driving issues, you know, drunk driving meant somebody knowingly sort of smiled and gave you a pat on the back. i say, you got picked up. too bad, everybody understood. it's happens. no more. it's serious business. those are killers on the road who get drunk and get behind the wheel. so things change, and i think if we move in a thoughtful direction here, with legislation that's properly crafted, i think we'll make a difference here. i know that the other evening i was watching the national news. one state that has passed the state law that says texting while driving shall be equivalent in penalty and seriousness of drunk driving. if you're picked up for texting, it's the same as if you're picked up for drunk driving. i think that's you'll tau utah that has now changed the plaup there's progress being made throughout in the states. ultimately, it's going to have to be both a pull and push, what you have done today, chairman, ranking member, is something that is worthy in terms of moving us in the direction of safer highways and safer streets. i appreciate mr. secretary your testimony and commissioner, let me just ask the question quickly. i've almost drained the time. on technology. the chairman was asking, will there be technology? my sense is, i don't think that we're going to solve this by technology. do you really think that, mr. chairman? . >> i think no single part of it alone will solve. that we need education, change cultural norms. we need to look at enforcement piece of it and look at the technology piece of it and we need to -- this issues going to be unfortunately around a while. technology will continue ton evolve, the kwar will continue didn't evolve. putting in place different mechanisms now and measuring what's happening, what's working and then doubling down on those strategies seems to me to be a way to approach it. >> yes. >> especially with the new vehicles. i used to fly a bit. these new car, starting to look like the inside of a cockpit. there's so much sophistication and dials and gauges and amplification of information to the driver, but, well, again, let me just plimt the chairman and ranking member. this issue particularly of texting and the use of cell phones is a very serious issue and i think you advance that by holding this hearing and entering this legislation. >> thank you, senator dorgan. senator laudingberg, you're up if you can get to the your seat. >> i was texting -- couldn't get away. distracted. thank you. [ inaudible ] -- a place to -- ask a few questions. and we've been having terrible problems in the state of new jersey with accidents and particularly when it's something that happens with a large truck, the outcome is typically disastrous. we know that they're abided by cell phone, chairman talked about it, in use in the country and more and more people lining up behind the wheel of a truck, a car, a train, school bus with cell phones, and checking the internet and sending text messages. just a bad time and a bad outcome. now, i've joined with chairman rockefeller, and in introducing legislation that would give states strong incentives to ban texting or using hand-held cell phones while driving. and secretary la hood, we're glad to see you as we are mr. genachowsky. do you think that it's in the best interests of all drivers, regardless of vehicles and so forth, to prohibit texting or using hand-held cell phones? that's a pretty good objective for better health and safety on our highways? you have no problem with that. >> no, sir. i agree with that. >> the -- chairman genachow can sky. it's been proposaled of by a lot of folks to use technology to block wireless signals in cars. concerns, however, are raised about the legitimate communications and even 911 calls that might be interrupted inadvertently. what do you see -- how do you see dealing with that opportunity or is it, does it present a larger problem than it does a solution? >> senator first thing i'd say is the one thing of which there should be no confusion about, texting while driving is bad and whatever the legal framework is, it shouldn't happen, and as i said before, friends shouldn't let friends text while driving. with respect to specific technologies or regulatory steps, like the one that you suggested, i wouldn't want to get ahead of where the fcc is. i think we need to take more of a look at different potential strategies that are with our >> it sounds like a good opportunity to stop the risk in large -- in bulk form, if i may use the expression. the question is, do we lose anything by having cell phones jam there -- or i mean, you look at 9-1-1 calls otherwise might not be made, on the other hand, but there would be a lot more safe consciousness on the highways if they weren't there. mr. secretary, this is a little bit of a diversion, but we're talking about safety in travel. and last week a flight from san diego to minneapolis overshot its destination by 150-miles, one hour late in landing. the pilots said as we see it in the public, they were using their laptops and distracted from the instructions from air traffic control. however, f.a.a. does not regulate the use of laptop computers above 10,000 feet. what might the department do to regulate the use of these devices, to make sure that when commercial aircraft are being flown that we take every possible action to prevent these distractions from occurring? >> senator, administrator babbitt suspended the two pilots from flying, and they have a right of appeal because of the use of laptops in the cockpit. and we're going to take a very close look at that entire issue. but they've been suspended from flying because their licenses have been pulled. and they have 10-days to appeal that. >> do you think -- has anything come to mind that is being considered right now to eliminate or reduce certainly that possibility of that kind of an action to take place while the flight's in the air? >> well, senator, i have my own ideas about this but i'm going to work with the f.a.a., the folks at the f.a.a. and in our department to deal with this issue. >> all right. we hope you've got your own ideas. we know you'll use them well. thank you very much, mr. chairman. them well. thank you, very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. thank you, senator lambert. i don't know, maybe there is something wrong with me. but this hearing is not going the way i wanted it to go. it sdgd strugs must doesn't strike me of having the urgency i expected it to have. i keep thinking about 12,000 people now and now and now, and that will grow as the population grows, texting or being on a cell phone or otherwise being distracted. and then i think of the football field, and what can be done in the way of damage as a car loses contr control. and we all know the feeling, because we have all done a bit of that. so we know the feeling. and nothing happened. so we go on. and then we start talking about, well, should this be done by the fed, the states, and that becomes sort of a big philosophical constitution. i'm interested in saving lives here. we're talking about educating a generation. drinking is one thing. but when you have people from the age of 5 through the age of 50 or 70, all of whom can text, all of whom use cells, you know, education is a good thing. and let's get those driver ed classes in high schools pumped up on that, and do the educating. i just think that's slow, and i keep thinking of 812,000 people and 500,000 people injured, and 5,000 killed every year. and i say, what are we doing about this? so i want to get back to technology. yes, let's do -- less do education. i'm all for that. i'm all for that. but this is not -- you know, drinking is a compulsion. drinking is an addiction, drinking is a habit, drinking is for teenagers, drinking is for nonteenagers, whatever. but this other covers everybody, pretty much all of the time. all of the time. and i don't feel the urgency in this hearing. so i want to ask you this. i was interested in something that senator schumer said, that when he used the stick method, that is, threatened to take away highway funds, nobody ever lost their highway funds. i didn't know that. hadn't heard that. kind of interesting. i don't know what that tells me or what it doesn't tell me. but -- >> mr. chairman, if i might? >> yes. >> i would suggest, perhaps, as has been the case in other circumstances, that the states complied before they would take the penalty. >> and that could be. and that could be. so on the technology part, because i don't think we have time to waste on this. i suggested, and then -- and you pulled me up short, mr. chairman, and correctly. and i used -- the idea somehow that electronic impulse would go out and everything would be shut down. and then you brought up the fact or somebody brought up the fact that, well, somebody needs help. and they need to call 911. i checked with a ranking member, and neither ever called 911 in our entire lives. but that doesn't tell you anything. a lot of people have to do that. so i haven't been -- i can't solve that problem right now. i also know that people aren't using their land lines as much, because having a land line and having a cell phone are more than people can afford, often. so, you know, land lines are going down about 6 to 8% a year in their usage in this country. and you know that, mr. chairman, okay? so that means they're using their cell phones. so that means the only way they can call is by using their cell phones. so they're calling people they have no idea where those people are, but they know they're going to get them, because they they have cell phones, because everybody has their cell phone on their pocket or belt. and that brings me up a bit short, because the cell phone can be answered by saying this cell phone is currently not available for usage, because the driver is driving, or something of that sort. i cannot believe we cannot do the technology. look, we're talking about carbon capture and sea questions trags. i think we can get all of that research done in three years. that's a lot more complicated than what you're talking about. i'm very glad that ford motor company is doing something. i'm also even gladder that secretary lahood thinks it's a distraction. just the fact that what they're doing is a distraction. i like that attitude. that's the way i look at it as a father and grabbed father. and i don't know why we can't come up with technology that disables, you know, texting machines and cell phones, and then we have to come up with a counter technology, which enables them, provided everybody hasn't been killed, to -- to be able to dial 911. and you know, i'm sorry i'm going to be three hours late for getting home and your parents are worried. sorry -- that doesn't count. that's out. that's distracted. can't do that. emergencies, you have to take care of. technology, it seems to me can solve that problem and we can educate people. but in my view, we've got to do the technology. and i don't really give a hoot about state's rights or federal rights. i give a hoot about results. and i keep thinking about those 800,012 people right now as i'm speaking, and nobody is doing anything about it. reactions, please. >> go ahead, mr. chairman. >> there needs to be the sense of urgency that you described on this issue. i think, if i may say, holding this hearing today and shining light on this issue will itself save lives. and i think what you've done at this hearing is issued a challenge to innovators to develop technologies that will help solve this problem without causing other ones. >> if i'm doing that, i'm not aware i'm doing that. if i'm doing that successfully, i'm glad i'm doing that successfulliful. >> i think you have issued that challenge. >> you're in your position because you do technology. john holdin is in his position because he does technology. and we ought to be able to come up with something that works. while we educate people. so that the technology can be, you know, less used. but i think we have to have an answer quickly. >> well, we agree with you, mr. chairman. and we're ready to work with you on your legislation, and we hope legislation passes. we're going to do our part at d.o.t. by the enforcements that we can do. but we're very grateful to you for -- for all of you, for the senators who came to our distraction summit, for the ones that have taken an interest, for the bills that have been introduced. it's all part of the solution. look, i'm optimistic. i think at the end of the day, we will find ways to save lives and to save injuries by getting cell phones out of the hands, particularly of teenagers. this is an epidemic among teenagers. teenagers are hooked on their cell phones, and they're hooked on texting. and parents are part of the problem. and -- >> every businessman, everybody in politics, everybody who carries on who does anything in life is hooked on cell phones and is hooked on texting, to somewhat less ex tents, although i agree with senator doergin that it becomes more of the problem, it becomes a football field because of the length of the transaction. that's why i think it's different than drunk driving. >> look, i use .08 and seat belts as an i will trags to say we can solve it. both those proved it. they did prove it. you don't get a slap on the back and sent home if you're above .08 anymore. and that's the way it was ten years ago. and if you get stopped and you didn't have your seatbelt on ten years ago, maybe you got a ticket for speeding, but you did not get a ticket for not having a seatbelt. today you do. and today you don't get sent home if you're above .08. that's where we want to be with distracted driving. we will get there, with your help, the help of congress, d.o.t., and lots of other stake hold iers around the country, including parents who have lost children and grandparents who have lost children. they're the most devastated by this. and i can tell you, there's a whole crowd of people out there in america that are ready to be helpful of to you and to us to solve this. >> so who does the technology? and i'll shut up. who does the technology? whose responsibility? are we going to wait on detroit to do it, or are we going to wait on the chairman of the fcc to do it? are we going to wait on the secretary of transportation to do it? who is going to do this? >> look, mr. chairman, if you said me to get in the technology business, i'll be happy to give it a try. we can get in the end forcement business, the rule-making business, but i don't know if the chairman wants ray lahood in the technology business. >> if ray lahood comes up with a good idea and the chairman doesn't, that's called free public policy. >> we will work with you, with this committee, with secretary lahood on ways to incentivize the development of technologies that can help solve this and solve it quickly. >> i hope so. i'm sorry i cited my ranking member, because you may have other questions you want to ask. >> mr. chairman, i don't have further questions, but i will say that i think this has been a spirited hearing. i think people have been engaged. i think people -- i think our witnesses have been very engaged, and i think that we're going to -- we're going to make progress on this. i think we're going to pass our bill. i think our bill is the best one. i think it is the right mix of states' rights respect, but also giving incentives. and i think it's been very productive. despite what you think. >> i have just a few more questions. the other thing i was thinking in response to your call for urgency was when i was at the distracted driving summit there was a family from minnesota, the dixon family from eden prairie. their daughter took a ride with a friend in wisconsin in college. and they lost her because the other kid driving reached in for her purse and got something out, went off the road and they lost their daughter in that split second. so i think these stories and the people on that train in california across the country give us a sense of urgency. and i was also thinking about what senator wicker said and listening to that and the story of his daughter, which was a very sad. and fortunately she lived. i have no idea if she had a seat belt on. but i do know that a lot of people who survive automobile crashes now survive because they had a seat belt on. and a lot of that was -- those laws changed because of pressure on the national level, not just the state level. i know in the state of minnesota we were one of the last states to enact .08. and i don't think it would have happened without the federal law in. fact we had a legislator who's kind of colorful who stood up in the chamber of the house in minnesota and said, "if we adopt .08, how are my constituents going to get home in the morning?" ok? so luckily the world has changed since then. i know it personally because my dad had three arrests for d.w.i. finally when he got to the last one it was in the last decade and it made a difference because the penalties were more severe and he changed his life and he's not drinking anymore and he's really doing great. that happened because of the pressure on the federal level for those stiffer penalties. and i end with two things. one is there's been a lot of talk about teenagers. i agree with you. i have a teenager and i've seen them all the time with their texting. although she doesn't do it as much as others. but i'm hopeful we do not limit these rules. i know some states have looked at this. i think wisconsin is looking at this to limit it just for teenagers. because as the chairman has pointedded out, there's issues. i've seen many politicians looking at texts who are not teenagers while they're driving. and then the second thing is that i just throw out there, maybe secretary lahood, is this idea of the kind of enhanced penalty that is we have. this would be a state issue. the states would do. this for drunk driving. for instance if you kill someone when you're drunk that's a lot easier to prove as i know from when i was a prosecutor than if you just were reckless. and it's very possible we could do the same with texting so that it would be a more automatic penalty. the things we're referring to with utah and the like. so while the texting ban is important, i also am hopeful the states will start having enhanced penalties when deaths or injuries occur as a result of texting. and maybe you want to end by discussing that. occur as a result of texting. and maybe you want to end by discussing that. >> well, look, i don't want to just do it for teenagers. i think texting is a distraction for any person. it's an epidemic among teenagers. i can tell you that people my age and generations beyond me don't do a lot of texting. they may do some, but not a lot. teenagers do. and the other point is, i do think strong law enforcement and tough penalties are the answer. if you're going to enact a law, make tough penalties! in illinois, if you get caught the first time above .08, five days in jail, and you lose your license for three months. no equivocations. no ifs, ands, buts about it. and that's taking a lot of drunk drivers off the road and saved a lot of lives. so i say, tough penalties work. >> and would you also say that the federal inducements and the federal government pushing also makes it -- >> look, when the federal government said if, you don't -- some people aren't going to like this. i'm glad senator wicker is gone. >> this is why we're doing this right now, secretary lahood. >> when the congress said, set the speed limit at a certain limit or you're not getting your highway funds, what happened? people started to slow down to a speed limit that was established universally. and the states that didn't, they didn't get their money. very few states diplomat get their money. >> well, that's why i'm also on senator schumer's bill, as well as the carrot bill. i think they're both working looking at. thank you. >> chairman, if i may have a mommy, i am modestly the author of the 21 drinking age bill and the .08 bill. and with the drinking age bill, the year was 1984 when we passed it. and we found out that having experienced incentive-oriented opportunities for states, it didn't do a darn thing. and finally, we imposed a penalty, and they came -- some of them were dragging in at the last minute. washington, d.c. was one of the last to accept it. they didn't want to have that kind of a control imposed on them. so when you look at these things, mr. chairman, you said that you had kind of a revelation, talking about chuck schumer's bill, which i am also a co sponsor of. but unfortunately, incentives don't carry the weight. and to your suggestion about the need to hurry up here, the immediacy of the problem, we heard it from senator klobuchar. and that is, start the penalty routine right away. tell the states that we're about to render penalties if you don't put action into force. but even if we can't do that, i think there probably is a way for the department of transportation to initiate a system that says, okay, as of next month, you've got -- we to know about police enforcement of these rules. and start to save people's lives. good suggestion. . >> mr. chairman, you know what the best thing was about this hearing? no one did their blackberries during it. everyone was listening. >> this dious was high. >> there wasn't much. there was minimal blackberrying at the beginning and then it went away. >> i thank you both very, very much. and we have our work to do. and this is just the -- no, the discussion has been going on for a long time. but 812,000, as we speak. the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. >> up next on c-span, j street forum is examining middle east peace efforts and relations between the israel his and palestinians. >> supreme court justices -- trade views on interpreting the constitution in a changing society. today on c-span's america and the courts. >> this weekend on c-span 2's book tv, the interrogation techniques used by the c.i.a. and war on of "the torture memos." on afterwards the -- get the entire weekend schedule at booktv.org. >> jordan's ambassador to the united states and a former israeli foreign minister took part in a panel discussion monday on the middle east peace process. this is part of an event hosted by the advocacy group j street, which claims to support diplomatic efforts in the region over military solutions. this lasts about a hour, 20 minutes. >> the title of the panel this morning is the need for a regional comprehensive approach to the arab-israeli conflict. for defined in this country and elsewhere as the arab-israeli conflict. increasely it is seen in terms of the core conflict, the struggle between israelis and palestinians for coexistence in the same land. and the arab league declaration of 2002, which was a historic water shed, committed to normal relations between all of the arab states and israel, that was a huge step forward. egypt and jordan, of course many years ago, made peace with israel. but the arab state dimension is still very important. most of the arab states have not made peace with israel, although they've pledge today do so on condition that israel make peace with the palestinians and withdraw from the occupied territories. there are territorial disputes between syria and israel, between lebanon and israel. there are security issues. there is the extraordinarily important issue of jerusalem. the status of jerusalem is an issue which is no less important to the arab and muslim world than it is to israel. the issue of the palestinian refugees, many of whom are dispersed throughout the arab world, must also be resolved and the arab states have a keen interest in that. all of this has led to the inclusion -- conclusion among diplomats and analyst that is it would be few tile to try to approach this conflict in separate pieces, and that a regional, integrated approach is essential. that is a for middable diplomatic change. but there is i think almost an universal opinion among those who have stepped back dispassionately to view this conflict that must be done. the questions are, who is going to define and describe this regional approach, how will it be implemented operationally? will there be simultaneous negotiations among all of the players? will there be a sequential approach? these issues remain to be resolved. but we're lucky today to have a very distinguished panel of practitioners, diplomats, who have been deeply involved in this conflict for many years. and they are going to try to illuminate this issue. they'll have about 15 minutes each and there'll be plenty of time for discussion and questions. prince zeid al-hussein is the ambassador of the hashemite kingdom of jordan for the united states he has a long record of peacemaking and diplomacy. he served for 11 years in the u.n. as the deputy permanent representativive to jordan and then the permanent representativive. during that time he was a political officer or advisor to unpurfor in the balkan, yugoslav conflict. he has been involved in the genesis of the international criminal court. and he was formerly a commissioned officer in the jordanian desert police. schlomoh ben amy, a oxford ph.d., is an oxford-educated diplomat. he was a diplomat in -- as part of the oslo years. he was its chief negotiator during the latter stages, ending with the tabah negotiations. he has written widely about the conflict. and if any of you have not read schlomoh's book, which is one of the best single-volume analis ease of why what we call the peace process has failed to date i recommend it. "scars of war, wounds of peace." it's a terrific book. schlomoh ben-ami is now the director of the toledo international center for peace in spain. he is the cofounder of that. and he has been a member of the knesset. he also served for awhile as israel's security minister. our third speaker is a veteran international civil servant, the u.n. diplomat alvaro de soto. he's a peruvian diplomat. he served for 25 years under three secretaries general. he was involved in resolving the 10-year conflict in el salvador. he's been active in trying to bring peace in myanmar and was a principal diplomat from the u.n. in efforts to resolve the cypress conflict as well as the western sahara conflict. i know of no one whose analysis of the israeli-palestinian peace process has been so acute. he was a kofi annan specialist in his last assignment. he's now retired from those jobs. but in his next career here is a seen yo fellow at the ralph bunch institute -- a member of the global leadership foundation. so i want to welcome all our panelists and call on prince dyed to lead off. -- prince zaid to lead off. >> stand something better than sitting. good morning, everyone. it reminds me of a house of commons debate back in the 19th century where a speaker was standing. and the speaker of the house of commons said to him, "will you kindly sit?" and the speaker said, "well, if i can't speak standing i will speak sitting. and if i can't speak sitting i'll do so lying." and someone at the back of the hall said, "which is what you'll do no matter what the position is." [laughter] >> good morning. thank you, ambassador, for that warm welcome. i'm going to ignore your request in terms of delving straight into -- or plowing the well-trodden fields of what happened in the region and begin by take you to a hospital in upstate new york in 1969, a hospital called the beth abraham hospital. and to a physician by the name after dr. oliver sacks. you may know the story. dr. sacks treated a number of patients who had suffered from the 1920s disease of sleeping sickness, otherwise called encephalitis lethargica in. which the cases in the worst cases basically were living a coma-like existence and dr. sacks, a british-trained physician began to administer them with el doe pa, normally given to parkinson's' patients. and miraculously, these patients, some of the worst cases, awakened from what was a deep sleep almost. and they dan to re-engage life. they began to see life with all its color and richness and possibilities. their friends and relatives came to meet with them and talk to them. and the story became so well-known that -- elaborated the story into a play and then it became a movie. but with the continued administration of this particular drug, the patients soon enough lapsed back into their cat tonic state. -- catatonic state. one cannot help but wonder if future historians will look back at the middle east and view the 1990's -- or let's say the post-madrid experience, taking through oslo and beyond -- has not some sort of awakening from a state of mutual negation that had existed up a period of intense hope, intense expectation that we would put this conflict behind us. and then through a variety of circumstances, perhaps irresponsibility, that period lapsed and we ended back in the state in which we once found ourselves. it raiseses more fundamental question in my mind of whether we are truly deserving of peace, all of us. so many wasted opportunities, again either by design or by circumstances. whether we are deserving of peace, when one considers that large segments of the population on one side is so ready to belittle the size and scope of the column loss sal crime that was -- colossal crime that was the holocaust. while on the other side so many people still cannot grasp that effect of an occupation is the degradation of another people, is so ignorant. are we deserving of peace when fame or the denial thereof can so easily be traded in our rhetorical exchanges? are we so deserving of peace when one considers how the conflicts feeling necessary for the establishments of peace can so easily be upstaged, upturned, eclipsed, by our more primitive feelings of fear and insecurity. indeed are we so deserving of peace when one considers how it is that we so easily see the ground to the rhetoric of the extremists, whether they be in the arab world, in israel, or indeed even here in the united states, the heckling, the volume, as if volume can replace substance. and perhaps when one considers these points, maybe we are not so deserving. and yet there are people who are suffering and there are people who are deeply fearful. and there is a constituency which is a constituency beyond ourselves. i got to know jeremy ben-amin, not as a result of my paying him a visit once he had become the executive director of j street, or indeed not because he himself paid me a visit. but because our two 6-year-old daughters are classmates in the same school. [laughter] >> and so i got to meet him as one -- another parent of a young child. and one considers of course -- we all consider if it's possible for that generation to survive our present situation, how is it possible for them to tackle the great pressures that will threat tone tear this world asundayer, aside from the political ones, if they cannot take refuge in some shelter of peace, a regional peace. and surely that is a right they deserve. we of course are firmly behind president obama's drive toward establishment of peace, because we know it's doable. absolutely at the core we know it's doable. we need the assistance required of course not to give up and not to sulk when things are not going well, but to gather our enaurs and ensure they're pointed in the right direction. and for reasons that we will go into during the course of the discussion, i suspect, we will touch on some of the detailed challenges. but i think it must be clear to everyone consider at least it's clear to my mind or way of thinking, that what exists perhaps as the first opportunity for this administration under president obama's leadership, to establish peace in the middle east, for us perhaps it is the last opportunity before it runs away from us. i would end my remarks there. thank you very much for inviting me. [applause] >> good morning. i am very pleased to be here in this first conference of j street. and we hope the best of this young organization. and hopefully they will have the impact they deserve on the policymaking of this country in the middle east. may i start with a personal anecdote to ensure i had a small piece in this peace process. one saturday in december, a very snowy day here in washington when i was at the white house to receive from president clinton his so-called peace parameters. and when he saw me out, he asked if i thought that there was a chance to strike a deal. i say "i don't really know, mr. president. i doubt it because we don't have enough quality political time to wrap up an agreement. but if we fail, "i told him," we'll have plenty of time to write books about it." [laughter] >> and that is what i did as a change. and that is reflecting on the process, on the negotiations in which i took part, i came to the conclusion -- and this brings me directly into the subject of bilateral original -- i came to the conclusion, a very sad conclusion, that there is no chance whatsoever in my view for israelis and palestinians to reach a settlement by bilateral negotiations. such a possibility is entirely out of reach by my view. and there are a number of reasons, that is this savior of -- did not stand from the question or whether or not we mastered the craft of negotiations, you know, the best negotiator is always the one that does not participate in the negotiation. [laughter] >> but simply it was the very defining failure, israelis and palestinians, because of the nature of the conflict, because of the too many myth ol just and history. this is not the question of plan for peace. this goes far beyond that. it touches upon, you know, millennial certificates of ownership, the ethos of two conflicted societies. there is no way they can reconcile each other's minimal requirements. and if you add to it the fact that both have such disfunctional political systems that politics always is supreme when it comes to negotiations. the longest-serving prime minister in israel's history, -- because it didn't touch the palestinian problem. -- was three years prime minister. he went to white plantations, signed an agreement and collapsed. and when we formed a coalition, a fairly wide coalition in 1999, we had the very broad coalition. on our way to camp david, shots abandoned us. when we left camp david, the [indiscernible] abandoned us. when we went to achtabah it was me and break. the rest abandoned us. when you look at the political system in a different way, it is dysfunctional. right now it is fragmented between gaza and the west bank. and there is a very serious deficit of legitimacy for president abbas so long as there is no united palestinian politic. so there are many, many reasons that make so desperately difficult or perhaps impossible for these two parties alone to break the genetic code of their conflict. and this is why we are stuck. and meanwhile, we create fait accompli on the ground. they find it difficult obviously to live with it. and their reaction can be seen yesterday in jerusalem and it can happen, a third intifada is not entirely a far-fetched scenario. and then we will leave negotiations and concentrate on how to deal with the violence, exactly what we did in october 2000 when we went to [indiscernible] not to negotiate the peace deal but to see how we redress the situation before we proceed to negotiations. which means that one way or another we need to have additional ingredients in this peace process. and president obama understood it very well when he injected into it the ingredient of the arab countries, that is, let us see if israel takes one step, the arab countries would be ready to starve the process of normalization. i mean, you bring incentives. i say that these parties will not move unless there is the cocktail of incentives and pressures. as it is, left to their own devices it will not work. simply forget about it. the regional thing, bringing in addition am actors that will have an inch put, an influence, give incentives, twist arms,
Related Keywords
Arkansas , United States , Vietnam , Republic Of , Montgomery County , Texas , Jerusalem , Israel General , Israel , West Bank , Alabama , Herat , Afghanistan , Syria , Connecticut , Mexico , Arizona , Lawrence County , Egypt , Massachusetts , Iowa , El Salvador , Spain , Karachi , Sindh , Pakistan , Missouri , Islamabad , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Indiana , Virginia , Missouri City , Michigan , Brussels , Bruxelles Capitale , Belgium , Fort Lauderdale , Florida , Iraq , New Jersey , Tabah , Janub Sina , Saudi Arabia , Louisiana , Chad , China , Minnesota , California , Western Sahara , Bern , Switzerland , Arab League , Al Qahirah , Russia , Kabul , Kabol , Washington , District Of Columbia , Kirkuk , At Ta Mim , Cambodia , Wyoming , Hollywood , New York , Tampa , North Carolina , Iran , Congo , Boston , Illinois , Wisconsin , Lebanon , Jordan , Mississippi , United Kingdom , Baghdad , Nebraska , Gaza , Colorado , Oslo , Norway , Ohio , Peru , Utah , Americans , America , Soviets , Vietnamese , Pakistani , Iranians , Afghan , Israelis , Iraqi , British , Jordanian , Peruvian , Israeli , American , Iraqis , Afghans , Pakistanis , Palestinian , Connie Mack , Abdullah , John Lee , Tim Daly , Laura Richardson , Ronald Reagan , George Bush , Sam Parker , Hamid Karzai , Michael Cooper , Barry Levin , Tracy Fox , Samuel Parker , Greg Ip , Hall Burton , Lahoud Hood , Zeid Al Hussein , Al Qaeda , Charles Schumer , Lautenberg Schumer , Jay Rockefeller , Ben Amy A Oxford , James Shinn , Chuck Schumer , Kofi Annan , Jim Moran , Connie Mac , Los Angeles , Ron Medford , Bernie Madoff , El Doe Pa , Paul Wolfowitz , George W Bush , Ray Lahood , Dick Luger , Parker Samuel ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.