House Energy And Commerce Committee Split Over Who Should Regulate Unsafe Driving

By Julianne LaJeunesse- University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

House Energy and Commerce Committee members met with Department of Transportation Sec. Ray LaHood, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, and transportation experts Wednesday, to discuss who- the federal government or states- would be responsible for ensuring drivers avoid text messaging, using cellular phones, and working GPS systems while on the road.

The committee members agreed that distracted driving is dangerous and should be regulated, and some committee members, such as Virgin Island’s Representative Donna Christensen (D-V.I.), even admitted to texting or using their cell phones while driving. However, when it came to the question of who should regulate the rules of the road, the committee split.

Rep. John Shimkus (R- Ill.) put it bluntly: “Distracted driving is bad,” he said. However, he added, “I have never been for the federal government extorting highway funds to obtain some means to an end that should be decided through the state.”

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) also expressed questions about potentially changing laws, saying he urged his colleagues to create thoughtful, flexible, and “sound” policy.

“Although we share a justified measure of concern about the relationship between use of certain technological devices and driver safety, we have to guard against enthusiastically overly prescriptive statutes... that in the long term may stifle innovation and ultimately show them to be of marginal benefit to the cause of improving driver safety,” he said.

Other representatives, such as Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), said federally mandating laws that would reduce distracted driving may seem “weary,” but said Congress could consider federally mandating public education on distracted driving.

As of last month, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association, six states including California, New York, and Oregon, had banned nearly all cell phone use while driving, and 18 states had banned text messaging while driving.

Pelosi: “Science, science, science and science”

By Kayleigh Harvey - Talk Radio News Service

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) held a photo opportunity today with Congressman Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), Chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee and Dan Mote, President of Maryland University.

Speaker Pelosi said that funding from the recovery package to assist science and innovation was “already making a difference.” She said, “It’s a recognition that our country depends on education, on science and technology, and our recovery package reflects that.”

Congressman Gordon said, “There approximately six and half billion people in the world and of those who are working about half of those make less than $2 a day.” He hoped that money invested into science and research would ensure that future generations have a better standard of living.

Mote called the recovery act “remarkable.” He said, “Speaker Pelosi we cannot thank you enough for your passion for science, science, science and science.” He added, “this is a wonderful period for the United States of America, as people will be educated in science and technology, there will be innovation in science and technology, and as we come out of this recession people will be going into jobs that don’t currently exist.”

In her closing remarks, Speaker Pelosi said, “I keep saying to people if you want to know our domestic agenda, it is science, science, science and science, and by the way that’s our national security foundation as well.” She complimented President Obama on putting science as a top priority on his agenda.

Udall: Green is the new red, white, and blue

By Suzia van Swol, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

At the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the future directions of energy research and development, Ranking Member Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) said that, “If we are going to be the leader in energy technology, investment in Research and Development (R&D) is a must, and the two are certainly not mutually exclusive.”

The legislative proposal considered today will not only reauthorizes the research and development components of the energy policy act of 2005 but it doubles the authorization funding from 2009 to 2013.

Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu emphasized the importance of the U.S. becoming less carbon intensive and less dependent on foreign oil. “In the near term, President Obama and this Congress have already taken key steps to passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,” which Chu says will help put people to work at making homes more energy efficient. “Getting this money into the economy quickly, carefully, and transparently is the top priority for me.” said Chu.

Chu also stated that funding needs to be increased in the sciences because, “we need to do more transformational research at the DOE to bring a range of clean energy technologies to the point where the private sector can pick them up.” He stated that this will help to make abundant, affordable, low-carbon bio-fuels a reality.

Senator Mark Udall (D- Colo.) remarked that there is a need for a long term R&D investment, and it is clear that National Labs will start playing an important role in regard regard to energy efficiency. He went on to state that, “There is a saying that has been making the rounds for the last years, which is green is the new red, white and blue, in other words, one of the most patriotic things we can do is to develop this new energy economy, and maybe we will see you sitting on a poster; “Sam needs you”.”

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that clean coal and nuclear power are far more important than maybe some people appreciate. He stated that, “Now we are going to have spent nuclear fuel sitting around in pools all over America and also tell the nuclear power industry, we have no way of either reprocessing or storing spent nuclear fuel around America, and we expect nuclear power to be an integral part of this nations energy future.” McCain went on to question the need for funding research when the Europeans and Japanese are already doing it in a safe and efficient fashion.

Robots: The future of warfare?

"A robotics revolution may well be at hand," said Dr. Peter Singer, author of Wired for War, at the Brookings Institution discussion on "Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century."


The author explained that robot technology is providing us with the greatest revolution in warfare since the atomic bomb. Robots are only going to increase in power, "You have operative Moore's law, basically that the power that can be packed into a microchip roughly doubles every two years. So when you calculate that out, it means that in roughly 25 years they will be a billion times more powerful than today."

Dr. Singer pointed out how this advancement in technology brings along with it new ethical concerns. The potential to carry out missions from a desk chair and then go home for dinner causes a gap in the reality of war experience. However, robot technology has the potential to greatly decrease the loss of US soldiers. "At least when a robot dies, you don't have to write a letter home to its mother."

General James N. Mattis addressed concerns with this robot revolution, stating, "War is fundamentally a social problem that demands human solutions despite the American pension for a purely technological solution."

by Suzia van Swol, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service and Staff

The high cost of health

According to Paul Ginsburg, the President of the Center for Studying Health System Change, the rising costs of health care can be attributed to advancements in technology, declinations in the population's health status due in part to obesity, and an overall lack of productivity in the delivery of care.

To combat this growth in spending, Ginsburg suggests that policy makers should attempt to pass provider payment reform, engage in programs to stop obesity, and better focus the use of new medical technology on those who will benefit the most.

"Technology, there is a consensus in the literature, probably accounts for a third or two-thirds of the growth in health care spending. It affects spending really in two ways...by substitutions of new approaches for existing approaches and by expansion meaning approaches to treat things that couldn't be treated before," said Ginsburg.

"A great deal of this technology is highly welcomed by all, it makes a great contribution to people's health care, it is high value, but some technology does not provide sufficient value...some of it is applied too broadly. " However, there are questions over whether policy makers should target technologies, since stopping their progress may pose a risk to the overall health in the United States.

"In this new century of the life sciences we're developing so much fundamental knowledge of disease and the roots of disease and the roots of the processes in the human body and the likelihood of much more stunning medical progress in this century is very, very high," explained Senior Executive Vice President of the Advanced Medical Technology Association David Nexon, Ph.D. "It's a tremendous policy imperative to make sure we don't inhibit those breathtaking opportunities for progress."

Health Policy and Strategy Associates President Robert Laszewski doubts broadening the general population's insurance coverage or ending obesity will do anything to lower health care spending. Lazewski noted that insuring the 45 million uninsured Americans will lead to a spending increase similar to when medicare was introduced in the 60's and that any costs saved by ending obesity will be negated by people living longer.

"If we can improve productivity 20 percent over the next ten years, this would abruptly close the gap between spending growth and GDP over that period...the only way we can bring our costs under control is to improve productivity," said Lazewski.