May 15, 2006


President Bush Addresses the Nation on Immigration Reform (The Oval Office, 5/15/06)

Good evening. I've asked for a few minutes of your time to discuss a matter of national importance -- the reform of America's immigration system.

The issue of immigration stirs intense emotions, and in recent weeks, Americans have seen those emotions on display. On the streets of major cities, crowds have rallied in support of those in our country illegally. At our southern border, others have organized to stop illegal immigrants from coming in. Across the country, Americans are trying to reconcile these contrasting images. And in Washington, the debate over immigration reform has reached a time of decision. Tonight, I will make it clear where I stand, and where I want to lead our country on this vital issue.

We must begin by recognizing the problems with our immigration system. For decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders. As a result, many who want to work in our economy have been able to sneak across our border, and millions have stayed.

Once here, illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many use forged documents to get jobs, and that makes it difficult for employers to verify that the workers they hire are legal. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, it strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems. Yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life, but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law.

We're a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We're also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals. America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system that is secure, orderly, and fair. So I support comprehensive immigration reform that will accomplish five clear objectives.

First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration, and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.

I was a governor of a state that has a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. So I know how difficult it is to enforce the border, and how important it is. Since I became President, we've increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. The men and women of our Border Patrol are doing a fine job in difficult circumstances, and over the past five years, they have apprehended and sent home about six million people entering America illegally.

Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I'm calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we'll increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we'll have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.

At the same time, we're launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We'll employ motion sensors, infrared cameras, and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings. America has the best technology in the world, and we will ensure that the Border Patrol has the technology they need to do their job and secure our border.

Training thousands of new Border Patrol agents and bringing the most advanced technology to the border will take time. Yet the need to secure our border is urgent. So I'm announcing several immediate steps to strengthen border enforcement during this period of transition:

One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So, in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, building patrol roads, and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities -- that duty will be done by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online. It is important for Americans to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, to respond to natural disasters, and to help secure our border.

The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime, and to reduce illegal immigration.

Another way to help during this period of transition is through state and local law enforcement in our border communities. So we'll increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions. We will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants. State and local law enforcement officials are an important part of our border security and they need to be a part of our strategy to secure our borders.

The steps I've outlined will improve our ability to catch people entering our country illegally. At the same time, we must ensure that every illegal immigrant we catch crossing our southern border is returned home. More than 85 percent of the illegal immigrants we catch crossing the southern border are Mexicans, and most are sent back home within 24 hours. But when we catch illegal immigrants from other country [sic] it is not as easy to send them home. For many years, the government did not have enough space in our detention facilities to hold them while the legal process unfolded. So most were released back into our society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrived, the vast majority did not show up. This practice, called "catch and release," is unacceptable, and we will end it.

We're taking several important steps to meet this goal. We've expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and we will continue to add more. We've expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. And we're making it clear to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws. As a result of these actions, we've ended "catch and release" for illegal immigrants from some countries. And I will ask Congress for additional funding and legal authority, so we can end "catch and release" at the southern border once and for all. When people know that they'll be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally, they will be less likely to try to sneak in.

Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program. The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively, we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across.

Therefore, I support a temporary worker program that would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in an orderly way, for a limited period of time. This program would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers for jobs Americans are not doing. Every worker who applies for the program would be required to pass criminal background checks. And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay.

A temporary worker program would meet the needs of our economy, and it would give honest immigrants a way to provide for their families while respecting the law. A temporary worker program would reduce the appeal of human smugglers, and make it less likely that people would risk their lives to cross the border. It would ease the financial burden on state and local governments, by replacing illegal workers with lawful taxpayers. And above all, a temporary worker program would add to our security by making certain we know who is in our country and why they are here.

Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law, and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.

Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are here already. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully, and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration.

Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant, and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise, nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently, and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record.

I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship, but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I've just described is not amnesty, it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.

Fifth, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America. English allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery, from cleaning offices to running offices, from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. When immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they realize their dreams, they renew our spirit, and they add to the unity of America.

Tonight, I want to speak directly to members of the House and the Senate: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive, because all elements of this problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all. The House has passed an immigration bill. The Senate should act by the end of this month so we can work out the differences between the two bills, and Congress can pass a comprehensive bill for me to sign into law.

America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone. Feelings run deep on this issue, and as we work it out, all of us need to keep some things in mind. We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone's fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.

I know many of you listening tonight have a parent or a grandparent who came here from another country with dreams of a better life. You know what freedom meant to them, and you know that America is a more hopeful country because of their hard work and sacrifice. As President, I've had the opportunity to meet people of many backgrounds, and hear what America means to them. On a visit to Bethesda Naval Hospital, Laura and I met a wounded Marine named Guadalupe Denogean. Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able. During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. And when asked if he had any requests, he made two: a promotion for the corporal who helped rescue him, and the chance to become an American citizen. And when this brave Marine raised his right hand, and swore an oath to become a citizen of the country he had defended for more than 26 years, I was honored to stand at his side.

We will always be proud to welcome people like Guadalupe Denogean as fellow Americans. Our new immigrants are just what they've always been -- people willing to risk everything for the dream of freedom. And America remains what she has always been: the great hope on the horizon, an open door to the future, a blessed and promised land. We honor the heritage of all who come here, no matter where they come from, because we trust in our country's genius for making us all Americans -- one nation under God.

Thank you, and good night.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 15, 2006 10:03 PM

I thought he played down the middle pretty well. Then again most of the blogs hated it and is getting trashed (even by Hugh Hewitt). So we'll see.

If the Dems are smart they will stand back as the GOP tears itself apart over this issue and take over in '06.

Posted by: AWW at May 15, 2006 10:12 PM

And give him the more permissive measure he wants.

Posted by: oj at May 15, 2006 10:18 PM

The usual political handicapping is going on. Some think Bush's approval will be in the teens after this. Others think he will go up a bit as he played it down middle (i.e. between the rabid right and rabid left per Tim Russert). Others think this was aimed not at the public but at the Senate where a more conservative bill from the Senate could make reconcilement with the House more probable and a bill actually gets done.

Posted by: AWW at May 15, 2006 10:23 PM

I do not get it. Bush made it clear that English was a priority, tougher border security was paramount and law abiding immigrants get priority. He then left it up to congress to hash out the details. Why can't the right pocket these policy victories and work the legislative process now so that the actual bill (if any) implements them is a way they like. Instead they seem to want to throw tantrums.

Fact is we now have 'amnesty' in that that the border is very porous. In failing to take half a loaf, the right is working towards preservation of de facto amnesty.

Posted by: JAB at May 15, 2006 10:35 PM

3 notes related to JAB's comment:

Hugh Hewitt initially loved the speech. Then he had on his radio show a Dept of Homeland Security official who couldn't tell him exactly where/when/how much a fence would be, especially since Congress has to appropriate funds for it. From this Hugh concluded no fence was going to be built (directly opposite what Bush said) and he began trashing the speech.

NRO and others keep claiming that no one, certainly not them, are calling for deporting illegals. But then they turn around and complain when Bush tries to put the illegals into a citizen track instead of deporting them.

The 12MM didn't get here overnight. Reagan passed the amnesty bill that everyone hates now. Bush I and Clinton didn't appear to do anything. So now it is all Bush 2's fault and if he doesn't fix it now vote Democrat in the fall?

Posted by: AWW at May 15, 2006 10:59 PM

If Bush means the part about assimilation, he ought to push it hard and use that to break the Democratic Party on the issue. As I have noted before, it was the Democratic Party congress critters who opposed deporting illegal immigants who had been convicted of felonies while in the USA. Actual assimilation is not something they can embrace without losing their base, even though it would be very popular with the citizenry. It seems like the perfect 80/20 issue for Bush, while he uses the fence to fend patch over the fissure in the GOP.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 15, 2006 11:00 PM

Not if we're going to allow every widow/orphan from the world in who wants in.

If those new figures I see are correct, we're developing an underclass - especially w/raising the minimum wage.

We don't have 3 generations to assimilate anymore.

Posted by: Sandy P at May 15, 2006 11:08 PM

AOG agree. I think another blogger put it right when they said what Bush said sounds reasonable but there is so much distrust of Bush by conservatives right now that until actual things get done (i.e. build a fence, deport people, add to border patrols, etc) they don't believe him and therefore won't give him any credit.

I know OJ doesn't like the fence idea but if the Senate and House can come up with a bill that has some fence being built and Bush signing it that should help.

Posted by: AWW at May 15, 2006 11:12 PM

Sandy - are you referring to the Heritage Foundation 100MM new immigrants number? the number that is grossly overstated?

Posted by: AWW at May 15, 2006 11:13 PM

If Bush gets a comprimise as AWW states, it will be good politics and an example of our legislature comprimising to address a pressing issue.

Polls show the public is ok with guest worker plans and swearing in more citizens. They just want order and assimilation. Bush is re-framing the debate in hopes Congress can then give them what they want.

The righties are marginalizing themselves away from getting any credit.

I am not quite as liberal as OJ on immigration but am pretty close. My main concern is that Northern Mexico is a special case given its proximity and that we need to make sure we do not import the political culture of that area. Fortunately few immigrants want to export it so, as long as we encourage English, it will be fine.

Posted by: JAB at May 16, 2006 12:16 AM

Bush is finessing this hot potato reasonably well. Remember, the ball he needs to move right now is in the Senate. The Conference Committee will probably hammer out somewhat tougher final legislation by the end of September.

Little noted, but there are national elections coming up in just over 6 weeks in Mexico. The recent pro-illegals activitiesw in the U.S. have largely been organized by organizations who want to provoke anti-Mexican sentiment here, believing that will (in turn) provoke anti-American sentiment there. Latin America has been trending Left of late, and Bush does not want to "lose Mexico". Can't say as I blame him.

Posted by: ghostcat at May 16, 2006 12:49 AM

Just an observation, but this speech demonstrates once again why the personal animosity directed towards this president is so baffling. This is a decent, compassionate man talking -- and as was evident in tonight's speech, he refuses to play the low road of demonizing immigrants or even those who just disagree with him politically.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 16, 2006 1:07 AM

Matt -

Bush is willing to confront any number of issues that touch on people's deepest fears. He reminds them of those fears and they hate him for it.

PoliPundit, for one, has been shrieking hysterically about Bush and immigration for weeks now. Sounds like a freaking KosKid. Don't know what the fear is that case, but it's clearly raw.

Posted by: ghostcat at May 16, 2006 1:44 AM

It's not just polipundit, you have to put on hip boots to wade through the sewage at Powerline on immigration.

What's astonishing to me is the rank ignorance about previous immigration patterns in the US. I caught some clown claiming that % of foreign born was never more than 6-7%.

Wrong, in 1910, nearly 15% of the population was f.b. (vs only 7% in 1990). And in the northeast in 1910 more than a quarter of the population was f.b.

In my opinion, a f.b. population of at least that 15% it was in 1910 is not only acceptable, but something to be aimed at in setting immigration policy.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at May 16, 2006 2:20 AM

"NRO and others keep claiming that no one, certainly not them, are calling for deporting illegals. But then they turn around and complain when Bush tries to put the illegals into a citizen track instead of deporting them."

I just glanced at NRO... they seem to, on several occasions, say that it is okay to deport illegals, making the point that deportations happen all the time. I think they are saying that wanting to deport ALL illegals is sort of like wanting to stop ALL speeders - something that can't actually happen because it's an imperfect world. But saying that it's not possible to deport every single illegal is different from saying that we shouldn't deport illegals - basically, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. (Say, that's catchy!)

Posted by: Just John at May 16, 2006 3:25 AM

Just John - perhaps I misread the postings but I got the clear impression that Derb, Krikorian, and others want the 12MM number down to 0 as fast as possible and make statements something like "if we can put people into space we can figure out who the 12MM are and get them out".

GhostCat - just saw a note that 1 of the guest bloggers at polipundit is being asked to leave because she did not agree with Polipundit on immigration. The note writer says expect most of the other guest bloggers to leave at polipundit due to the same reason.

Posted by: AWW at May 16, 2006 7:11 AM


To the contrary, I love the fence idea. It's an excellent substitute for anything serious.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 7:42 AM

Doesn't take three.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 7:42 AM


The Other.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 7:51 AM

Just John:

So how many of the 12 million would you herd onto cattle cars for deportation if not 100%?

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 7:57 AM

Mr. Hewitt isn't usually so silly as to pretend something like the fence would be effective and, as I recall, has a grandmother who was illegal.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 7:59 AM


One interesting note: pretty much the only time we've had to consistently delete/edit posts or had commenters storm off in a huff is over the Dubai ports silliness and over immigration. People seem unable to control their racialist passions.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 8:04 AM

Bush says and does what he thinks is right. This concept seems to be so outre, it's impossible for some to wrap their "minds" around it. I'm utterly amazed that he would state so categorically what we all know to be true and that is that the cult of multi-cultism must be undone and the U.S. must return to the melting pot of assimilation or the concept of an American will cease to exist. With today's instant communication, it won't take three generations anymore.

NRO is pathetic. Bill Kristol, like Michael Kingsley, is your worst nightmare know-it-all supersmart kid with a permanent smirk who was so irritating in grammar school. Every class had one. They're bitter now because instead of reaching their rightful place at the head of the class, they were eclipsed by C students who made it big while they're still whining because the teacher didn't call on them.

Polipundit, Powerline, Hewitt and other bloggers who have gained hitherto unimagined media attention, have confused themselves with their message. They gained readership because they had something interesting to say. Readers, not interested in their internecine squabbling, will also leave in droves as their blogs cease to be interesting.

As in all things, blogs will realign themselves according to their proclivities. Too many bloggers on one website is confusing anyway. It's best for a blog to speak with one voice and let the readers be the counterpoint.

Posted by: erp at May 16, 2006 8:22 AM


You're fogetting how weak we've become as a nation over that hundred years....oops, nevermind....

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 8:32 AM

Erp - another point. Hewitt and others seem to believe that the blogosphere is the dominant news media now. Caught a bit of his post speech show and the attitude was that the blogosphere hated the speech and therefore Bush was road kill. The "I am the mighty OZ" attitude was oozing from the radio. I might be wrong but I'd say the blogosphere is in the 10-15% range of the public and Hewitt and others are overestimating their reach.

I thought I heard CNN had a 70% approval poll on Bush's speech. It would be interesting to compare their polls to Hewitt's statement that 95% of the blogosphere hated the speech.

Posted by: AWW at May 16, 2006 8:39 AM

Americans need to think of themselves as decent people, so when you appeal to their better natures you get a decent response.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 8:43 AM

OJ knows this, but you do realize that the most common surnames in baseball are Martinez, Rodriguez, and Garcia. That, in and of itself, drives a bunch of people's fears. Especially the fear (of irrelevance) of those who complain that there are not enough blacks in baseball nowadays.

Not to mention the fact that the 3rd most common surname of home buyers, after Smith and Johnson, is Rodriguez.

Add those two, and you can smell fear, or irrelevance, on a part of a lot of people.

Posted by: Brad S at May 16, 2006 8:51 AM

Jim in C,

Not to mention that at least 25% of Chicagoans, and upwards of half of residents of smaller Midwest towns, were foreign born. Heck, up until the end of WW1, German was an official language in many a town in both Dakotas, Nebraska, and Wisconsin (this included official documentation as well).

Posted by: Brad S at May 16, 2006 8:57 AM

This is all fine. But if 5% of the GOP base sits home over this the fall '06 elections are not going to be pretty for the GOP.

Posted by: AWW at May 16, 2006 9:04 AM


You worry too much about this:)

Anyway, if Polipundit and some other rightie blogs claim this speech will drive Bush's approval ratings into the Teens, they'd better hope they're right about the results on Nov. 7. Already, those poll numbers are starting to go into Bad Joke territory, and can only make Bush look like a sympathetic figure. And as the blogs will soon learn, that is the LAST thing you want to make a person look like.

Posted by: Brad S at May 16, 2006 9:15 AM

Brad - I probably do worry too much. My fear is that the Bush low poll ratings are disheartening GOPers and emboldening Dems. They will make GOP Congresscritters and others less likely to support Bush which will exacerbate the problem even further. And unlike the righty blogs I do think there is a difference between the GOP and Dems and don't want to give the Congress back to the Dems just to teach the GOP "a lesson".

Posted by: AWW at May 16, 2006 9:24 AM

Brad: The solution to irrelevance is to procreate. Whites aren't doing this to the degree the Rodriguezes of the world are. Secularism strikes again.

Posted by: Bartman at May 16, 2006 9:26 AM

The Rodriguezes are white, but more importantly not secular. Race doesn't make you American, faith does.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 9:33 AM

The color line in baseball was no different than immigration quotas.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 9:36 AM

Jim Geraghty over at National Review has been writing a lot this week on why staying at home to "teach 'em a lesson" would be about as effective in promoting the conservative cause as a WWII Japanese Banzai! charge.

Posted by: Mike Morley at May 16, 2006 9:49 AM

The GOP would just win those seats back in '08 in the McCain landslide and a period when not much happened legislatively would hardly matter.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 9:52 AM

Speaking to Brad S's point about German in the Dakotas, There's at least one famous American who, on account of his accent, people assume was some kind of an immigrant, but wasn't: Lawrence Welk. He was born in one of the Dakotas (I think) & grew up speaking German & didn't really learn English until his early 20's.

Posted by: Twn at May 16, 2006 9:54 AM


Posted by: sharon at May 16, 2006 10:03 AM

Sure, but if you don't throw thre racist whackos a fence and some guards they could get even more unpleasant.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 10:09 AM


The pride and joy of Strasburg, ND, grew up in a time in which Strasburg itself was a predominantly German-speaking, and writing, community. There are some smaller ones around Strasburg and Eureka, SD where that is STILL the case.

Posted by: Brad S at May 16, 2006 10:41 AM

Yeah, Republicans could lose this fall if they don't actually notice what people want.

Posted by: sharon at May 16, 2006 10:55 AM

Some Republicans want to follow the 1994 Pete Wilson blueprint. Good for the immediate gratification crowd, but a horrible long-term strategy, as most people who follow the California GOP can tell you.

Posted by: John at May 16, 2006 11:30 AM

"Is George Bush Over?" Illustrated, graphically. (Guidance suggested for minors.

Posted by: gringoman at May 16, 2006 12:08 PM

People want an amnesty and a guarded border.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 1:25 PM

OJ: "So how many of the 12 million would you herd onto cattle cars for deportation if not 100%?"

Er, the same number of speeders we herd onto cattle cars: zero. And yet we manage to enforce the law.

Posted by: Just John at May 16, 2006 1:41 PM


Where? You ever seen the numbers on average highway speeds?

When Texas increased its speed limit from 55 mph to 70 mph, the average speed on a sampling of Texas's urban freeways and interstate highways increased substantially. Prior to the increase, 15 percent of cars on these roads were exceeding 70 mph and 4 percent were exceeding 75 mph. After the speed limit increase, 50 percent were exceeding 70 mph and 17 percent were traveling faster than 75 mph. (IIHS, 2003)

When Virginia raised its speed limit to 65 mph in 1988, the percentage exceeding 70 mph went from 8 percent in 1988 to 39 percent by 1994. (IIHS, 2003)

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 1:45 PM