with the services provided during whether it be hurricanes or fires. all medicare providers of home medical equipment services need to be accredited and that accrediting and we're accredited to an organization called the commission which credits hospitals, as well. one requirement of accreditation you maintain services availability during emergency situations, so all medical equipment and oxygen have back-up plans so at 3:00 in the morning you can provide services when the power goes out, you have back-up tanks and help patients who evacuate from their homes. you provide them affordable oxygen, could be dozens of of tanks. these are all items that are not reimbursed directly by medicare, but are require the -- hi,

linda. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: my question, you made the comment while ago everyone deserves to have medical care. and i think, you know, that definitely that sounds good. i want to ask you, where does this stop? everyone deserves to have food. everyone deserves to have shelter. is the government supposed to provide all of these things to people? >> guest: i was commenting on healthcare and i strongly believe everyone deserves access to healthcare and i believe most americans do have access to healthcare today. the difficulty is that access is often through an emergency room at 10:00 at night rather than the last two years seeing their regular doctor every three months. i believe we do have access right now. robert calling from fort

lauderdale, florida. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. the competitive bidding program. i understand congress delay today due to the number of inexperienced, unlicensed companies that won the bid before and it was delayed last july. what are the steps and changes made in the competitive bidding program to change it to make it a better program that will work? >> guest: i am not a representative of medicare obviously and i'm subject to those same competitive bidding challenges many other providers are and are going to suffer from it. last year medicare awarded contracts to providers around the nation who were not licensed within the state they won the bid. the way it was handled was inappropriate. it was going to hurt patients

and that was the big issue that congress had in delays it. it's been delayed so that the bidding is beginning again the end of this year. it will be a three-year contract beginning in january of 2011. so before the end of this year, medical providers will be bidding to provide this service through 2013. at which time, who knows how many providers will be left. the program is not in the best interest of the patients and ultmeul ultimately i think the patients will be hurt. medicare says they have made changes and seems they have made some, not sure they made enough. >> host: joel marx is president and c.e.o. for medical service company, a medical equipment provider in cleveland. thanks for being with us today. >> guest: thank you, libby. >> host: tomorrow on washington journal, we have the british

ambassador for health and life sciences join us from london to talk about the british healthcare and marcia schwarz defends acquisition. we will talk about a new report by the congressional research service looking at civilian contractors in afghanistan. also tomorrow, justin hollander looks alt abandoned properties and what can be done about them. that is on "washington journal" tomorrow from 7:00 to 10:00 eastern time. that is all for the program today. thanks for joining us.

>> fiscal spending and healthcare by steamboat institute. tony blankley leads this panel. it is about an hour and 15 minutes.

>> i have a thrill to introduce our fiscal and economic policy panel. what a thrill it is to have all these wonderful people here. first i would like to introduce, i'm going to introduce each of them. we have a special treat, tony blankley, who will be the panel moderator. many of you have seen tony on fox news. [ applause ] >> tony is executive vice president for global public affairs with edelman. i hope i pronounced that correctly. it is a global p.r. firm. for 25 years tony has been at the intersection of national politics, media and public policy. tony served as press secretary for newt gingrich. prior to his career on capitol

hi hill, he was a speech writer and senior policy analyst for president reagan. tony appears regularly on the sean hannity show on fox news, msnbc with chris matthews -- sorry, tony. >> dirty job, someone has to do it. >> and co-host iing a show on public radio. welcome, tony. our fiscal and economic panel. let's start with dan mitchell, senior fellow with the cato institute. dan is a top expert in approximate tax reform and supply tax policy. he's a strong advocate of the flat tax and international tax competition. prior to joining cato, dan was senior fellow with heritage foundation and economist for senator bob packwood in the senate finance committee. he served on the '88 bush-quail

director team and was on a policy. he can be found in the "wall street journal," "new york times," investor business daily and the washington times. he's a frequent guest on radio and t.v., you have probably seen him on various fox news and other programs, as well. dan holds his bachelor and master necessary economics from the university of georgia and phd in economics from george mason university and i'm disappointed you didn't wear your georgia bulldog tie today. you wore a red tie, you pointed out. next we have french hill, investor, and venture capitalist from little rock, arkansas, his home town. french is founder and c.e.o. of of delta, which he, a private banking company he founded in little rock.

he was appointed special assistant to president george w.h. bush. he was contributor to cnn, fox newos political and economic policy matters. french has been also a leader in his community, past president of the rotary club of little rock, eighth largest rotary club in the world. also honorary director of the boy scouts of america and many other organizations. a leader in his community, as well. he is a graduate in economics from vanderbilt. grace-marie turner is president of the galen institute, a public policy research organization that she founded back in 1995, which is to promote informed debate over free market ideas for health reform. what a concept. she has been instrumental in

promoting and developing ideas for reform. helps with healthcare decisions to doctors and patients. grace-marie turner speaks in the u.s. and abroad, including the london school of economics, oxford university and the vatican in rome. grace testified regularly before congress and advises senior government officials, governors and state legislators on health policy. grace has been published in major newspapers, including the "wall street journal" and "u.s.a. today," appeared on programs throughout the u.s. ladies and gentlemen, our all-star fiscal and economic policy panel. [ applause ] >> now tony, i'll turn it over to you. >> moderator: thank you very much. welcome. i appreciate having this

opportunity to be the moderator at the inaugural conference of steamboat. i've had the good fortune to be somewhere near the beginning of pretty good operations. i became sort of an active member in the conservative move nment 1962. i was the first organizing sub-california for barry goldwater, reagan's campaigns. and we need what the steamboat institute is offering now, i think more than ever. it is a reassertion and an understanding and an application of conservative principle. it is a bipartisan proposition. i would love to see the day when democrats and republicans compete to see who can come up with more effective conservative programs. we are not there yet. [ applause ] >> moderator: but for too long in our past we had two parties

competing for another set of ideas. and i was a conservative before i was a republican and i was a democrat before i was a conservative as a kid. i got convinced by conservative ideas and today i think we need to convince a lot of people who are not conservatives of the wisdom of our policies and values and when that happens we'll let the party politics take care of itself if our principles and our values are appreciated. so that is what we're here for. we invited blue dog democrats. they didn't come this time, maybe they'll come next year. a few may be out of office at that time. there is no better moment, i think, than now to start a panel on the economy finance budget for all the events that happened in the last 10 months.

when you have a real economic event that hits the nation as this one has, very often it has big consequences in the panic of 1893 and the depression that followed it. that ended up being the end of capitalism and the beginning of another era. people were shocked by that and moved the nation to the west for a while. in 29 or 32, we got a set of values. the reverse happened in the late '70s where failure of liberal principles became more and more manifest and dominateded the last 30 years. we may be at such a moment again. americans have lost assets at a staggering level.

unemployment likely to sustain at unacceptable level for perhaps years. the wealth of of the nation has been reduced. it will take a lot of hard slugging to get back. the public is taking a reassessment. we are fortunate, i think, in that the current administration has come forward with vigorous set of nonconservative principles and we have a chance now and a chance. we're not home free yet. we're better off than i can imagine of being given how -- what the world looked like 10 months ago. nonetheless, we're going to be in a competition for the public's judgment of which way back to prosperity and freedom. and obama has got off to a weak start, but i've worked in the reagan white house for many years, competed with the clinton what yo white house for many years and there are ups and downs in

presidency. they get off to a hard start and then get sea legs. bill clinton managed to get himself re-elected and left office. i think he embraced a lot of ideas, balanced budgets and signed our version of welfare reform. the point is that i'm glad that we live in hope today that the values of freedom that we believe in have a chance. but we only live in hope and that is what we are here for, to start a movement to win that battle. and it's fascinating that i was just listening to the gentleman from heritage when he said we don't want to set our grandchildren on our knees and tell them what freedom was like. i hate to say it, i don't have grandkids yet, but if i did, i could tell them about that now. we have lost a striking level of freedom that we enjoyed 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago.

part of i think the practical conservative movement is about winning the argument for limited government freedom that we believe in, but starting a process of rolling it it back so we can feel as free as i did and some of you did when you were young and didn't have the nanny intrusions we have. we have lost a fair amount of ground as we dominated conservative values dominated politics since reagan came in and with newt. we have to hold off the sadists, but we have to start rolling the process back. i'm delighted to be here. i think we've got a fabulous panel. this is the right topic to be discussing and to lead off the discussion of this extraordinary moment in time where we have nationalized auto industries, where we have a trillion dollars of special interest money being spent called the stimulus package, where we have a set of

programs that place that a year ago i know i couldn't have imagined would be the law of the land. you would have the president of the united states firing the c.e.o. of general motors before they even nationalized the company, just on some sort of vague undisclosed authority. that shocked me, i think it shocked a lot of people. you are seeing the bond holders have substituted in for their line of credit for the union and they have been given their share, their interest in the company and it has all been done this, removing around of property from one to the other. these are things that i think conservatives not only shocked of today, but i find it almost

unimaginable that it happened and i'd like to focus as we talk today on some of the things at a technical level that we have seen. each of our panelists are going to make a few opening remarks and then we'll chat for a while and then open it up. i think we want to look at the significance of of the deficit, the extraordinary increase in debt, unprecedented. talk about grandchildren, what we've already been committed to by our current government. burdens of our grandchildren to pay it back. taking money out of private sector, increasing our debt payments that used for productive assets. these commitments have been made, a trillion dollars of unfunded obligation. we're watching the interest rates on t-bills. are they going to stay at

reasonable level or go up? what ham fist we can't afford to borrow money at a practical level? what does that do for our economy? how do we become productive when 40% of the federal budget is going to be borrowed? these are some of the questions i think that we have to face and we're going to talk about this afternoon. let me start now with french and have him start on opening remarks and we'll move around the table. >> guest: i was struck today with the references to the past and the lessons learned from the past and it it made me reflect on the last 30 years and talk about -- i need to turn on the mic. the lessons of the last 30 years. and reagan in 1981 inaugural speech, coming out of the cart er period and the discontent in the u.k. that elected margaret

thatcher in may of 1980, reagan looked at the present crisis and said government was not the solution, but it was the cause. there was reference made to clinton's rough start as president in the '90s. he learned his lesson and in his second term he said the era of big government is over. contrast that with president obama's inaugural speech this past january, which i want to quote specifically instead of paraphrasing. "the question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but rather it works, whether it helps families find jobs at decent wages, care they can afford and a retirement that is dignified." so it presumes that is the role of government. i thought, my goodness, how far have we come in 30 years and

that is why i think tony's point we're at that balance point, a really key area of where our country can go forward with returning to the core principles as a spouse by the steamboat institute or progress forward down what i call the road to surfdom, which mr. obama in my judgment has headed us down. also as tony noted, there have been all these pullbacks across our whole 200-year history. jefferson, just as the country got started, a favorite quote of my old friend phil crane from illinois, a wise and frugal government would refrain from men injuring one another, shall leave them free to regulate their own pursuit of industry and improve sxment shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread they have earned.

this is the sum of good government. thomas jefferson in his inaugural in 1801. lincoln 60 years later had to remind the country again that you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. you cannot deal character and courage by taking away people initiative and independence and to me this gets us back to what the core of of the decision of the congress and the administration have to make. we talk about the economic issues. i always like to focus on what is american exceptionalism and it is in the phrase "the pursuit of happiness," not the "guarantee" of happiness. it is not government's role to guarantee every citizen happiness. it is to protect their right. [ applause ] >> guest: it is to protect their

right under the constitution to pursue happiness. when we pursue happiness in our business life, our church life and our government life that is what builds character. it is a lifetime construction project. and to set expectations for young people every ill we have in our society is going to be addressed by government program is nuts. and that is what i believe is the core of of the steamboat institute is to return to that point of view. tony, before i turn back to you, rireflected coming into steamboat yesterday on the airplane, beautiful flight in, beautiful skies and puffy white clouds. i thought of taggard as she made her first airborne landing in colorado. [ applause ] >> guest: and i came here not to desert, but i came here to rally the troops to go forward and lead our country in the direction it should be led in.

thank you. [ applause ] >> moderator: thank you. first the constitution went into exile here in the rocky mountains and now economic freedoms are in exile here in the rockies and will gorge back into the public. before we go on, just an example of how this is is educatable moment. i don't like the phrase, but -- >> guest: a teachable moment. >> moderator: a teachable moment is the other way of of saying it. thank you, sir. at this moment, if you are a worker employed by a company, the thing that makes you happiest, is that your company makes a profit. everybody who works for a company making a profit feels comfortable to say they will not get laid off. until this moment, these last few months, profit has been a bad name amongst millions of americans. they complained the company makes too much money or their bosses, now we are learning the value of profit.

the profit makes possible our employment. it makes possible your ability to support your family because you have been employed by somebody who makes enough money to hire you and buy the equipment to make you competitive and efficient. that is example of two lessons trying to be taught right now. those who are the statists will say, see the terrible thing happening. you need the state to start taking responsibility for your life. the other lesson we might be able to teach, which we believe, you see what happens when the state sucks so much money and poses so much inefficient policies the company can't make a profit, you lose your job. you ought to be working for a profitable company and make pay raises and the company expands because free market principles or do you want to be one more beneficiary of the taxpayers? i think this is -- although times are hard and unemployment will go higher, the lesson of

profitability is now to be instructed on. i don't continuing has in a generation. let's go to dan, who i've admired and we've worked together from time to time over the years. his advice to congress and conservatives on economic principles has been invaluableable for as long as i can just about remember. if you'd make your opening comments, please. >> guest: thank you, tony. normally i talk to people about taxes. i love being a boring economist and talking about marginal tax rate and capital formation. but i want to talk about spending for a minute or two because frankly if government spending continues to sky rocket, we're never going to have good tax policy. if we have the kind of government our founding fathers set up with the federal government of less 5% g.d.p. it is almost impossible to have a bad tax system f. we allow the federal government to go to 40% of g.d.p., it is impossible to have a good tax system. before we start focusing on how

to make the tax code better and i've been spending 25 years doing that, we better figure out what to do about government spending. let me give you frightening numbers. when bill clinton left office, the federal government went down to 18.5% of of g.d.p., higher than a lot of us want, but very low compared to most other industrialized economies in the world. we are making progress. government was shrinking, not because we were cutting it, although that would be great. we were letting the private sector grow faster than the government and that is really all you need to do for success. that is why government fell. we got good people in charge of congress. they boxed in clinton and clinton wasn't as radical as obama to begin with anyhow. we let the economy expand faster than the government. we were making progress. unfortunately, in the name of so-called compassionate conservatism, we thrown up quotes here, probably the most disturbing quote i heard this

decade and i'm going to paraphrase it because i don't have it exactly, was our last president, george w. bush saying when somebody is hurting it is government's job to help. as a result, understand the bush years, the federal government budget went from $1.8 trillion to $3.5 trillion. i'm not a math genius, but 1.8 to 3.5 is almost a doubling in just eight years. in other words, this is not a democratic problem, it's a washington problem, a problem of big government. and most of it -- [ applause ] >> guest: -- most of of the new spending was not by homeland security or national defense, it was for no bureaucrat left behind bill and with the farm bill, the pork bill, transportation bill, giant new medicare expansion, it was the federal government bailing out corrupt politician necessary louisiana for the fiasco of

hurricane katrina. these are mistakes republicans made when republicans were in charge because they forgot the lessons of the contract for america, forgot the lessons of ronald reagan, they came to washington thinking it was a fast ball and decided it was a hot tub, instead. [ cheers and applause ] >> guest: now that is actually the optimistic part of our opening remark. let me tell you where we are headed. obama comes in and gives us $800 billion of pork on top of all the mess we had in the last eight years and now he wants a trillion dollars plus of the same people who wanted the post office to start doing our healthcare. that's bad, but that is not even the biggest problem we're looking forward to. if you look at the long-term forecast made by the congressional budget office of what is going to happen to the federal budget between now and 2082, they do 75-year forecast,

what do you see? they estimate that the federal government, which is now about 25% of of g.d.p., higher than when clinton left office 18.5% of g.d.p., going from federal government and 25% to optimistic scenario going up to 45% of d.d.p. and pessimistic, 57% of d.d.p. add in 15% of g.d.p. for state and local government and weville a bigger government than any european welfare state, even france and sweden. i don't know if that means we have to stop using deodorant, but we are going to be a european welfare state. and i guarantee you when that happens we're going to have european-style economic conditions, higher perpetual long-term employment, lower living standard. government is big and the sector is small. it is inevitable and built into

our current policy. because of all the entitlement freshman, demographic changes, even every single initiative, obama tried to do failed, we still had baked into the cake a giant welfare state in america. that is what we need to worry about and tony, you mentioned deficit. this of course implys enormous deficit, but i don't think that is the problem. sweden, until the current recession, had a budget surplus. would i trade places with sweden? no. people are poor in sweden because government is bigger in sweden. i don't care sweden taxes this much and spends this much. i agree with milton freeman, i would rather spend this much, even if it means a small deficit. government is expanding and we know taxes are going up, it is like a dog chasing its tail. politicians spend more and raise taxes to pose the deficit. that won't work and they will say, we have to raise taxes again and get in a downward spiral that we had in the 60

'60s and '70s. what is the moral aspect of this and i'll shut up with this. the pol tigsz necessary washington think it is their job to take care of us. there are are a couple million people in america who are being taken care of by government. their housing, their healthcare, their food, everything is being taken care of by government. who are these two million plus people? they are called prisoner necessary our peenal system because that is what the welfare state is, prison for the human soul. it is making pets out of us and will put us in a kanl, control our freedom and our lives. that is what we need to fight against. government will get big and growth rate will go to 1% like in france. that is bad news and mostly i talk about that. what this really means and why all of us really have to fight, if approximate government gets that big and the american people wind up adopting this european mindset that it it is okay to sit on your brain everyday and

let someone else take care of you, that is going to destroy what made america great and that is why we have to fight it. i hope the steamboat institute conference is the start. thank you. [ applause ] >> moderator: thank you. i agree with milton freedman he'd rather have a smaller public sector with a deficit than a larger one balanced. what we have now of course is a huge public sector and then a huge deficit added to it. the deficit is another example of how we can make each conservative principles to both parties because the deficit and the debt traditionally was sort of an issue that only conservative republicans cared of. the democratic party didn't care. republicans talk to their base and cared about it. the rest of the country didn't care.

perot came along and talked about the issue and moderates starteded recognizing the problem of large government with huge debt on top of it and newt borrow friday perot and we e inforced the issue. when this came a cross-cutting issue was during the w. bush era because the democratic party decided to attack bush just fiably as we would probably say for deficit spending, for his big spending. in the process they spent the last eight years telling the democratic party base that deficit and big debt or government debt is a bad thing. they come to believe that. so now this is why this is conservative, not a partisan event we're in. now we have people who are even moderate and somewhat liberal democrats if you look at the polling who are concerned about excessive debt and deficit as republicans used to be. and this is the opportunity that i think now presents itself for

conservative principles to be championed by both parties. and the next topic we'll have grace talk about, which is healthcare, as you can see in the debate goes now, the fight is on the democratic side. if our conservative principles about healthcare and government and deficit can persuade a number of democratic congressman and senators then we can defeat this terrible plan that is overhanging us. so once again, this is a matter of principles applying to the public and we want to get as many all parties to be championing those. you can't today talk about economic principles without also talking about healthcare because healthcare not only has a set of noneconomic issues that are vital to free people. the right to choose your own doctor and participate in the decisions. the right of a doctor to give the professional advice you need. because it it is one-sixth of

the economy and growing tis also a huge economic factor of proposal to add what is called universal coverage is going to cost according to congressional budget office between 1 and 1.5 trillion dollars moreover the next 10 years. the president's claim that the reason he is proposing this is to bring the cost down of healthcare, which would be a good idea. the congressional budget office said not only in the next 10 years do the costs go up, but in the out years he's not going to bend down, he's going to bend up the cost. so this brings both huge economic consequences and huge personal value issue and we can't imagine anybody better than grace-marie to talk about that issue in the context of this conference. >> guest: thank you, tony. the issue of healthcare i really believe has become a lightning rod for the issues that we've been talking about here.

it really is the expansion of government that is the terrible fear the american people see and what has been happening over the last several months, the last year and the last decade. they want to put a stop to it. i have had the chance to attend a number of town hall meetings around the country and people say, you know, who really are the people there? are all these people coming out? they're organized and they're part of some astro tuturf, pelo them unmore than achery mobs. when do we have the leaders calling the american people names because they want to stand up and stand up for their country, they are concerned about their country and concerned about the spending that will affect the economy today, but in the future and they want to be heard. the legislation that currently

is being considered in congress has passed four of five committees. it it is speaker pelosi said in the last couple days they'll have a vote in the house on this bill when they come back. the senate believes that senator kennedy's death that may provide impo tus to pass this bill in the senate. that is the reason people are coming out in droves to tell their legislators what they think about this bill. interestingly only about a third of members of congress are actually holding town hall meetings. others are holding them as telephone town hall meetings, closed meetings. why do we think that is? political polls show four out of five americans think this bill will increase their healthcare cost, going to reduce their choice. it's n going to achieve universal coverage, it will increase bureaucracy in the house sector. no wonder people are frightened. yet the white house and the

leadership in congress are saying that the reason this legislation is failing is because they don't have the message right and because everybody is distorting what this is really in this had thousand-page bill. i tell you that if you look at any one page in this bill, it will frighten you in seeing the expansive government that is in any of these bills. the president has said everybody is using scare tactics. excuse me, mr. president, when you tell people that maybe you should just really take that pill rather than have surgery or the government is going to tell you whether to pick the blue pill or the red pill, talking about death squads and ridiculing them, he's the one, i think, that is scaring the american people. there is credence in many of the concerns the american people

have. some has been exaggerated to some point, but absolutely, they have every reason to be frightened. i think the reason that this bill is failing is because it can't stand up to the facts. as tony said, the president has said that he just will not sign a bill unless it it reduces healthcare cost over the long-term. well, excuse me, but the head of the congressional budget office who was appointed by speaker pelosi has said that not only will it not reduce healthcare cost, but it significantly increases them over the long-term. the president says this bill absolutely, he will have universal coverage by the end of his first term. well, the congressional budget office says despite the fact this bill spends a trillion dollars or more at least 17 million people will be without

health insurance and probably many more. the president has gone around the country talking about the mayo clinic and other integrated health systems and how we want that to be a model for healthcare delivery. pardon me. for the rest of the country. the unfortunate problem is the mayo clinic and a number of of other top-quality health systems around the country sent a letter to members of congress and said not only will we not be able to continue if this bill passes we will not be able to continue to offer the care that you are saying that you want the rest of the country to emulate. we will have to close our doors. so on the issue of cost, quality and access, which really are the three prongs of health reform, we still fail. i don't see how they will come back and pass this legislation.

there have been a lot of conservative democrats standing up and saying they are consider concern body this bill. i think they are really on the front line because how they vote after they come back from hearing from the constituents around the country is really going to be determinant and whether or not this legislation passes. just to conclude with a quote from paul star who wrote a book and won a pullitz er prize for his book, he said politicians from this mark have used healthca healthcare, promise of health insurance as way of turning benevolence into political power. that is what is going on here and why the public plan is so important. we see on youtube video after video with propoebents of the public plan saying they know this had is the track toward a

single payer system. if we lose our freedom to make the most basic decisions about life and death and our health and we turn this over to government for this false promise of security, weville lost our freedom. this battle could not be more important and as john said, it is crucially important that the american people continue to show up in town hall meetings, have your voices heard, there is strength in numbers. i believe the american people values are right ando track with this. they understand what is happening and they do not want to see the government take over one-sixth of our healthcare represented by the health sector. thank you. [ applause ] >> moderator: thank you. last fall after september as the

economy was crashing, the standard bearer of the republican party said the reason everything was going hay wire was because of greed. the standard of of the democratic party was saying the reason that everything is going hay wires because of greed. out of that i think mistaken assessment a story, a narrative started that the reason we're in such trouble is because with free mark sxet free corporations vowing to do whatever they want, everything is going wrong. if that lesson is the lesson the public learns then we have failed and free market principles have failed. because it is the wrong lesson, i believe, to be learned and yet that was the least the initial story. it justified the starting of financial reregulation, the new intervention, we have to have more and more intervention because look what is happen when greedy men and women act on

their own interest. greed has been a constant factor since we've become human. you know, that doesn't go up and down, some people have greed in their hearts and others don't. i want to raise to the panel to discuss briefly what role government policy had in creating the problems that we have perhaps including fannie mae and freddie mac. was this the result just of bringing amongst human hearts or the policies nonconservative nonfree market policies exacerbated or contributed to the economic crisis. french, you want to start with that? >> guest: i'd love to start out on that topic. housing policy in the united states since back in the day when bob woodson and i were in the vineyards in the early '80s and tony was, as well, with jack kemp, housing policies always had a bias toward more people

owning houses in the federal government and that started out by having interest deductible and expanded over the years to where really now the federal government controls well over 95% of every home loan in the country. and those incentives, people react to those incentives and we've tried to make it easier and easier for people to own houses at all income groups. at some level, maybe that was a reasonable policy. but people react to incentives. it was government policy that drove the concentration of investment assets into residential mortgages and the packaging of them given by tax policy and regulatory policy and it was government policy that made an exception to a 75-year-old rule, which was the capital standards for broker/dealers and exempted the top five dealers from the normal leverage ratio and that is an

example of government policy and how it it skews outcomes. so to blame it it 100% on the private sector like they operate independently of the incentives placed by government, our government and other government tis wrong. it's wrong to lay they have their vote. >> moderator: one question and i don't know what the answer is, but some experts believe that the fed's policy of creating liquidity contributed to the problem. now the fed, while technically owned by others banks is substantially a governmental activity. how do you see the feds active policies over the years leading up to this as contributed to the problem? >> guest: monetary policy through the fed has been too lax. john tailor at hoofer institute at stanford has the taylor rule

he tried to mod frel past behavior what he thinks it to be. universal during the decade it was too accommodative, too easy. that led to overinvestment in housing for three years, 2005, 2006 and 2007 tochlt me, that is a part of of the crisis, tony, but the underlying crisis was this effort to make everyone in america, regardless of capability a homeowner through gainsmanship in the terms of a mortgage that fannie mae or freddie mac would buy. it makes no sense on the surface of it. but you compine that with the fuel of accommodative monitoring policy and we have reaped what we sow, over that decade. we're living with the consequences. >> moderator: the economic system one thing and who to

blame is one thing. it is the narrative that is important. for a decade and even still today we suffer from a gross misinterpretation of what happened in the 1930s. under hooverand roosevelt we got protectionism, more government spending, more intervention and suffered 12 years of of an economic downturn. it was big government, including bad federal reserve policy that caused the problems, but what do the history books say? it was the fault of capitalism. i think tony raised a key question. if going forward people blame free markets and greed for the economic problems that we had last year and into this year, we're going to suffer the same way that we suffered for 40 years after the great depression. the other side effectively blaming free market for problems caused by government. this whole notion of greed, causing the problem is amazing. it is like saying every single

airplane crash is caused by gravity. okay that, is true, but does it it actually tell us why the plane fell to the ground? tonied there has always been greed there. when you mix greed with a central bank creating too much liquidity. you have extra money splashing around in the economy and fanny and freddy tilt the playing field so the liquidity sloshs in the housing market and you create a bubble. what happens with bubble? they burst. government created the problem and then what happened? as is always the case government compounds one mistake with others and they bail out the companies that try to ride the bubble too far and too long. we have created a huge moral hazard in our financial system with companies too big to fail and what happens when you get to bet with other people's money? you take greater chances. here is a great idea. everyone in the room, give me all your money, i'm going to las vegas.

every time i make a bet and win the money, i will keep the money. every time i lose it it will come out of what you gave me, that would make sense? only in washington, d.c. and that is the way the financial crisis has been handled and i am terrified that the history books 30 years from now are going to say this was the fault of free markets. >> moderator: thank you. let me apply this question to healthcare. obviously we don't have a perfect mechanism or series of mechanisms for delivering healthcare, although it is good enough to provide the greatest healthcare system in the world for 81% of the american public to say they are satisfied with it and for people from england and france and germany to canada and saudi arabia coming here when they actually need critical state of of the art healthcare. so while it is not perfect and i don't want to call it a system because the system suggests an organizing status mechanism and we already have i would argue too much so how does government

policy affect adversary affect the ability of americans to get good healthcare today? >> guest: really in two ways. in the seize of of our current structure of the healthcare system were in world war ii. actually after afterthought because of wage and price control k. we provide insurance without having violent rage of health control that led to not being that part of a person's compensation not being visible. led to creation of the employment-based healthcare system, which worked fine in industrialized economy. it is not working in information age economy where four in 10 workers change jobs every year. we are guaranteeing the people are going to be uninsured because we tie health insurance to the workplace. we also created another bubble of our own with medicare and medicaid programs, created in 1965, that initially said yes,

we'll pay whatever bills doctors send us. frankly that is what a lot of people think will happen with the new public plan. what happened over time is that doctors and hospitals paid less and less to the point that now doctors and hospitals are paid less than their cost of delivering care, who makes up the difference? people with private health insurance. that pushes up their premium so i would argue everybody is saying, we tried free market in healthcare and it never worked. how many of you really have a choice in purchasing the kind of health insurance you want for your family to know you can keep that with you as long as you like. you don't. what we need is a true market. everybody says the conservatives don't have any idea on healthcare. wrong. what we are talking about is saying, let's have equal tax rates so everybody gets the same deal wherever you buy your

health insurance, more options. [ applause ] >> guest: -- more options for people to purchase health insurance through different groups and clearly across state lines and a stronger safety net by the way at the state level, not at the federal level. three things, a, does not cost a trillion dollars and b, we can solve the problem in the health sector, but it it means letting the private sector solve these problems, not turning the whole thing over to government for heaven's sakes. [ applause ] >> i get all my frnknowledge fr p.j. o'rourke. if you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it is free. that -- >> guest: exactly. >> guest: and the lack of innovation, paul ryan is doing a great job in his bill which offers many ideas in bill form

is sitting collecting dust in speaker pelosi's office. >> guest: patient choice act. >> guest: 25, 20, i think, the government thinks we buy our own property and casualty auto policies and home policies and we're too dumb to figure out how to buy healthcare staggers the imagination and i think the president cannot sell this plan in my opinion. >> guest: let me pick up on both of those and take it somewhere else. it frustrated me since i have been in politics that liberals, often democrats, not always, say we liberals have comprehensive solution to this problem. while you conservatives don't. we have a comprehensive answer, which is free markets. we don't have a comprehensive status plan. now strikes me that we're getting an opportunity with the healthcare debate, the town hall meetings, for the public to see

what a comprehensive state solution begins to look like and how appalling it is on the free people participating in that kind of comprehensive state solution and we may want to start taking those concepts and apply them to other areas after we thoroughly instructed on healthcare. let me ask another government intervention question. the government passed stimulus bill about 800-something billion dollars. so far about 120 has actually been spent. is there merit from a conservative economic point of view to having, really an effort to repeal the remainder of the stimulus? what was that -- how do you see repeal of it? start off with, debate on the repeal of it it. i mean obviously by repealing 600-something billion dollars we

reduce deficit by that oiment and that would be good. we have less interest payments to make over the next 30 yearos that. in the existing economy we valid consequences. some thoughts? >> guest: first of all, i presume it is a stimulus bill, which it is not. it is a doubling of the energy department and education department's budget full of programs and people they don't know how to extend the money. they have literally no idea. therefore it would be a repeal, if the contracts haven't been left on a bridge money and see if you couldn't get every member, how many members you could get to sign up for co-sponsorship with the caveat that our economy, while still sluggish, is showing signs of recovery. has the stimulus bill passed in january contributed to that? >> guest: no.

>> guest: no. >> guest: the policy which may produce future problem and stabilization of the banking system and a number of things have probably contributed modestly to where we are in recovery. but this bill in my judgment should have never been passed and therefore to vote for repeal would be an easy vote. >> guest: okay. >> guest: i'm in favor of our friend necessary washington talking about repealing it, but obama would veto anything and republicans are so deeply in the minority, would have no chance. the debate itself would be valuable because what is the so-called stimulus? regurgitatio regurgitation. let me give you an example. i tried my participation and you didn't give me your money to go to las vegas. let's do different class participation. divide the room in half and borrow all the money from the people on this half of of the room and give it it to the people on this half of the room.

[ applause ] >> guest: now there is a quiz. here is a quiz to determine if you understand obama's so-called stimulus. who think there is is now more money in the room, raise your hand. i see john is the only one to raise his hand, but he flunked math back in high school. the whole notion of economics is borrowing money out of your right pock sxet putting it in your left pocket. it has never worked anywhere in the world it's been tried. the so-called stimulus was nothing but a payoff to interest groups that got obama elected. [ applause ] >> guest: but dan, you know that a government that robs peter to pay paul always has the support of paul. >> guest: that is a mistake of the government robbing peter to pay goldman sachs. >> guest: quick point and then i want to go and get questions and comments from the panel.

when you make the point about it is worth having a debate, conservatism is not in government right now, neither in congress or the white house. >> guest: the last eight years either. >> guest: exactly my point. this is an opportunity for people like us to start having the debate, let the government in power justify their policy based on their principles and why the stimulus is a perfect example. majority of the country no longer believes it it was a useful thing. blue dog democrats and moderate republicans are out and around. we have an opportunity for the public to question them f. we could input that into the public debate now. we can't pass them. we don't have enough conservative necessary power. we have enough conservatives and enough american conservatives to raise the issue and let the people in power being watched flail as they discuss that. let me start doing some questions now. we have 15 minutes left on this know pael. yes, start back there.

>> of wonder if the panel might discuss that idea, the importance of the rule of law, of upholding contracts, and basically, our political play purses market principles is being distorted right now. -- political play verses market principles is being distorted right now. >> that is a wonderful question. there are some pensions for government. will of law is one of them. maintaining a stable currency is another one.

maintaining the peacefulness of the land and securing as from foreign enemies. i will give you one example of when the rule of law does not work, how hard it is to get economics and up and running. what i was in the reagan white house, we have these success of granada and getting the young students out of there and we were hoping it would be an economic success. at one point i was assigned to looking into is it something and we can do to cope granada have more success. the best part of it was that we want to -- the airlines and the little people to come down there. çcaucus cullen cuyahoga cohoctn

kapoo

earlier this year i was invited to go to paris white. wending i told them -- to paris white. when the i told them was you can repeal your income tax, but it is not going to get you anywhere as long as you look at the index of economic freedom published by freezer or heritage. they all show the rule of law and property rights are about 40% of what determines a nation's prosperity. it is like a foundation. you can build a beautiful house of no income tax, but if you're foundation is an example of what is not going to help you. unfortunately about -- what worries me about what is happening in washington is it is really an atlas shrugged all over again. the political players and lobbyists are the one that the deals.

>> i'm concerned about the future and what inflation is going to do to us. what can we do to protect ourselves? give us some advice, please.

>> i think that is a very worthy concern. particularly in light of fiscal and monetary policy -- policy. i look out and think about the next three to five years and it would be at the top of my list. we do not know if there is another paul volcker in our future or not. but it is concerning to me.

can it be on wound is the question i as a banker get routinely. in a theoretical way, yes, the economy grows, the fiscal policy becomes more appropriate. the fed does a good job in read -- in withdrawing reserves and raising rates. but this is an increase as world. -- and in precise world. then they have no more knowledge about it than you do. therefore, you will have to air on the side of--- err on the side of-perio negative. things that can and just price, things that have the ability to hedgeç the dollar like a multinational corporation -- as buffett said in the "new york times," the fate of the economy rest with the market.

in the words of my co-year-old, " "omg!" [laughter] everyone shouldn't worry about the possibility of that and they next few years. >> one thing you do not want to be in that is a creditor. you do not want a long arm when you do not know how high the dollar is. that undermines the ability of the country to make long-term investments. if people are learning from what is in the short term. and instead of in a strategic capital sense looking out, they are decisions that people have to make in a moment. it undermines the ability of people off to invest in the future and be for productive in the future. along with all of the chaos that inflation causes, it undermines the ability to be productive in the future. >> first, as a trillion dollars must rank -- there are several

currencies that are more safe in the long run, but i think this is thione of these teachable moments. ronald reagan took pains to develop things right then by winning inflation out of the system in the early 1980's. a lot of republicans lost their jobs in 1982 because reagan was determined to do the right thing in for the country. i do not have a lot of faith that the politicians we just got rid of and politicians we are not dealing with have that kind of moral integrity to do the right thing by the dollar, to go through the pain of withdrawing excess liquidity out of the system. when you withdraw the excess liquidity, higher interest rates, oh, that is the worst in the world, the politicians will say. but it is critical to get excess money out of the system. inflation is like going to have the are and you have had seven drinks. you are feeling great. the next morning you are not calling to feel so great. using that drinking can more drinks the next day is a way of

putting yourself back on the wagon? no, that is what inflation is. it is in our product. you get in -- it is a narcotic. you get in trouble. we do not want to become argentina's for zimbabwe. i do not think there is any realistic fear we will be that bad, but i do is unclear on the path to quebec to the 1970's again. -going back to the 1970's again.

>> people come of all the time and say, what can i do? showing up at town hall meetings is very important, but there are a lot of petitions on line and you can find out what was going on with this health system. john tedero from the independent institute has some of her stickers out saying, "he is not my dr.." just make sure that people know that you are informed.

>> books -- next question, let's go in front here. the lovely lady in the orange. >> really great to have you here and it is a wonderful to see another vendor build a graduate on the panel as well. my question is, we have talked about all of these different things, but not tort reform. this, to me, is a huge issue coming from a medical background and so forth. i would like to hear you speak to this and the fact that, i think it was yesterday, howard dean of the other side finally admitted one of the reasons with the problem with health care is tort reform. i wanted to hear what you have to say. >> in this thousand page bill, somehow or other they just did not have [unintelligible] [laughter]

we know what the reason is, because the trial lawyers are supporting this legislation. in town hall meeting after town hall meeting, that is a huge lenin rod issue. people know that medical practices is one of the major drivers of costs. we have evidence of how you can begin to solve this problem. texas, for example, reformed its malpractice roles in 2003, 2005, fully in effect now. they have gotten some 7000 more physicians and who want to move to texas because it is from the air. the government does have a huge impact on the economy and the incentives it sets up and the disincentives. this is something that they could fix. but it is out or drop in this bill or with this american congress, i think. >> it started in the 1930's,

that i am aware, as a conscious doctrine of liberals that because you have poor people, average people being harmed and you cannot necessarily find somebody to compensate them, let's just say you have somebody with deep pockets, corporations. whether you are negligible or not, you will be held responsible. you have deep pockets. it was a cut -- a conscious shift of responsibility. over the years we saw bankruptcy and companies, driving doctors are of business because they cannot afford the insurance for liability. another example of one man tries to outthink the marketplace with a brilliant liberal idea, he set in train a series of decisions that rational people make, and then you end up with this catastrophe where you do not have all kinds of doctors available because of these

decisions were you would have otherwise profitable companies hiring, people out of work because they were assigned unfair responsibilities for their conduct. the need for tort reform is the product of another liberal idea in a long list. one more? one more very quick question. for very quick answer. -- or very quick answer. >> your been thrown into the pit with some very hard liberals on cnbc and you very brilliantly stand up for our ideals at the institute. i thank you for that. larry kudlow says europe is reforming their taxes. some are going to a flat tax or been reducing their business? -- their business tax. the we are going into the of the direction. is it true, in the first place, that they are reforming their taxed? and isn't that going to make us

even less competitive if that imbalance go that way? >> i was just talking to mr. j about this before the family -- before the panel. we live in a global economy, like it or not, and when you look at corporate -- corporate tax rate of around the world, you look at every socialist, european welfare state, what do you find it? they all, even france, they all have lower tax rates than america. not only that, but obama wants to expand the taxation of the multinationals trying to share in market share abroad. it may be rich people are bad and evil, like the left says, but rich people are not stupid. and maybe big companies are evil, like the left said -- i do not agree, but maybe they are. but you know what, they are not stupid. if america becomes in hospitable because of high taxes

environment, companies are going to look around the world and investors and entrepreneurs are going to look for on the world -- this is what the whole issue of tax competition is about -- and they will find it better to create jobs in places like switzerland and hong kong and even france over the u.s. you look at all of these flat tax countries that are springing up in eastern europe, look at this -- sweden, i was just in çsweden a couple of weeks ago. what has sweden done? it has eliminated its death tax. we cannot do that in america and we are supposed to be the cradle of free-market capitalism austria, i went to austria after sweden and they have eliminated their death tax and corporate wealth tax and cut their tax rate down to 25%. we are a 39%. we're shooting ourselves in the foot globally. i have some youtube videos out there. go to youtube and type in "?

competition" under the search thing. -- tight in "tax competition." this is my little project to try to reach out to new people to get informative six or seven minute videos on a key topic. you can learn how we are undermining our own competitiveness. when obama says we're going to increase the burden of government to raise tax rates, all of these bad policies are going to accumulate and investment of jobs, they're going to be in india and china. what is going to happen? the politicians are going to say, we're not getting more jobs and so we have to raise taxes even further. >> regretfully, we do not have 80 days to or on the world and assess all the other nations that could be competing with us. this is the end of this conversation. you have, i think, 12 minutes to get up and come back for what i think is going to be a very

fascinating conversation on hispanic voting at its use, which is going to affect politics more in the next 100 years. take a very quick break, 12 minutes. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> after the president's speech on tuesday, c-span will open our phone lines to take your phone calls to get your reaction to the speech, including a dedicated phone line for students and teachers. students in their classrooms will be able to watch on c-span or c-span.org. live coverage begins and noon eastern here on c-span. this, of course, will not be the first time the president has talked with students to run the country. go to the featured links section at c-span.org to find president

reagan's talk to students in 1988 and president george h. of the bush speech in 1991 to students. -- president george h. w. bush speech in 1991 to students. >> september 1 marks the 70th anniversary of the start of world war ii. at 9:00 p.m. eastern on to the -- eastern and pacific and c- span. >> now to the children's television act. witnesses include julius genachowski. this lasts about an hour and 45 minutes. >> this hearing will come to order and we will have some of our members coming. we just impeached the judge --

[laughter] so, some may be a little bit upset and so getting here, but they will be here. let me make my opening statement, the ranking member, kay bailey hutchison, is not here today. if nobody else comes, we will go right to you, mr. genachowski, and then we will see what happens from there. we have got lots of questions and you need to go after your first thing. we would love to have some of your folks that you are talking to come back in. then we have another terrific panel behind about. my approach to this, frankly, isn' not to start out controversially. i did that last year because i am so put off by the whole concept of promiscuity and the seriousness and all of these things. i'm a grandfather of -- i am a

grandfather and i care about that. i found out that this is a very much a first committee, so we have to work carefully, but i am determined that we will eventually get to this. now i want toç talk about the committee -- the commission, and the committee will talk about the committee in other sessions. i am delighted to see you and i have explained to people but just the very fact that you have been appointed is a testament to the president and his interest in the best people who give up, like john waldron, who you know. he was ready to retire, but could not stay away from the opportunity to do the office of science and technology, so here he is. television, obviously, is a very powerful force in children's lives.

children in america typically watch between two hours and four hours of television every day. i tried to not think of that just in terms of my home, but holmes where parents are both working and the stress is on them and whether to be sympathetic or not -- you sort of have to be, but then you have to think about the technology of how you handle all of this. this is what i want to get into today. stunningly, by the time they reach first grade -- it has been a long time since i was in first grade, but i think that is what, seven or eight years old? does that sound about right? >> the six. >> 6, that sound better. [laughter] that is more dramatic. they have spent what amounts to three school years in front of the television set by the time they are 6 years old. three school years.

i have a hard time even really getting past that thought. let me be clear, when used for good, television programming can enlighten and entertain and, indeed, teach. that can come from television itself. it can come from callosities -- from classic dvd's, the history channel, there are some new ways to be finallfundamentally and m. but when used for less noble purposes, it can expose children to an indecent, graphic, frightening scenes. which children, and the manner of not just children, but all people, never really get over it. i think it is had a coarsening effect on our children and our society. i regret that. i wish i could do something about that, and maybe together we can.

i think we have our right to be concerned, in other words. this is why 20 years ago congress enacted the chávez television act. 20 years ago is a long time. this law back and reduce the commercialization in children's programming, which is great. less on advertising and more poor -- more time on programming. it created a market for quality -- i hate the word, but i will use it to -- educational programming for our youngest viewers. very, very important. this is the good thing. these are the promise -- policies that we still want to promote. these are the values that we will dearly to today. this is what we look to as our children grow up as they become a new generation of leaders with a set of values that matches what what is required. but our media landscape has changed so dramatically during the last two decades. it is just like a blink of an eye. it is a will different world. we have a challenge.

how do we take these values and apply them to a very different media universe that we are faced with today, particularly our children, and have mastered and are part of and are already in comfort with it. a world where television sets are on the part of the media makes, a world with -- where television is fast using with programs over their mobile phones. it is hard for me to imagine, but i know it is true. to see my younger -- my son and his new wife reading the new york times on an iphone. -- reading the "new york times" on an iphone on a sunday morning. i am suspicious of that. i want a paper in my hand because i have this weird feeling that the iphone is leaving out some of the context and all you get is what is written from a year.

you cannot give back to some other page. there are two need to hear. and frzt, there is the need to provide good media content for children. secondly, there is the need to protect our children from harmful content, to provide and to protect. that is it, and we have got to do them both. this is why the committee would like to explore today how well the children's television act has worked in the judgment of the head of our fcc, and how it could be updated to reflect new digital media requirements, and whatever else may occur to you, sir. if we value what our children read, see, and here, we need to hold discussions like this. if we respect parents and their need for tools to a monitor their children's viewing, we need to hold discussions like this. and if we believe that there is some content that is simply not suitable for children, we need

tooled hearings and discussions like this. -- we need to hold hearings and discussions like this. it is no surprise to anyone in this room that i continue to have great concerns about violence, over which you do have some say, and indecency, which -- over which you have no say. i believe the programming was gratuitous sex and excessive violence harms or children and in a broader sense, the means our culture, not only to us but to the rest of the world. the rest of the world part is becoming larger and larger. this is not the central focus, having given his long speech, of today's hearing. let us now begin by identifying how we can work together to improve programming for children. in a general way. i thank you, julius, for being here. i thank the panel will follow

you, norell experts. one of them has a virginia background. -- who are real experts. one of them has a virginia background. we have got to do best by our young viewers. i now call on mark professopryoo is a consumer bureau in this area. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you have always been a tireless advocate of protecting our children not just on television, but in other media. you are saying, obviously, we're a leader on this nationally, and i appreciate this very much. chairman genachowski, it is great for you to be here. i want to thank you for bringing a new approach and a a new hemisphere to the fcc.

i look for to your in your statement and asking questions. thank you. >> before, sir, is yours. >> thank you. german rockefeller, center pryor, thank you for an viard -- inviting me here today to discuss the children's act and its role in the media age. i applaud you for commencing this timely and proper inquiry. mr. chairman, your commitment to children, known to everyone through such provisions as the e-rate and other provisions, the public appreciates it. senator pryor, your commitment to this issue, including the child safe viewing act is well known and appreciated. i want to thank you for your recent contribution of your staff member to my staff, an important step in revitalizing the fcc. thank you for that. the historic role of this committee, that it has played with respect to children on tv

-- and tv and a conjurations of its members is an important legacy to go on for the future. -- and the contributions of its members. the chávez act was enacted in 1990 to serve a dual courses of educational information for children -- the dual purposes of educational information for children and limit the commercial advertisements to which children are exposed. after almost two decades, three. stand out, as i see it. first, children remain our most precious national resource. it is absolutely essential as ever to make sure that kids are healthy and educated and prepared for the 21st century and that they are protected from commercial exploitation. second, television continues to have a powerful effect on our children and broadcast television remains a unique media, the exclusive source of videoç programming relied upony millions of households, even today as restore any reason

digital television transition. the commission's responsibility to enforce of the children's television act is vital. third, senator rockefeller, as you said, much has changed since the act was enacted in 1990. for instance, broadcasting has gone digital, offering new opportunities and challenges. multichannel video programming has grown dramatically since 1990 significantly expanding the program in choices of viewers who can afford to pay for television. the internet has vast the proliferated. video games have become as prevalent a detainment source in millions of homes and a daily reality for many kids. in my written statement i mentioned we have data and facts around all of this, but i think these trends are well known. the bottom line is that 20 years ago, parents were reading about one or two tv sets in the house. today, parents worry not only

about the tv, but the computer in the kitchen, the gaming consul in the basement, and the mobile phones in their kids pockets. no wonder parents increasingly find themselves playing the digital media equivalent of a zone defense across this expanding plainfield, facing an array of new challenges not contemplated 20 years ago. several of these issues are involved in an sec examination initiated by -- fcc examination initiative by senator pryor, which is due in august. that process reflected in a corporate and widespread interest in the influences of children in the media landscape there are a number of issues to explore. these include the quantity and quality of educational programming currently available. the ability of parents to find educational programming and other useful information. the capability of new digital technologies to better inform

parental choices. the current state of advertising on children's programming as well as other programming that has children in the audience. and that the assessment of new concerns and opportunities presented by the changing digital media world. exploring these and other issues, i believe certain values and goals and door. first, the importance of education. it is essential to make sure that our children have all the tools that they need to become valuable members of our economy and democracy. secondly, the importance of protecting children. video content for our nation's quds should not treat them as little consumers. guarding against in a proper marketing to jordan is as vital today as it was 20 years ago when congress limited commercial advertising to kids in the children's television act. third, the importance of empowering parents. parents should have access to a full range of tools in exercising their essential responsibility. fourth, recognizing the importance and varied roles of

government, parents, and private-sector in this effort. government and the private sector have a vital role to play in helping parents and protecting the health and well- being of children, while honoring an abiding by the first amendment. i am a hopeful that the evolving media landscape will produce a new business models to increase the amount of quality programming available to children and and has the ability of parents to pick and choose. i am hopeful that all providers will apply their creative talents to meeting the obligations to the american public. television lights sesame street, sproat, and others can be a force for good and positive public image as an educational messages can affect behavior in a healthy and productive ways. wilson a public service announcements have had real benefits, like reductions in teen pregnancy and drug use by children. as a the time for providers of digital content dress themselves, are reacting responsibly in view of our

products of its obligations? i also believe the congress and the fcc must be vigilant. given the importance of the enduring goals underlying the children television act and the changes in the marketplace technology, i believe the fcc should and will conduct an inquiry into how they can best predictor of and in the digital age. -- protect children and parents in the digital age. i will work with my colleagues to launch such an inquiry to gather facts that will informed decisions on how best to promote in a digital media world but critical goals that animate the children's television act. the inquiry will address both new concerns and new opportunities presented by the changing digital media world. it will be a resource for congress as itç examines these issues. meanwhile, i intend for the agency to take concrete action where appropriate. one such area involves interactive advertising one digital tv. five years ago, the commission reached the tentative conclusion

for dtv that absent a parental opt term, it should prohibit interactivity during children's programming that connect kids to commercial material. i believe the versatility of digital television will provide new and of official economic opportunities to broadcasters, a critical goal, especially in this time of economic challenge. at the same time, protecting kids from inappropriate commercialization remains the same. at this point, i am inclined to agree that the agency should make its tentative conclusion final and say that interactive ads directed at children are off limits without an often by parents. -- without an off pt in by parents. i have directed the s -- the fcc to revamp the children's television portion of fcc.gov. there is useful information in

the side. it is hard to find and requires a lot of clicks, but eventually there is information there. even when it is there, it is not presented in a way that is most useful to parents and others interested in identifying and finding a traditional programming. that kind of information should be easier to find an easier to use. my goal is for the fcc to have a model government website for parents and children. i commend the german for commencing this crucial -- commend the chairman for commencing this crucial examination of children in the media age. >> what would you feel about a little red button on the tv monitor? which a child could push for a child's parent could push -- just a little button, sitting right up there, bright red -- and you push it and you find out how what is to follow is

rated in terms of family values and things of this sort? i think it was the pew charitable trusts that came out and showed that 16% of people know how to work all of this of stuff -- i hate to embarrass anyone who cannot work it themselves. that includes the chairman. easy ways to and empower people about the what they're going to see, easy ways for children. now, how you make children if they see that it is not rated very well -- that will entice them. and i cannot answer those things, but i'm looking for a way to solve our problems in a family friendly way which works.

ok, enough of that. the children's tv act is two decades old. technology has changed. everything has sort of gone under the broadcast road because that is where we were back then. they watched in -- programming over the internet and they anticipate a fusion of the television screen and the computer screen, increasingly use mobile phones -- all of which we have talked about. the book of the joyous television act really does apply only to broadcasting as a function of 20 years ago. while the advertising restrictions applied to children's programming on both broadcast and cable, the three and orol is only for broadcasting. the law is fairly narrow in its

scope and broadcast standard in its focus. -- broadcast a a centric in its focus. should really be concerned about children's interaction in media when it occurs over the airwaves? or do all of these other forms of new media and a of forms of watchdog iging program, if there is a way to make that happen? next question, what should the congressç do to update the gise as an act so that the law better of dates -- the children's television act some of the law better a of dateupdates? >> we have parents receive broadcast and cable and parents to receive just broadcasting. broadcasting only is the prevalent form of distribution and millions of homes, roughly

15 million, i think, and for that reason i think that making sure that broadcast television continues to provide quality educational programming for children is important. with respect to cable, parents to receive both kinds of programming in their home i think are most interested in making sure that across the array of channels that are coming into the one they have choices. and there is some quality programming on cable. i suspect a big part of the frustration that parents have with respect to cable is the first issue that you mentioned. how do we find -- what tools do we have to both identify quality programming for kids, depending on their age and level of interest. how do we exercise the control that we as parents want to exercise if there are certain things that come into our home that we do not want our kids to see? to your earlier statement when

you started, i am an optimist on the power of technology if it is unleashed in this area to empower parents. i think we should think big and expect big things from innovators, hundred doors, and the media industry. we should have a world where is the parent has a 6-year-old who this doing great -- who is doing great on mouth but has vocabulary challenges and a parent can say easily, where can i find programming that is high quality and will help with vocabulary or help with history or math? it should be easy to find. the courts which has to do with the website. >> in may also -- >> which has to do with the website. >> it may have to do with the website, but also the forms of distribution into the living room. the fact that broadcasting is now digital is a significant fact. it should allow for more

empowerment, more choices through the television in the living room than there used to be. with the beginnings of that, and one of the reasons i would like to see the fcc to an inquiry in this area is to ask exactly these questions. one, what is the state of the marketplace now? the sec could use much better data on what is actually going on. -- the fcc could use much better data on what is going on. the second, there are tools that the senate has requested, but i think that will be at the beginning of this inquiry. what are the ways that we can help parents make better choices from the sources we have identified? >> i think since there are only three of us here -- i mean, talking -- i think we should be loose on our restrictions. i cursed the five and a role in my opening statement. -- i crushed the 5 minute rule

in my opening statement. i present to you know senator mark prior. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for mentioning the child safe viewing act. hopefully, some good will come about. i actually encourage you to think about what chairman rockefeller said a few minutes ago about a button either on the tv set or on the remote-control, or both. i think it is an interesting concept that you can almost get a status report of what you are watching and hit the button and it would come up with the ratings and how it is rated. a that would be a useful tool for parents, a quick easy tool for parents. but also, it would bring awareness to anyone paying attention that the television set does have the v-chip

technology in it and it would probably prompt millions of parents to go in and set the settings. i think the vast majority right now prole do not know it is in there, or if they do they do not take the time to set it up. just as you are going through your process, i think you ought to consider that has an option and it may be some good technology out there. it may make a big difference -- a difference. another concern i have, and this is just the name -- the changing nature of technology, is the fact that our children now have access to video streaming, broadcast, just all kinds of media, internet, through their cell phones, their mobile devices. to me, this measure as the challenges that we have -- this mushrooms the challenges that we have because if we are to try to

pay attention editor set up our cable or satellite? -- pay attention and set up our cable or satellite box and do the v-chip or all of the above and send a child gets a telephone with the internet, it opened several up to them.

it opens this is to education that we have not seen before. at the same time we need to make sure that parents are concerned about how do we make sure that while my kids are doing homework there? fixing the other kinds of information that are there -- they are not accessing the other kind of a nation that are there. i want to give parents the tools to exercise their responsibilities that they want. i do not think that there is -- every parent wants more and better quality programming across all media.

no parent wants their kids exploited. and they want a simple, easy to use tools that can help them to exercise their choices. they prefer to do it themselves and not have the government do it for them. one of the things we can do with this inquiry is take a hard look at what we can do to promote innovation that i think parents want. what is the reason why there are more and better filtering tools on the internet than there is with respect to television? let's ask the question. let's understand why that is and let's see if there are things that can be done to increase the level of innovation on all distribution platforms. >> let me also ask why have a minute here, and that is, as i understand it in 2007, the fcc began an inquiry in response to whether educational and informational programming had

any significant educational value. and you may not know because you are new there, but you know the status of that and when the fcc will complete this review? apparently, they'll call: -- apparently there was a a recent study released that highlights the fact that there may be programming that recalls that it doesn't have any educational value. >> it is a concern that i heard and i share. i don't have a timetable on when the commission will address it. i think it is in everyone's interest for broadcasters to understand what the rules are so there are no surprises. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. carrying on the distinguished chairman of the consumer subcommittee, who really does an incredible amount of good work around here. the whatever it is, he takes it

on. my wife works for washington public television station and you get the routineç of children's programming. one of the things as i watched my grandchildren, i mean, the last several weeks has been a real education for because it has been awhile since i've been around grandchildren and i watched very closely what they watch. boy, are they over the place. the oldest one is for -- are they all over the place. the oldest one is before you are and the yen was one is at one and a half. it is amazing. i am thinking to myself, if you have got mr. rogers when he was around and then you have got sesame street, and they are around, and you have got all these things which have worked traditionally. they are considered safe and confidence-building and dave are

a little copies and products. i have no idea if as generations are able to begin -- granted, older than my grandchildren -- to do all of these multimedia convergences, whether the stretch -- the standard of 20 years ago about what children should see and can here and watch and learn from, get excited by, whether it still works. but going right after mark parkepryor's question, was supe. these days with their knowledge? >> it is a good question. i groped with zuma and other programs that were great for their time. -- i grew up with zoom and other

programs that were great for their time. every generation of kids find different forms of entertainment compelling. i am glad that during elah -- gary knell is here. i am not a program are and i do not pretend to know what kind of quality and educational programming will most attract viewers. i do believe that our creative talent can continue to develop a high-quality educational programming that needs evolving tastes and interests of children in a way that is consistent with standards that do not change, quality, education, giving parents something to choose for their kids that they actually like. i do not think that if we think

of this as medicine that our children have to take we will accomplish much. kids will not watch it and we will have programming on tv that is like the tree falling in the forest. but i do think we have enough creative talent that if we can create platforms, create demand, create a choice, we can make progress. let me add one thing to that. a degree of creative talent, i think we have demand on the part of parents. i am hopeful that technology can now bridge so that creative talent can supply the demand for parents in a way that i hope in the digital world are supported by strong business models. i look forward to hearing gary knell on this topic. >> the fcc, this whole question of how you stimulate educational programming for our youngest, i

have to say at this point is a profoundly important question to me. i almost translate it into where our nation is headed. if we do this right, we can make an enormous difference in the right. if we do it wrong, we will get into all of the kinds of violence and things which is easy to attribute to tv. maybe you cannot -- or movies or whatever -- but it is enormously important in what it does to the american image overseas. they see things they cannot believe and our kids are taking them for granted. and letting it roll off their back or letting it sink in in unfortunate ways. the broadcasters were required by the fcc to do something called the three-hour rule. those three hours had to be dedicated to programming that is

really good for all children. and it was designed for children and not meant to deviate from their edition. do you believe the three-hour rule is working under the children's television act -- is working? under the children's television act, the fcc has the authority to increase the 3-arlin will and require more. -- the three-hour rule and require more. is there something the fcc is considering doing end since the rule was adopted, -- is considering doing? and since the rule was adopted, the sec has done little to enforce it and has had little interest in it. what can the sec do better to monitor the quality -- the fcc do better to monitor the quality of the programming? if you can figure out where the three hours is -- that is my problem. it used to be that kids do their

homework and studying at 6:00 and it went from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.. now it is my personal a lot of kids are doing their homework at 10:00 p.m. they're watching all of this parental stuff. ponder that out loud, will you? >> i would be happy to. let me start with your last point, which is, there have to be things that the sec can do -- fcc can do to give the public access to the information the fcc has. the important thing behind children's television act and its original implementation was the public check on what broadcasters would be doing. there are roles around identifying program -- a program on tv as educational information, putting the information in the broadcaster'' public files. those rules made sense for the

technologies as they existed when the rules were implemented. we are now in an internet world where this information should be very easily accessible to parents. as i mentioned in my opening remarks, i have directed the media bureau at the fcc to revamp its portion of the website to list the show's. it should be easily accessible to parents. if the police need a fair test and it is not getting one now. with respect to your broader question, to me, the right next step for the agency to take is to analyze what really is going on in the marketplace both with respect to broadcasting, with respect to cable and satellite, anecdotally i think we can see areas of concern. and also, some good news, there is programming available on

cable that was not available 20 years ago when the act was passed. that is good news. that programming is now available to american to do not have cable. -- is not available to americans who do not have cable. there's also the so-called "ei" programming that is on broadcasting. we will look at the quantity issue that you raised, the quality issue that you raised, the parental tools it should be raised and the enforcement issue that you raised. >> may i make one more comment? just to emphasize my feeling about the importance of all of this, i hardly go back to west virginia but that i do not have a roundtable with parents, school teachers, psychologists, psychologists -- psychiatrists, principals who are scared,

horrified, helpless in many respects, who feel alienated from the process, who have absolutely no idea what the fcc does. i could talk about a web site and so could you, well, what do they know about a website unless they have heard about it? they do not know what to do and they desperately want to do well by their children and they feel that they cannot. i am not asking for a response. i am simply saying how important i think this is. mark pryor. . .

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> welcome. you're all good friends an on speaking terms and that kind of thing? we have a nation to save. and a young generation to save and an older generation to save. let me introduce the panel. it's mr. gary nell. right across the street. dr. sandra calvert and here's where my west virginia pride just starts -- >> absolutely. >> it's a great hokey thing to do.

but i can't help it. you are considered absolute master of the subject and i mean it, the children's digital media center and you work at georgetown and there's other titles and things but we're going to wait to hear from you and i'm really thrilled you're here. mr. john lawson, executive director of the i.o.n. media networks of arlington, virginia. mr. -- ms. argimi who is president of nickelodeon which my grandchildren watch a great deal. and the mtvn family group from new york, mr. james dier, is that right? i'm terrified of names like that. >> you got it right. >> i did, ok. c.e.o. of common sense media. sounds like a very dangerous crew.

>> it's a really important hearing to be here for. >> have we got any chocolate chip cookies? can we just start and incidentally we're joined by our good senator from alaska and he just got here too late to make a statement, don't you think, mark? just barely missed it. yeah. yeah. but he is absolutely terrific. he's 47 years old, mayor of anchorage. first term, walks in here, doesn't use a note, everything occurs up here, he seems to know everything. and he's part of the new eagerness of this committee which i want to make very, very clear to you. we are a different committee. we are hired -- we have hired investigators, like henry waxman has. we look into dark corners, we want to know who's doing what. we love beating up on the insurance industry. we're very, very good at it.

and we don't want to have to do that on television. so, mr. gary nell, can we start with you, sir? >> well -- hm. thank you very much, mr. chairman. and members of the committee. i'm gary nell. we are delighted that you have a new figure added to this committee, for one, and focusing on children's television, as you articulated, is so welcome and so necessary, think, as we move forward in the 21st century. we're celebrating sesame street's d 40th birthday. when you think of how the world has changed in the last 40 years, it was started with the premise of using the power of television to teach preschoolers and give them a heads up to get them better prepared for school. and i think, you know, we all know about the success i wish i could have brought elmo, he would have been a much more vibrant witness than i am, but he's busy taping and trying to

do positive media for kids. so today we focus again on the children's television act and there were two chings when sesame street was created 40 years ago, that were repeated in the act, it was about trying to harness the power of children, the educational role of media, because we knew that television was teaching, and of course what the act focused on was limiting the negative impacts of our children's health and media sometimes unfortunately walks into. and since 20 years ago, as you pointed out earlier, and chairman january couseky pointed out, the whole idea of the act, promoth better media on a broadcast station or limiting commercial time on broadcast stations, was very well intended but in a 2010 context, in my view, almost irrelevant today. as we look at a world where you're grandchildren will never know a world before cell phones, will never know a world before ipods, never know a world before nintendo, wii or

playstations or d.s. or ipods. so everything is changed, mr. chairman. but the needs are the same. the needs are really about education for our kids as we have 30% of our children in this country dropping out of high school. and we know by the fourth grade if they are not readers in an appropriate grate level way the chances of them dropping out of high school are so great and today we don't have as big a need in preschool programming. there's a lot of educational preschool programming. there were two preschool shows in 1988, fred rogers and "sesame street." today there are 47. the big dirth is in 6 to 11-year-old programming. that critical age group when children go from learning to reading from reading to learn. that's where we need to take a look. i hope that the chairman and his inquiry will take a look at how we can incentivize the creation of educational content

for this targeted age group that really needs our help in terms of using media which we know teaches and making a difference in their lives. we're pleased that the new broadband act that you helped enact earlier this year promotes education in serving underserved communities. that's really important. we have to make that stick. it's critically important as we go through the next decade as we are going to see a merger of formal learning, digital learning, more and more into our classrooms, and informal learning at home. these things are going to get more merged as technologies get more sophisticated. and finally on the public health issues, there are just huge public health issues. i want to just point to one. i chaired a task force for senator brownback who is a member of this committee, and senator harkin, and the former f.c.c. chairman, kevin martin, to try to get voluntary guidelines around food marketing to kids. we made a lot of progress but there were a couple of holes

that still were not filled. one was, there's still confusion out in the marketplace about so-called union formed nutrition standards so that parents understand and broadcasters understand and food companies understand about what is healthy food and what is an unhealthy food. these are things which i think our government still needs to focus on and clarify. and at the same time media companies who play such a strong gate keeper role, whether they admit that or not, they are still in many ways a channel between a child and the content. how can they step up to understand their powerful role in making a difference in children's lives as we face this great epidemic around childhood obesity in this country, where children today are expected to live fewer years than their parents? there's a very important role that media needs to play here. so the importance of education continues in 2010, just as it did back in 1969 with sesame

and in 1990 with the children's television act and the ability to promote media as a health solution as opposed to part of the problem are the two things i'd like the committee to really focus on as you hone in on taking a new look at children's television. thank you. >> no, thank you. that's well said. had not previously been said. dr. sandracal vert, director of the children's digital media center at georgetown. >> good afternoon, chairman rockefeller and members of the senate committee on commerce, signs and transportation. i am sandra calvert, a professor of psychology, the director of the children's digital media center and a native of west virginia. 21st century work skills require knowledge of and a facility with digital technologies. my own work at the children's digital media center and that

of my colleagues includes an examination of how we can harness the power of 21st century digital media to enlighten and educate children as well as prepare them for our future. the children's television act is an important vehicle for accomplishing this goal. from the cradle throughout their development, children's lives are imbedded in digital media and the first six years of life, children spend an average of two hours per day in front of a screen. from age 8 through the adolescent years, the amount of media time jumps to 6 1/2 hours per day or more than eight hours of daily use if multitasking is considered. while television is still the dominant immediate -- medium of choice, pour that interactive media are rapidly making inroads into children's daily media ex peens -- experiences. congress recognized this when it passed the children's television act in 1990 which required broadcasters to provide educational and

informational television programs to child viewers as well as to restrict the amount of commercial advertisements broadcast during those programs. since the passage of the children's television act, commercial broadcasters have had to provide no more than a mere three hours of educational television content per week. even so, a 2008 content analysis reported by children now revealed that children's educational television programs were education alley insufficient. with the implementation of digital television as the standard format for televised broadcast, the time to reconsider the requirements of the children's television act is now. we have many children who are struggling or failing in school. our children's standardized scores on mathematics, science and reading literacy assessments trail behind their international peers. this state of affairs is

appalling. our country knows how to create quality media and well designed educational content is effective in listening the scholastic success of our youth. digital television allows broadcasters to transmit high-def nigs images, multicast four to six channels in format and provide services such as options. nonpbs stations are taking advantage of the media by creating website content that sum meants the educational messages they transmit via television programs. these pour that digital media interfaces allow children to create, to interact directly with educational material and extend learning they get from viewing television content to a different platform that allows them to control what they are learning at a rate that fits their own current skill level. the commercial broadcasters by contrast have been far less likely to take advantage of this powerful option.

at this point, it is timely for the commercial broadcasters to return something in kind to the american public for the use of our bandwidth. therefore i recommend that congress in conjunction with the federal communications commission considering the following steps, one, require commercial broadcasters to expand their educational and informational program offerings on the airwaves and on websites. two, expand the number of players who are part of the educational and informational mix. those who create interactive media should be high on this list. three, allocate funds for a center that is a public-private partnership to serve as a think tank for creating, for testing the efficacy of, and for distributing high quality media, particularly interactive media. the children's television act was passed by congress almost 20 years ago as a way to use our media in a constructive way for our children's development.

the promise and vision by congress at that time of a quality children media environment remains just that, a promise. i ask to you act so that the dream of a quality media environment for children -- can become a reality in the early part of the 21st century. german -- chairman rockefeller and committee members, thank you for your time. please regard the children's digital media center as a resource to the committee as you consider this and other issues. >> we surely will and i like your idea very, very much. >> thank you. >> john lawson, you may not be a doctor. >> i'm not, sir. i played one on television. >> ok. i love that. executive vice president i.o.n. media networks, from the distant city of arlington, virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator prior, thank you very much for having me here to

discuss broadcasters' continuing dedication to children's education and the ground breaking efforts made by i.o.n. media in that area. i'm john lawson, executive vice president of i.o.n. media networks which is the nation's largest broadcast television group. i testified today in my role as a member of the n.a.b. board of directors of the national association of broadcasters and more importantly as a parent. i'm happy, mr. chairman, that my wife and twin sons are here with me today. right over there. >> they are such great looking kids. and i have been wondering. so i want them to stand up. >> they take after their mother. >> you're right about that. thank you, boys. >> i hope that statement added credibility to the rest of my statement. senator, we don't -- we live in virginia but we do have a home

in west virginia that we love. >> this is not a conspiracy. i am locationally neutral. >> to make sure i.o.n. and local television stations across the country share congress' goal of promoting quality education and informational children's programming, i don't think it's lost on anyone that children are a precious resource and we must provide them with the tools to allow them to succeed. to this point, local broadcasters remain the foundation in communities across the country as the leading source of news, safety information, culture, education, entertainment and sports. as we look at the children's television act, almost 20 years after enactment, a number of issues service -- surface. first, local broadcasters continue to provide high quality diverse education and programming to meet the needs of these young viewers and with

d.t.v. we're doing even more. thanks to the efforts of you, chairman rockefeller, and the leadership of this committee, full power broadcasters have now successfully transitioned to all digital broadcasting. on june 12, america became the first enlarged country in the world to complete the transition to d.t.v. and millions of household as i cross the country are now enjoying dramatically better pictures and sound as well as new platforms for children's programming. for example, i.o.n. airs three digital multicast streams that include a full-time kids channel that fills the gap that gary was mentioning between preschool and between channels. we also broadcast i.o.n. life, a channel dedicated to active living, as well as our main service, i.o.n. television, broadcasters are also preparing to deploy mobile d.t.v. that would allow anyone with an enabled cell phone or laptop to receive free television wherever they go. marme, i'm very proud that i

can demonstrate for you and the committee mobile digital television. this is our kids' service displayed through an over the air signal coming from our local i.o.n. station on an l.g. cell phone that was equipped to receive mobile television. and we will be displaying these and other devices at a hearing, at an event on the house side next week. so this is d.t.v., sir. >> i'm impressed. i would love to be able to see it. >> i'll be glad to bring it to you, mr. chairman, as your convenience. in fact, i will close it now so it won't distract me. so, we're excited by d.t.v. and the new services it brings, including mobile. since its debut in 2007, it remains the only 24/7 children's television service, the only one that is

distributed nationally, free and over the air. this ground breaking bilingual destination for children features programs that focus on literacy, values and healthy lifestyles. and celebrates the unlimited possibilities of a child's imagination. moreover, it recently voluntarily adopted a set of nutritional guidelines for acceptable foods that can be advertised on air. it has been called the gold standard and the media's efforts to combat childhood obesity and we commend senator brownback and others for their work in this area. we hope these efforts seand strong message to parents, policymakers and business partners about hour dedication to the wellness of america's kids. at this time, however, we hope this committee will examine and support ways to encourage distribution for broadcasters like i.o.n. who are attempting to provide positive media alternatives to children and families. as recognized in today's hearing, parents have abundant additional choices beyond the services provided by the

nation's commercial broadcast stations of programming that is specifically designed to meet their needs. children access media through a number of devices and services, including cable and satellite, d.v.d.'s, videos and game systems, not to mention the internet. and of course in any discussion of children's program, we must make special mention of the efforts of our noncommercial educational stations which have been riched the lives of american children for years and i'm honored to be on this panel with my friend, gary knell. as we sit here today, broadcasters are linking up to the next 20 years of children's television. it first and foremost, we remain committed to providing quality children's educational and informational programming that serves the public's interest. at the same time we must remain vidgelent against content that is not suitable for young children and in this regard, we must utilize technologies in the most effective tool of all, parental control. broadcasters also recognize the leadership of senator prior in this area and agree on the

importance of continued innovation. in conclusion, broadcasters look forward to working with this committee as it re-examines the children's television act. broadcasters' commitment to children is now limited to three hours a week. as many of you know, broadcasters work very closely every day to serve their local communities and again thank you for the opportunity to spee speak with you today about this important subject and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you, sir. and now, mrs. sargami, president of nickelodeon and mtvn family group. from new york. >> thank you, chairman rockefeller, for inviting me to be a part of today's hearing. i am president of nickelodeon and i will be buying a house in west virginia shortly. i have been working at nickelodeon for 24 years,

basically half my life. when i first came to nickelodeon, cable tv was relatively new and you still had to get off the couch to change the channel. i was at nickelodeon when the television's children's act was written. the media was a different place then. kids watched tv on broadcast networks on saturday mornings or on week days in syndication. the latch key kid phenomenon had just begun. there were much smaller percentages of divorce and two-working parent families and channels like the cartoon network did not even exist. 99% of nickelodeon's content came from canada and my three sons was the top rated program in prime time on nickelodeon. today, i have three sons, nickelodeon is 30 years old, it produced close to 100% of its own content and we've been the number one rated cable channel for 15 straight years. it's been the opportunity to serve kids that has kept me here this long. nickelodeon was created originally to serve older kids

who were watching a lot of adult-targeted tv. it was also meant to be a place where kids could relax and laugh because we knew that it was tough to be a kid in a grownup's world. and it still is. we wrote and made promises to our audience that made up our core brand attributes and they are as true today as when we first wrote them. we put kids first, we respect them, we're inclusive of all kids and we listen to them. we fielded many thousands of studies over the years to better understand their lives and i believe that's been one of the keys to our success. nickelodeon has always followed the guidelines set forth by the children's television act and we believe that the commercial limitations set forth in the act have been valuable and good for the audience. we at nickelodeon do not feel, however, the need for any additional regulation. today, nickelodeon's audience ranges from preschoolers to families. we serve them all on television, online and in many other areas. nickelodeon's overall programming day is carefully constructed to serve the audience that is prevalent in

that day part. morningings are for preschool, afternoons for bigger kids and eengs are for families. for older kids, we always strive to tell authentic and relateble stories that allow them to feel good about themselves. on nickelodeon, they see kids that look like them dealing with universal kid issues on shows like "i carly" and "true jackson v.p.." for families we just added an hour of prime time programming. recent research we cucted told us that kids and parents want to spend more time together. we've seen co-viewing increase on shows like "george lopez" and "home improvement." at the other end of the spectrum, nickelodeon has been making gold standard preschool programming for 15 years with shows like "blue's clues." recently parents told us that they wanted more quality educational programming in the evening hours so last year we extended our commercial-free

preschool channel to 24 hours and the response has been terrific. between nickelodeon and that, we air 200 hours of educational content a week. and you should know that each episode of shows like "dora the explorer" cost approximately 650,000 episodes to produce. we also promise kids to celebrate their important moments in their lives with them and address issues in the world that effect them. we created the kid's choice awards to allow kids to vote for things they love in entertainment and it's become a version of the oscars for kids. nick news on the other hand has been on our channel for 17 years and has helped explain major news events that impact kids in a kid-appropriate way. and since 1988 we've let kids have their own vote for president. it's one of our favorite campaigns that teaches kids about how our country chooses its president and it happens usually before the presidential election and the kids just about always pribblingt the actual winner -- predict the actual winner.

initiatives have helped inform, empower and activate kids about everything from how they can improve their neighborhoods, the environment and their own personal health and wellness. and every year we select a day to go off the air and offline to remind kids to go outside, be active, and play. thanks to our affiliate partners, we have followed our audience and they've moved toward new technologies and platforms this generation of kids seamlessly navigates between television, online and mobile for entertainment. today a child or parent can watch a nickelodeon program at its scheduled time on television, on video on demand, on the internet, from i tunes or use a digital video recorder to store hours of self-selected programming. these new platforms are growing in numbers as they serve the needs of the consumer and families in particular. we have a multitude of safety tools on all of our websites, including a partnership with the national center for missing and exploited children. i believe that today's generation of children and parents are being far better

served with quality programming and prosocial nirvetives than any previous generation. in my 25 years in this business of serving kids, i've met hundreds of executives like many here today who are devoted to doing right by this audience. and after 30 years, we at nickelodeon have a generation of young parents who knew us when they were kids and understand what to expect when they allow their kids to access our content. we've earned their trust and look forward to continuing to earn it, moving forward in years to come. thank you. >> thank you very much. dora's big in our household. dr. james dier, c.e.o. of the common sense media. you come all this way breaking into your vacation, we thank you but we think it's worth it. >> i think it's worth it, too, chairman rockefeller. thank you very much for having us here today. i'm also a consulting professor at stanford university where i've taught for over 20 years.

i'm sure i've had people from alaska, arkansas and many from west virginia in my classes in the last year alone. so there you go. i'm also a dad of four kids so i always think of that. >> i'm leaving, i'm so embarrassed. >> fair enough. i want to try to summarize what some have said on the panel. you're right, we do all know each other on this panel. i think i want to go back to something you said at the end of your remarks. to us, this is truly a transformational moment in the history of media in this country and i believe you said, senator rockefeller, this really is where our nation is headed. and i think that's correct. and i think that we need to take a look at this issue in that light. not just in the context of where we are in the children's television act of 1990, but where the educational and economic future of this country is headed. because media on all of its various platforms that exist today and that will exist over the next 10 or 20 years, is central to our domestic and international security and

future, period. you cannot look at the issues that we're talking about without a basic framework. so we would just like to suggest one for you today that could inform this committee's leadership in this area and you have demonstrated real leadership in this area and i do believe what you said to chairman janikowski, that this is a new era and that's critically important. i want to create that framework and in some ways echo what julian said in his comments. i think it's three fold. basically, education, empower and protect. whether it's television, whether it's your apss -- apps that my 5-year-old can download on my iphone, whether it's john's latest i.o.n. tv, whatever device he has over there. let me frame that four very simpley. i think this is it and this committee has a chance to lead this nation into the 21st century finally on these issues. when we talk about education, i think there are two key issues. first of all, there needs to be far more quality educational content distributed not just on television but all platforms.

the content is there but it has to be distributed across all of the platforms. that's first. the second part of education is educating kids but also their parents and teachers about digital literacy and citizenship. that is what the essence of this really is about at the end of the day. we live in a digital media world and if our kids are not digitaly literal, -- literate, they will not compete, they won't grow up in the right way and we need to educate their parents and teachers because they can't teach or parent without that kind of literacy. that has to be part of our mission here. we also talked and in the discussion period we can talk more about what we mean by digital literacy and what this nation and committee ought to do in that regard. empowerment is very simple, mr. chairman. that's your little red but theble. in fact, we're much closer to the little red button than you

may realize. at common sense we rate, review every book, music, video show, well over 10,000 titles to date. we're in the middle of discussing whether we should rate all the apps on iphones. that's a huge editorial undertaking but the information exists today and the technology exists today. so leadership from this committee and the f.c.c. in empowering parents across the country to access simple, easy to use d, third party, nonpartisan information around media platforms is critical and i think that the technology exists and the information exists so a little leadership from this committee and the f.c.c. will do a ton in that regard. we're essentially a consumer reports guide for media from a kids and family perspective and it's out there, it's to be used. we have 50 million, 60 million users over the course of a year now. your little red button can be made available to every family in this country soon. the third element of this framework is to protect. you mentioned that in your

opening remarks, marme, and i agree that that's critical. but the protection element not only comes from industry leadership from folks like nickelodeon and others, but from this committee and from the f.c.c. i teach first amendment law at stanford and i very much believe that we can frame protective efforts by this committee and by this government that balance important first amendment freedoms with the best interest of our kids and families, whether it's issues like childhood obesity or violence or inappropriate sexual messages during ball games i'm trying to watch with my kids, there are enormous public health issues implicit in our media today. it's coming out of adult content that kids are consuming and sometimes creating. that protective landscape can be created and oversie seen by this committee, as i said, consistent with the first amendment principles that i have to teach every year to my students. at the end of the day, this really is that very special moment and that transformational period you're talking about, mr. chairman. this committee has an opportunity to work with people

on both sides of the aisle and one of the great aspects of the issue we're talking about today is that it is a truly bipartisan concern. this is truly an issue that republicans and democrats can come together on to forge a new consensus and new investment in leadership to change our kids' future. so i would leave you by saying, you couldn't have picked a more important topic. it's a lot -- it's so important that i was willing to give up my vacation for a couple days. and i would urge you to think big, think dramatic, make major investments and all of our kids will benefit from what you all do. thanks a lot. >> thank you a lot. when i started all this i said that i was so fed up with the f.c.c. i want to remake the whole thing. just scrap it and start all over again. i don't think we're going to have to do that now because i think we have some superb chairmen and commissioners. but it is so incredibly important. i mean, it used to be that children reacted to us and now i think we have to be reacting

to children and we're not. and this is the most serious part of it. and as little children and little corners of rooms look at things, television sets or their little hand held sets, they're seeing things which influence them deeply, which flows into them in ways that we can't understand, which we didn't have to deal with. i started out with a round television set watching a new york giant baseball game with one set. you couldn't see anything. but it was television. so i was excited. it's a lot different now, has a big affect on them and i think it does determine the direction of the world. >> if i may, one thing i would urge this committee to think about in this you this media age is kids are not just consumers of media but they're creators of media. that's what text messaging is, that's what much of the content that we all deal with on a daily basis is. it's kids as creators of media. it's what you also must have digital literacy because they have to understand, if you

will, the basic rules of the road and issues like privacy, identity and the other things that go hand in hand with the ability to be a creator which all children are today with these new platforms. so that has to be part of this committee's leadership as well. and your grandkid, your 4 1/2-year-old grandchild, will be creating media sooner than you think. so they need to be educated as creators as well as consumers of media. >> thank you, sir. thank you very much. i'd like to start the questioning with mark. >> thank you very much. now that you've raised the bar so high in your introduction of me, i'm nervous about the questions i have to ask. >> i just said you were 47. that was all. >> that's all, i know. first, thank you all, mr. chairman, thank you for doing this and thank you all for being here. i'm a parent of almost 7-year-old. so i have some real hand experience, real life experience in regards to tv. i can probably tell you many of the characters. i haven't seen be a adult movie in i don't know how many years

now. let me ask a couple -- you intrigued me -- a couple of you mentioned this but i know mr. knell you mentioned it and that was the 60 -- 2 -- 6 to 11 age group. this is a gap. and i don't know what the right answer -- i know, you know, my son now likes watching george lopez. i tried explaining that was for older kids but he prefers to watch. it i know the adult at the end of the day has total control over what a kid watches. we practiced that aggressively with one tv in our house, down in the family room only. so we're very aggressive about that. but how do we get to, without mandatory requirements, in regards to ensuring that there's good content for 6 to 11 year olds? because i agree with you, that is a huge gap. a lot of good stuff from preschool, no question about it. when you talked about preschool 24 hours, i think that's great

except my son will not watch. that he's not interested. so he jumps to the preteen or the between stuff. any moment when a boy or girl kisses, that's the end of it, he's like, change the channel. but everything else he try tries to watch. that to me is a challenge. >> yes. thank you for pointing that out, senator. you know, our kids are digital learners and i think that they're walking into school now at age 5 oar 6 able to use media better than some of their teachers. i was zpwer viewed by a reporter yesterday who told me that her 2-year-old was downloading iphone apps off of her phone. >> my son's using quick books. he likes printing checks and invoices. we're a small business family. so he thinks that's very

intriguing to him. then he gives us a bill. >> we need to focus on the pure factor of parents more than anything else. in seriousness, one way to go about this is looking at a pipeline through schools. and we have been talking to the department of education and i know that secretary duncan is a big advocate of trying to merge this need of having these digital learners coming into school today with figuring out a way in which we can create content that will bring from the school to the home. because we're seeing, of course, that someone mentioned earlier, that homework, i think the chairman mentioned that homework is being given out and you're connecting child -- when you get to high school, think how much more powerful it is when you have harry truman's speech about the atomic bomb, you know in that high school classroom rather than reading it in a textbook. well, we can do that for 6 to 9-year-olds and we need to make media as a partner in this and figure out ways we can incentivize folks. the fact is, there's not a lot

of advertising money that is available for this age group of 6 to 9-year-olds and even though my friend has done great work in nickelodeon in trying to address that group, along with some of our colleagues at cartoon and disney who tend to dominate that age group, we have not really seen an abundance of programming that is not more tipping toward the entertainment side. you sort of go from preschool education to all entertainment all the time. and we have to figure out a way to get the best of hollywood and the best of silicon valley focused on this need to create programming that is going to move the needle on the education side. let's focus on those kids, let's get -- let's really try to make that happen. >> if we can, again, if i pronounce your name wrong, two parts that i want a response, the second is for kids that are

not preschool, the morning is also important. i know you mentioned you have preschool in the morning which we took advantage of more than once. but now in the morning it's important for also that age group and so could you kind of address -- i call it the working family, single parents, which you really highlighted, it's that 3 to -- 3:00 to 7 pk, 6:00 pk when a care giver might be there or in my wife's case, our mother-in-law who tells me stheas strict but i know based on his comments what he's watched that day, let me just say that. that's my last question for right now. >> i will tell that in nickelodeon in the very early days did a lot of research with kids to find out what it was that they were interested in getting from television. and we are primarily an entertainment brand for kids and we feel very strongly that we want to do right by them as well. so the idea that we could, you

know, i mentioned it earlier, it's tough to be a kid in a grownup's world, and kids, one of the biggest issues for kids when we began and i think one of the biggest issues for kids today, once they get out of the preschool age, is, what is going on for them at school and how do they navigate the real world as bigger kids? and they are going to school to get their academic education, but what they don't necessarily have, particularly with the busyness of their lives today and their parents' lives, is the tools they need to navigate social skillless. and so nickelodeon, early on we said to kids, what is it that you want from us and what can we do better? and they just, just because something is good for you doesn't mean that it tastes good. like green vegetables. and we said to them, so we will now tell stories that are relevant to kids, that help kids navigate bullies at school, sort of making new friends, dealing with tough issues with their siblings, dealing with their parents, and every story on nickelodeon tries to come to some sort of positive conclusion so that as kids watch kids on nickelodeon

who either look like them, have the same issues that they have or have exaggerated versions of those issues that they have, they can take it all in and learn to navigate the world that they're living in a more confident way. and building a kid's self-esteem, we believe, and i think everybody here would agree, is really important, particularly in those 6 to 11 age groups. >> thank you very much. i know my time's up. >> thank you very much. nelson, i'd like to call on you. [inaudible] we're not following the rule book here. senator, you'll be next. >> i'm grateful for your hospitality, mr. chairman. thank you, your generosity. you're very kind. let me ask professor calvert, in your testimony, you mentioned the possible creation

of a public-private center for children's programming that would serve as a think tank for helping create and distribute new types of children's programming. you can tell us more about that? >> yes, senator. my thinking on that is that a lot of times you don't have all the key people at the same table and that if you were to really be able to get -- and sesame workshop has been a great example of doing thrk the people who create media, along with the people who study media, the policymakers, you know, the advocates for children's media, you can finance them in a way that we can begin to have some creative ideas that then we could advance the educational arena and i would also come back to the point that e.i. program, educational informational programming, does include prosocial content, by law that

was how it was originally defined. but i think that all these people in a mix could then begin to create a partnership to kind of look to the best interest of children. and by doing that, you know, one of the things that happens with studying even the quality of the programs and how it affects children, that there's not a good funding mechanism to do that. i mean, sometimes private industry does that and then they move on or foundations are doing that and they move on to another area. so i think that by working together we can begin to create a better quality media environment for children and i'm especially interested in seeing some of the more interactive options appear, websites and these hand held devices and how we can use them to optimize children's development. >> we limit the amount of advertising but we don't regulate the content. is it time to revisit this issue?

and what would you all suggest? obvious things, childhood obesity and other issues. what do you think? >> i can tell you that our channel, we have a 24/7 free over the air broadcast channel and we have voluntarily adopted probably the strongest nutritional guidelines in the industry. we think that there is a market actually for programming for children that parents can really feel safe, feel a sense of safety in their children viewing it. in this case, i commend the work of gary and others and the leadership of senator brownback and others in this area. we have -- we as a broadcasters have heard that message and we have adopted these guidelines. i would also, if i may, mr. chairman, follow up on senator's question. it is designed to fill that gap

and programming for children right after preschool. it is -- we understand that there is a marketplace failure. we are trying as a private sector entity to fill that niche with quality educational and informational programming and it is available 24/7. >> i would also just point out, senator, that you can look at the united nations who has faced this issue -- the united kingdom who has faced this issue. they address the same thing now. you have the bbc over there which is a noncommercial service, that has multiple more funding than pbs does in the united states. that makes a big difference. but in the commercial sector, they did put forth a set of nutritional guidelines for food marketing, which is not the cause of obesity, but it is a contributing factor of limiting the exposure of young children to products that may be less healthy for them than others.

and they did come up with a set of uniform nutrition standards and the last i checked, the sky did not fall in on the united kingdom. they have a vibrant program and there's a lot of kids over there who are engaged in children's television every day. it's worth looking at florida. >> in your answer to this, not only the content but the content of the movies or the film with imbedded advertising. >> thanks. well, i would agree. i actually think that we can go a lot farther. as i mentioned in my introduction, i teach civil rights and liberties in stanford and you're on solid first amendment ground fs you craft it carefully. mr. janikoswki is a law clerk. i would suggest there's a lot this country can do. not just along the lines of where gary said about the uniform nutritional standards that clearly ought to happen in

the obesity area, but chairman in his opening statement talked about making permanent the ban on interactive advertising from kids programs. to me that's a no brainer. it should be done. the f.c.c. can do that and i hope they'll do that in incumbenting months. we issued a report this past december. i think we shared it with senator prior among others and looking at the ads that aired during sporting events, which are extremely offensive to me when i have to explain he rec tile dysfunction to my 5-year-old. and i think that there is two things that can happen here. one, i think there's industry leadership which is in this area been extremely slow to materialize. because, for obvious business reasons, i think there needs to be leverage from this committee and elsewhere. but i think that there are ways in which you can balance the best interests of kids when it comes to advertising with the need to make a profit in a market context. but the second thing i'd ad which goes to your question about movies is that the concept of digital media

literacy, which i believe should be in every school, in every classroom, in the united states today, by the way, we're doing in home a what right now, we're -- omaha right now, we're doing a pilot program right now in the omaha public schools. should include education for kids as young as kindergarten about how to distinguish between advertising and real programming. when you have advertising and product placement in movies, kids have to understand that. they need the judgment to do that. and very basic media education, media literacy programs, in schools can teach them how to think critically about those messages. so, one of the great parts of a digital media literacy program that you all oversee with the n.c.i. which can be the new broadband efforts, is that it in fact will give kids the ability to distinguish between ads and traditional programming. and i think if you put all those together, a lot of the challenges that advertising presents to kids, which are enormous, would be dealt with

in a very serious way. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator nelson. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you to all of our witnesses. i find this a hard issue because i think paraphernalias are on the front line and i wish there was some magic technology that would allow them to do that. we also have to be careful about what is on tv. it makes a big difference in our kid's lives. i think some of you know the institute on media and family which dr. david wal much of the united states -- university of minnesota runs. his research shows that the average american child today spends 44.5 hours a week in front of cuter, -- computer, tv and game screens. children that have the least income watch the most media with the least supervision and 43% of children under 2 years

of age watch tv every single day. and i was always interested in the vchip. i know there's the safe viewing act which became law this past september which requirings the f.c.c. to submit a report to congress examining the existence and availability of advanced blocking technologies for various communications programs and just wondered if any of you had a comment on how you think that is going in terms of parents having available technology, if they want to block certain shows. >> professor jordan at the university of pennsylvania looked at the v-chip with parents and most of them were unable to navigate it, which comes back to the chairman's point earlier about something simpler. you know, where you have a button to push or something that would allow parents to very readily see what's on the airwaves and also to block it. so sometimes the technology, if i can put it, is not

transparent. we need to simplify things. sometimes children understand how to use the technology more readily than their parents. >> that is certainly the truth in my household. i had to call my daughter last night in minnesota to figure out how to switch the channels on the tv. so there you are. she's 14. all right. >> i actually that we're, as i said in my remarks, i think we're quite close to that reality. i think a little leadership from this committee and the f.c.c. will get us there more quickly than you think. i think senator pryio presented the ability to do that. look, to me, having been around that, when the v-chip was created, i think the v-chip technology is meaningful and i think the tv ratings from the industry are pretty meaningless and tvma and that stuff doesn't matter to parents and i think the key is to marry the technology that exists, in the

i.p.g.'s of the cable networks who distribute the vast majority of television programming, and then do really easy to use, sophisticated third party ratings, they're much better than the current ratings that the tv industry gives out. those mean nothing to me and this is my field and i'm a parent of four. so i think that the technology is there and i think we're moving there quite closely now. our ratings and reviews on basically every television -- gary knows this very well, are about to appear on direct tv on your i.p.g. the challenge is integrating the ratings and rules into the interactive programming guide to the cable networks. that's easily done and what's that's done, any good rating system, it can be done, can be made available through the click of your little red button. and so that information is just about to be available. what i think we could use from this committee and from the f.c.c. is clear direction of the industry to distribute that in every home in the country.

but we're there and i think that the v-chip, all you have to do on that technology is keep it open and not solely restrict it to the silly tv ratings that really mean nothing to the vast majority of parents. but it's there and i think that a small amount of leadership and your little red button will be a reality sooner than you think. because that's where you need it. right at point of decision for the parent when they're deeding -- deciding and letting them make a decision about which particular programs, whether it's seconds, violence, commercialism, is appropriate for their kid. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i want to switch to one other topic. i'm on the agriculture committee. we're working on the nutrition bill for our schools. i've learned a lot in the last year. some of it i've seen in differences between schools where my daughter had attended with nutrition and the affect it has on kids. i appreciate the recent decision of your networks to advertise the nutritional guidelines for foods. and thank you for that.

and where you think that's going. and i think you talked about the -- not using dora the explorer, one of my favorites, and spongebob to advertise certain foods. if you could comment on that this is clearly an issue with kids and parents thinking that foods are ok and getting the blessing of dora the explorer and other things. >> thank you, senator, for your acknowledgment of our efforts with it. we have adopted strong nutritional guidelines that have been called the gold standard for the industry. a hearing like this helps us a lot because it puts a spotlight on a service that is not well known. it's a free over the air service, it's made possible by digital television. it is advertiser-supported and the 1990 children's television act acknowledged the role of advertising in supporting educational and information alameda. but it's a problem for us that

it is so underrecognized not only in the marketplace, but in the public interest community, the children now study that's been quoted. i was invited to their presentation, there was criticism of the broadcasters, not that they weren't airing three hours a week, but because somehow there's a quality issue. cuvo wasn't even mentioned. we are a commercial broadcast network distributing a quality children's program network, a channel, serving this in between audience after preschool and we're not acknowledged by the public interest community, we need some help in the marketplace, we need some help with distribution. so i think you're asking questions about that and this hearing itself is a wonderful beginning for us in terms of validating that there is a commercial model for broadcasters who are willing to provide quality children's

programming beyond the requirement and for adopting some guidelines. >> i've gone over my time. if you could be brief. >> absolutely. so we work with every food partner and all of the food companies who have taken the c.b.b. pledge and we're working really hard, we have made a commitment not to put our characters on food that has not been deemed better for you by the partners we work with. we have council meetings every couple of months with all of our food advertising partners because i think everybody in this business is trying to get it right. and then the last thing i would like to say really quickly, we do a lot of research with families and parents and the things that are really -- parents are on the front line on so many issues and this childhood obesity issue is a very complex issue. what parents really want from their kids, they want to raise good kids, they want their kids to be safe and they want to provide for their kids and with that in my ind -- mind, we have to really figure out how to navigate what they need to help their kids be better kids.

>> thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. i think i have to close this because we have a vote at 4:10 which is not true but is about to be true. i'd like to do it with two things and, mark, please forgive me. i did something last year because i really am passionate about this question, not the subject of the day, but it will be the subject of others, of violence, promise cute, i completely messed up, i said that the f.c.c. in fact does have authority over indecenciesy and a little bit of nudity and profanity. but doesn't have any authority over violence. so i got that wrong and i apologize to all. .

>> it is makes me so glad that you took off from your vacation to be here. we are going to need you to help us to work this fine line, if we

are going to do it. i would like very much to do that. i would close in thanking all of you. i think these kind of hearings -- are there 50 million people watching? i do not really care. in bold and all of us -- it makes us all hungrier for solutions and answers. it makes us more proud and determined to fight to do that. as i have watched -- my daughter has been living in st. petersburg, russia. having grandchildren at home is kind of a big event. i have watched him closely over the last several weeks. it occurs to me how little i know about them. it occurs to me how little i knew about children, teenagers,

and what goes on inside their minds that may not have to do with television and selections of that sort. what are the pressures of the modern world that make today's child different, if they are, from children before? if you have any advice to me as to books that have been written, i will make sure that the committee gets them. if there are analyses or particular articles, i do not think my generation understands children. we love children. we were stunned. we coddle them. we do anything. but we do not understand what is going on inside their minds and what gives them to select this over that and do this over that. i think that is a pretty important background. it is not just of the parents are frustrated because they cannot control the viewing

habits. we have an obligation to start on this with an understanding of who children these days are. i do not know if his books have been written. i do not know what they are. can you help me a little bit on that? not now. you do not have to do it now. is there live at the end of the tunnel on this? >> there is always light at the end of the tunnel. >> we have lots of tunnels and west virginia. i'm very happy about that. i cannot think all of you enough. i think this is so important. i think we are on to something incredibly important. that is what i need to hear from the committee members. it has got to be something -- there are all different kinds of people. but i want to plow ahead on it.

i am determined to do it. i greatly thank all of you. our hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> the u.s. house returns at 2:00 on tuesday. members will begin the week with a number of bills dealing with

historic lands and sites. live coverage of the house is on c-span. the senate also returns on tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. centers will begin with general speeches. later in the day, they will turn to legislation to promote tourism to people in other countries. it creates a nonprofit tourism corporation to do so it would get its money from fees on foreign visitors. live coverage of the senate on c-span2. >> award winning author has analyzed and critiqued the american public education system. on sunday, and he will take your questions live at noon. >> later today, astronauts aboard the space shuttle discovery will complete the third and final of the scheduled spacewalks as part of

the 13-day mission to the international space station. friday evening, the crews took some time out to talk to reporters about the status of their missions and life in space. they spoke for about 35 minutes. >> how do you hear me? >> we've got you loud and clear, pao. >> this is still representing stockton in california. the word i hear from stockton is that everyone is following in your space adventure. what special thoughts, feelings, and messages would you like to share with the big, wide, wonderful world of san joaquin county? >> the message i would like to share is that i pursued the dream with a lot of persistence, but i prepared with a good solid education.

that is the message i would like to give to the kids out there in san joaquin valley. any dream is achievable if you're willing to work hard and back it up with a good, solid education. >> this is bill harwood with cbs. i have a non-technical question. i have a question about food. i was wondering if mike barratt could tell us about the food. >> the food is wonderful. we have a mix from all the partners appear now. we have become quite a bit of food over in the russian segment, which i love. i think the rest of the crew does here, too. we typically have breakfast and lunch in the service module.

we all come together for dinner in the u.s. segment. it is nice that there is a mix of food now. there are different items from the european space agency, canada, the u.s., and the russian side. i think you can find something for everyone. >> abc news for commander sturckow. what did you think of your first few of the space station on this trip? >> it has gotten a lot bigger. it is really awesome to see all the work that has been achieved appear since our last flight. they have added a couple of solar arrays and quite a few new modules. the station is something that all of the international partners can be very proud of for their contributions. >>. burger with the houston chronicle.

i wanted to know what it is like to work with the large ammonia tank. >> it was surprisingly easy. i had expected to maybe have to force it quite a lot. became very smoothly with me all the time. it was a great surprise how easy it went. >> was it difficult to get it going? i guess the armed worked pretty well. >> it was not difficult. the arm moved smoothly. it made it easy. >> i have a question for kevin ford. before you left, we talked about the thing she wanted to take note of. the example we gave was the

sound the thrusters made aboard discovery compared to the sound of the simulators. if that was not possible, maybe you can share some of the sights, sounds, and smells that have surprised you were met your expectations. >> i remember the conversation. it was very interesting. i have really enjoyed it seeing the sights and sounds of space. when does 870 lb thruster's fire, it definitely gives the shuttle a little kick. you feel a little twang throughout the whole thing. the burns to not impact us too much. we flew a great run without those refined jets. we're still waiting to see what the impact will be for the rest of the mission. we do get to hear the primary thrusters fired a lot more than

i thought we would. it is a great thing to see. one of the things that is very interesting is when the guys come back in from the space walks, there is a distinct smell of space when they come back in. it is something i have never smelled before. i will never forget it. you know how those things stick with you. it is a very interesting and different environment than i expected. i have some expectations about what it would be like. there are a lot of things we outside of my expectations. i have really enjoyed it. >> i am from the spanish newspaper. my question will be in spanish for mr. hernandez. [speaking spanish]

[speaking spanish] >> it is bill harwood again for tim kopra. what are you looking forward to when you get back? >> i am really going to miss this place. kevin talked about his

expectations. i can tell you that this experience has complete exceeded anything i thought it would be like. besides, the sounds, the experiences with the great crew -- the sites, the sounds, the experiences with the great crew. it has been wonderful. i am looking forward to seeing my family again, my wife and two kids. i may have a sip of beer when i get home. >> two down one were to go. what is the challenge of the third one? >> the challenge is not to lose our eyes on the goal. that is to conduct three safe and successful evas. we did very well with the tremendous help received on the ground and from the on-orbit team. he was definitely a team effort that got us there. it does not mean that the third one will be not be as much or

more of a challenge. we have to stay focused and focus on the changes that we receive from the ground today. we need to be prepared to execute tomorrow. >> jill from "the stockton record." another question for jose. what was it light seeing the earth for the first time? >> the site of the earth from this view is almost indescribable in terms of what you feel when you look at it, the beauty of it. what struck me the most of all is when you are looking at going from darkness to daylight as the sunrise approaches. you can see how thin the atmosphere is and how delicate our planet is. it gives more of the reason why we should take care of it.

>> discovery iss this is houston. please stand by for a police check from nasa headquarters. -- please stand by for a voice check from nasa headquarters. >> how do you hear me? >> we have got you have a loud and clear, headquarters pao. >> this is seth from the associated press. both of you, because of your age, have the potential to go to the moon in the 2020 timeframe. it is now looking like that time frame is going to be delayed by years or even a decade or so. did you have hope of going to the man personally? have you been following this? are you worried that those hopes may not quite be there?

>> i am really happy to have the opportunities i have had to come to the space station three times. i am looking forward to see some of the younger folks in the office for coming behind it will have the opportunity to go to the moon. it is always fun to fly in space. it is also an honor to support those who do. there are a lot of important jobs on the ground that we will do as we head towards the moon. hopefully, i will have an opportunity to participate in some of those. >> thank you. this is -- my main question is for tim kopra. human and that you will miss the space station. -- you mentioned that you will miss the space station. i wonder how prepared you are to come back to earth. let me know what was the most

pressing thing. that would be great. thank you. >> those are great questions. i feel 100% ready to come home physically because of the support we have received from the ground with tremendous exercise equipment. i think you will see from now on that the crews have been on the space station will come back for a strong. i hope i will have the same experience as recent crewmembers in adapting back. in terms of the most surprising thing, i think the fact that humans are still able to adapt to their environment. you see the people on board the space station move. away and worked in a different manner. that along with the fact that we have been able to get along so well and get our job done has been very satisfying. it has probably been the most rewarding portion of the mission.

>> discovery, this is houston. that concludes questions from nasa headquarters. please stand by for questions from the canadian space agency. >> this is the canadian space agency. how do you hear me? >> we have you loud and clear. >> my question will be for robert thirsk in french. >> you will receive a visitor who is the founder of cirque du soleil in a few weeks. how you perceive the overall space adventure as tourists?

[speaking french] it is very important for us to welcome him. he will have the opportunity to travel in space. he will be a member of the crew just like me and my crew members. [speaking french] >> i can call your doctor because i know you do a lot of experiments in this adventure. -- i can call your doctor because i know you do a lot of experiments in this adventure. what have you noticed when you are not dealing gravity, when you are confined in such a little space? how do you manage conflicts that can happen?

>> [speaking french] >> the space station is a large puzzle, about 100 meters in length. -- the space station is large, about 100 meters in length. we have plenty of space for the people. there is no problem living together. there is no conflict among each other. we are prepared to make changes needed. so far, we have had good experience with experiments. so far, we have been meeting all of our objectives. >> i am bob peter from the canadian press. i read your eight-page note

yesterday. it has been 3 months. outside of a shower, what is it that you have missed the most up there. >> well, of course, is the family. i think i have the greatest job in the world for someone who has a background in science, technology, math, and medicine. but you do not give something for nothing. unfortunately, there's a price to pay. is the family that has paid. i miss my family. i miss the good night hugs, the bedtime stories. i miss attending the birthday parties and the campouts. i miss hockey games with my son as well. when i get back on november 23, it is going to be a marvelous day. >> [speaking french] you have been on the space

station for 100 days. has the doctor in yourself noticed any physiological changes in yourself? >> [speaking french] the fact that there is no gravity means a loss in calcium and bone density. there are pieces of equipment here that enable us to deal with that. for the first time, there is a new medication. it helps to stop and prevent the loss of calcium and bone loss. we hope that everything is going to be fine. >> my question is regarding

medical emergencies on the space station. how are you set up to accommodate those situations. if you could answer in english and french, that would be greatly appreciated. >> the first thing is that astronauts are well selected for our jobs. it is important that astronauts be healthy and it before launching into space. that is probably the first measure that would take. we also have equipment on board the space station that is very similar to what you might find in a doctor's office or in a small country hospital. if we do have minor medical problems, they can be treated on board. if we have major medical problems, will do our best to treat them. we would sure like to get the person down to earth to render assistance at a definitive hospital. the vehicle of the space shuttle could hopefully transport a sick member to the ground. [speaking french] on board the space station, we have medical equipment to be

able to treat people that need medical assistance. if someone has a major medical issue, it is important to render medical treatment aboard the shuttle in order to give a final treatment. >> away from home, we usually wk a lot, how many hours -- outside of regular, what are the typical activities that you perform? >> [speaking french] i will ask my fellow crew member to take that question.

>> [speaking french] we worked 6.5 hours. then we have to 0.5 hours of mandatory sports activity -- then we have 2.5 hours of mandatory sports activity to help with bone loss and a monmue strength. there are also activities better not counted as work activities. for example, a lot of preparation work and training on how to handle all kinds of equipment. that keeps us busy 10 to 12 hours. whatever is left, we use it for e-mails and to stay in touch

with our families, especially our children and friends. that is the most important thing on the long-term mission like that. >> [speaking french] what is your role? >> [speaking french] it will be the first time for me to have a large vessel like that. me and frank de winne will perform that with my assistance. after that, i am in charge of

catching the vessel and placing it all the way down to the port below. >> bob with the canadian press again. in three months, what has been your biggest surprise so far. everything has sort of gone according to plan. there must be at least one thing that you did not think would happen. please respond in english and french. >> well, i guess i am absolutely surprised at how well the ground team has been able to keep us working effectively and productive. i think i am working at 100% of my personal capability. every day, i am stretched to my limits, but every day we succeed. the ground team knows a very well what my capabilities are and the abilities of the rest of my team members. at the end of this six-month expedition, i will feel free

fulfill that i participated in a very important mission to the best of my abilities. [speaking french] i am very surprised that the crew missions on earth have the capabilities of working 10 or 11 hours. it is incredible the amount of work that we all have been able to accomplish in six months. it is incredible all the work we have all been able to accomplish. >> discovery iss, this is houston. that concludes questions from the canadian space agency.

please stand by for questions from the european space agency. >> discovery iss, this is the european space agency. how do you hear me? >> we read you loud and clear. >> i am from sweden. i have a question in swedish for christer fugelsang. you play chess with our readers. what are you going to do to counter this last move? what kind of technique for you going to use to win the chess game? >> [speaking swedish]

i will have to bring out my homemade chessboard and take a look. i will move fromf-2 to 33-1. my tactic is to use the best defense. it is hard to do the best moves appear. -- it is hard to do the best moves up here. >> i am from a swedish television. i have one question in swedish. can you tell me something about your first space walk? it was tough to move the large ammonia tank. i hear that you had some lamp problem. >> it was very exciting when the space walk again.

i slid out and felt a little bit nervous. you have to hold on even though you are floating along with the station. i was positively surprised over how easy it was to move this large tank. we moved from one place to another. i don't really understand what you mean with the main problem. >> i am from the norwegian newspaper in english. i was wondering. you have been out on your next last eva. i wonder if you describe how it was emotionally to look down on the earth for the next to the last time.

>> it is a very special feeling to be outside and look down on the earth. you fly over the earth in one orbit in 90 minutes. that makes you feel how small it is. when you can recognize places, it feels fine. when you fly over home, you can see europe. it gives you warm feelings. we work with people from five different countries and cultures. we worked very hard together. i want the best for everyone. i wish to do the same on earth. -- i wish we could do the same on earth. >> this is emma from the swedish news agency tv.

tomorrow, you will do a last space walk. how does that feel? >> both good and all little bit nostalgic -- and a little bit nostalgic. i hope it will go good. it will feel a little bit sad because there will not be any more chances. i will try to enjoy the moment as much as i can and focus on the work i have to do. >> you have been up there before. we have seen pictures on how you have been putting stuff on to the station. how has the station changed since last time? are you trying to rebuild it? >> we are not rebuilding it. it has changed a lot. it has become almost twice as large as when i was here last

time. that is both outside and inside. when we flew up to docking this time, it looked beautiful. it had the wings and sun panels. inside, is really large. we're sitting in a large crossing or you can move backwards almost 50 meters. you can go left or right. we have a temporary module. it can be pretty busy in this section here. critic >> i am from swedish radio and have a question in swedish. can you describe how it feels to know that this is probably your last time up in space? >> i am extremely happy of the

opportunities and chance i have gotten to come up to twice. it is amazing. i cannot continue to do this too long. i would happily received another chance to come up here of course. i think it is also time for other people to move on after me. i will go into other exciting work down on earth again. >> christer, you have been up there twice now. what is the most exciting thing you have done? what are you going to tell your grandchildren over and over again? >> it is probably the space walks, the weightlessness, and how you float around, and how you can play, and spin around. it is fun and exciting to work in weightlessness.

things move around. it is an amazing feeling. it is an amazing thing to float around. yesterday, i was swirling around. i was thinking about skiing. i love to go skiing. you go up and down. it is really fun. is the same thing as working appear. of course, we look down on earth. it is amazing and beautiful. >> swedish television again. i was talking about a lamp problem earlier. one of your colleagues said about the last space walk that you have new directives from ground control. can you explain that? >> ok, lamp problem. on the helmet on the space

suit, you have two lamps. the one on the right side broke when i was flying around. it is completely normal. everything that happens here, you tell them. it was no problem in itself. i could use my hand to push the other lamp to start. the new directives for the space walk happen almost all the time. small things change the plans. right now, we're planning to pull the cables out a certain way. we thought the module node 3 was going to end up behind us. the rethought this on the program side and changed the way we pull wires.

we're only going to pull them half way and leave the rest of them. that is probably the largest change in the plan. it is very common. >> i am from the norwegian newspaper. this is a norwegian. -- this is in norwegian. what you look forward to the most when you get back? -- what do you look forward to the most when you get back? >> i look forward to a warm shower and to meet my family again. that is always nice to have a nice piece of stateak to eat an maybe have a beer. i look forward to come back to norway and talk about what it was like appear.

we have had some norwegian candia. -- we've had some norwegian candy up here. it with sugar candy that was very much appreciated appear. >> thank you. that concludes the event. >> thank you, at nasa headquarters, canadian space headquarters. we're now resuming operational audio communications. >> space station copies. they do. -- thank you. >> next wednesday, the supreme court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of campaign finance. today, there will be a panel discussion hosted by the american constitution society. that is today at 7:00 p.m.

eastern here on c-span. >> the supreme court has a rare special session next wednesday during oral argument on a campaign finance case. it also marks the first appearance on the bench for justice sonia sotomayor. earlier in the week, her formal investiture ceremony takes place. here is justice kennedy on what it means to add a new justice. >> it is stressful for us. we so admire our colleagues and wonder if it will ever be the same. i have great admiration for the system. the system works. it is gives us the opportunity to look at ourselves to make sure that we're doing it the right way so that the new justice will be able to take some instruction from our example, if we are doing it the right way. i'm sure that justice can always ask the question of, "whether

you doing this for?" in the we have to consider how we are doing it. >> in july, nasa marked the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing. on the anniversary, a group of apollo astronauts gathered to share their thoughts about that historic day. they discussed the legacy of the apollo program and the future of space exploration. among the astronauts is buzz aldrin. this lasts about one hour and 10 minutes. quicks today's program commemorate the 40th anniversary of the very first steps on the moon. today, we look back of that extraordinary mission. today's discussion will include questions from young people who

will call into the broadcast from science centers and museums all across the country. [no audio] the film, "nasa at 50" will be playing continuously at the theater. i encourage you to stop by and take a look of this extraordinary film at the conclusion of this program. the museum and nasa have a long history of partnering to present special events. they have to live in view of john glenn during his return to space aboard discovery. we enjoy working with some members of the mass of staff. i would like to partially acknowledged bob jacobs and all of the dedicated nasa staffers were here today. but also like to welcome the museum members to this very special program. i am pleased to introduce our

moderator, nick clooney. ♪ ♪ [no audio] [laughter] ♪ [no audio] the documentary is currently playing on our big screen theater. please join me in welcoming nick clooney. [applause] >> what a great day. what an exciting time. the museum is pleased to partner with nasa for the panel

discussion commemorating the 40th anniversary of the apollo mission, exploring the future of space exploration. we're pleased be joined by science centers from all across the country. we're going to have questions from them, some of them are as young as eight years old. they're going to be very tough questions. you can count on that. we will also be asking those in the studio audience to prepare questions and be part of the program as well. this program that we're going to show you right now is very brief. it is just two minutes long. it shows the centerpiece of the event that is the reason we're here today celebrating. take a look. ♪ >> i believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this

decade is out of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. >> 15 seconds. guidance is internal. 10, 9, ignition sequence starts. seven -- [engines roaring] ♪ >> how far out are we now? >> standby and i will give you the exact figure.

177,000 miles out. over. ♪ >> the eagle has landed. >> we copy you on the ground. you have a lot of guys about to turn blue. we are breathing again. >> there is a picture on tv. there is a great deal of contrast on it. it is currently upside down, but we can make out a fair amount of detail. we can see you coming down the ladder now. >> that is one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. ♪

[applause] >> ok, let's take a look at our panelists. let me introduce to you buzz aldrin, lugar module pilot -- lunar module pilot. [applause] laurie leshin, the deputy director of the goddard space center. and john grunfeld, mission

specialist on atlantis. he participated in the hubble space telescope repair mission. [applause] i wanted to let you know where these youngsters will be talking to us from. there will be a science centers from all over the country. the museum of science in boston, the museum of natural history in new york, the california academy of sciences, the museum of science and industry in chicago, the denver museum of nature and science, and the st. louis science center. let's begin talking with our panelists. let's begin with you, buzz. i understand you might have to leave as before the end of the program for something about 10 blocks away. what is going on? >> 1600 pennsylvania avenue. [applause]

>> that is great. you did a commentary for cnn just a couple months ago. it was interesting. you thought that we would need to inspire youngsters more than we're doing now. you thought the way to do that was with the mission to mars, a manned mission to mars. you mentioned the idea of homesteading mars. what did you mean by that? >> it will not happen within a decade. it will not require breaking the bank now. we can save money by realigning what we're doing for gradual course. we've got a lot of experience on the moon. 40 years ago, we've had a lot of experience on the moon for the last fo40 years. we can take that experience and

use it to work with the international nations. will they come together? i do not know. but they have an umbrella organization that is over and above the international space station. we need to start there. bring in china, india, south korea, the other nations into the space station. based on that, we haven't international lunar economic development corp. -- we have an international lunar economic development corporation. we will ride with you on your rockets and spaced ship. we will take our resources and establish a pathway that may

take more than two decades, but it is the pathway that will achieve more things than dedicating a return to the move right away. >> that is a pretty aggressive plan. >> yes it is. there is no reason why the international space station we cannot put a test module of the long duration life-support equipment the we have hopefully been developing all of these times. of the same time, we can develop an exploration model that can accompany andorion on missions. you have got to have more room. you have got to have the equipment that can support these people with the redundancy that does not require the crab that all together for a long time. you make it larger.

you can model this after a mars habitat and mars lander. we are using those vehicles to plan our movements. >> on friday night, in dayton, you told the audience something we did not know before. this is on the moon. you and neil were the first ones to step out. would you like to tell us about that? >> i filled my first assignment on the surface of the moon. it was to get down to the bottom and jump back up again. i was overconfident. i had done at a fairly great job on spacewalking on the 12th. i was little overconfident. i did not the gravity of 1/6

would be that big. i jumped up and missed. the next time, i made it. we knew we could not take the rock boxes and climb back up the ladder with them. we had to send them back on the clothesline, the same one used to send the camera to take the pictures. that is not what you're talking about. we had great confidence in the inside the space suit plumbing. we have great confidence in the backpack, the mini spaceship on our back. it gave us electricity and water-cooled underwear. it gave us life sustaining oxygen. >> that is not what i am talking about. >> we have great confidence in the interior plumbing.

as a matter of fact, we just in did it all out so that we could throw it out on the surface later on. there was plenty of capacity in the ucd, the urine collection device. i just had that moment. i knew when i got to the bottom of the latter, it was clearly going to be easy to walk around the moon. what am i supposed to do for the next 30 seconds? maybe we were a little nervous here and there. what i do is talk about things that are human. i talk about how people are compelled and really worried about what they're trying to do. they are not worried, but they are alert to what they're trying to do on the surface. >> do you remember what you said? >> i said the book magnificent desolation -- i said "

magnificent desolation." we are doing all the things necessary to get steam, rockets, spacecraft, and putting people on the surface of the moon. it is lonely as hell up there. i peed in my pants. [applause] >> what he said was -- >> alan shepard did not have a ucd. he was floating on water for a while before his 15 minutes of flight. >> that was great. when he said on friday night was that neil was the first one to walk on the moon but -- [laughter] >> he has not disputed that fact.

he had 30 minutes to set another record. [laughter] >> charles, apollo 16 there were some problems. bring us up-to-date. remind us what went on. >> apollo 16, like all the other apollo flights, had its problems. you look back on those 40 years. we had six landings. it was not a piece of cake. landed on the moon is a really difficult task. not only are you coming into an area where no one has ever landed before, but you have never seen it in detail before. the photographs we have our landing site was 15 meter resolution. there are a lot of big craters that can put you in trouble at 10 meters across. we were coming in and seeing all of these creatures. we had to pick a landing spot. before that, we were on the backside of the moon with

mattingly. he had to change his or but in the command module. that required a major engine ignition with a service propulsion system. as he tested this out before the ignition, it was rattling the spacecraft to pieces. if your heart to sink in zero gravity to the bottom of your boots, hours did because that was an abort. you had come all this way and they are about ready to tell you to come home. you can imagine how disappointed we were. the teamwork that we exhibited not only to get them to the landing, get apollo back safely, and all the other problems came into focus and up to speed. six hours later, they said we were a go for landing.

down we went. from then on, it was fantastic. our hearts went from here to heare when we heard jim irwin tell us that we had ago. >> you were there for a long time. >> we were there for 71 hours and 14 minutes. nasa put us in for the record states. -- nasa put in for the record stay. we have the record until the next flight. they did it just for spite. we pleaded for just two hours more. they said to get back and and that it was time to come home. >> what do you see for the future of space? >> i would like to see us back in deep space. we have a big investment in the international space station.

we need to use that. there are a lot of ways that we can get a return on that investment. going back into deep space kendall's the human spirit of exploration -- going back into deep space kindles the human spirit and exploration. i agree it should be international. a return to the men would also be an opportunity to develop some of these systems the we're going to have to have for a mars state. he wants to do it in iss. that is not a bad idea. i think back to the moon. whichever way we do it, it will be a stepping stone on into the distance. i hope that i am around to see those first footprints on mars. i think the technology that we develop for that as a capital expenditure for ourou