when you are describing speaks to a grumpy, gloomy mood. do you think that is right or are we going to see the optimistic upside of america on display, as well? >> i think what we saw last week was a recognition on the part of the administration that maybe they ought to get back and talk about jobs, talk about the kind of issues people face around the kitchen table which is essentially getting for the month, worrying about to question, whether they can retire or not. if jobs are the key to that, maybe we should take some encouragement.

>> thankfully i am not running for anything. i would like to look at and maybe we have a lot to look at and could turn this into cable television and that's not good for anyone. there are some amalgous w circumstances as in 1993 and 94.

you have those similar to what the president took away from president bush. the president did not want to save big banks and insurance company, that's not why he ran, he had to. the question will be timing. the question is how quickly do all of these things that were coordinated globally, how quickly will they turn this economy. it's going to turn. i am optimistic about the future, we haven't seen our best day. but if it does not turn quickly enough. employment, last week was a good first step and we will see steps forwards and backwards, and if it doesn't turn quickly, there will be a tough year for

the incumbents. >> for the democrats is motivating the base at a time that things may are rough and you don't have the excitement of a new presidency, how do you see that? >> well, mid-term elections are historically difficult for the incoming partñómparticularly if they control all three branches. this is a country that is grumpy and looking for instant solutions and there isn't one. if there was an instant solution, president bush, 43 would have done it, there isn't. the question that i am interested in is democrats in 2008 made pretty significant advances of how to reach people and how to motivate them through technology and social media. whether that can be transplanted and built on in

2010, if that can, there are republicans that are sitting there with that potential. we tend to leap frog each other. >> do you think that the democrats stole a march? >> yeah, i worked for john kerry for a couple of months in 2004, and i was surprised of how significantly and how much smarter the republican campaign was in the infrastructure. and in 2008, republicans were surprised of what the democrats could do. i think that democrats on paper have an advantage now. you know a couple of years in the wilderness as a motivator, we will see what happens. if we don't have that advantage, you know that points to a tough year. >> and onyou are familiar with america, but again coming with

this somewhat outsider perspective. and you come back having spent an intensive time here from the obama ?badministration, what d you see the dynamics for next year? >> i am not sure for the rest of the world the mid-term results will matter. because i think the rest of the world perceives that the president is having a great deal of trouble with the congress to try to get through what he wants to get through. and also because i suspect as president obama gets the nobel prize, probably the assumption of the rest. of the world, could be a wrong one, that he looks like a term-term president and the rest of the world tends to go to two terms to make a decision and then turn away. i think there is still as far

as obama is concerned, certainly in europe and not including israel and europe, a tremendous amount of goodwill, and a feeling that the economic crisis has been handled well. in the sense that the governments of the -- certainly in britain and america are behaving in a similar way. that makes it paradoxical that i think that gordon brown will lose the election. and i think that's partly of the shared feeling that they are tired of the government. and gordon brown is intensely e

not charismatic. and we haven't mentioned that britain has turned dramatically# against the post-9/11 conflict, for britain they have the highest number of casualties, it's small compared to the united states. and that has poisoned politics for the government that took us to war. tony blair is unpopular, and even though twice reelected, people don't necessarily spit at the mention of the name. and not surprising that he spent as much time abroad. >> there are other reasons for that. >> other reasons, he's making money. and the hope for christmas is

they want to commit tony blair. >> it's peculiar in this globalized world, and you described and that is used to many people that tony blair is so deeply unpopular as you suggest in britain. and gordon brown is not the magic. >> obama was more popular abroad. >> that's right, president obama as you mentioned is still much more popular abroad. his popularity has not rubbed abroad to the extent that it has in this country. why is it that the reputations don't travel as quickly as you might think other things travel. >> it's partly because of democracy, if you have a viable

democracy with rival parties, everyone knows that at home. where abroad you have to know who is in charge, you have leaders in office, it doesn't matter where they come from. remember for example by tony blair moving from clinton/blair to bush/blair. and that's how people see international politics. and the other factor if we want to globalize this argument, is that we are at the end of an era where people made political assumptions that the market was good and could sort out a lot of problems that the world faced. and following the banking collapse and the rest of it, there is g7da realization and n to get confused where the government has a bigger role. and at a time where the government can't find the money to do something to occupy that

bigger role. and therefore has to rely on individual responsibilities. and that's the question in all of these elections, we are talking about that balance between private enterprise and the role of the central state, it will be argued out. >> and i suspect that will be a key debating point in elections coming up. i want to ask about the quality of discourse that you expect to see in the year ahead. you will have to moderate some of this. first of all, how do you think it's been in the past. what has been the dynamic of discourse in washington. and so momentum are we approaching in 2010 with as the political temperature heats up? >> i think new presidents run into reality of washington it's a tough place to change.

there are limits to what presidents can do with their own coalition in the party and outside of the party, and run against the other party. congressman cantor does well in the way that he breaks down the pressure points. there are things that republicans take into battle that is a look at the status quo. do you like how things are going under obama, and they are not a party of change because they don't want to be. and i think there will be a period of time where they present contrast. now they are saying look how high unemployment is and the deficit. and they will look at the need control when the republicans were in power. and look at the president and is he taking on too much. i think the discourse got off

to a bad start.?3d i think that the white house underestimated how difficult health care would be as a matter of public debate. they could have taken a closer look at how quickly the debate can be side tracked as it was in the clinton administration. in their mistakes and how the opposition chose to c=wrabout i. it's a tough subject. take one example as the president was irritated at the response of his press conference early on in the health care debate and he was explaining about it and then the question about professor gates and had this reaction. and the president was irritated and that that was the take away. and not realizing he wasn't breaking through on health care, that was too difficult to understand. i think that the discourse will continue as it's been.

what i think you have to focus on, presidents get unpopular when they get involved in legislature. the reason congress is not popular, they are in the ugly process of making laws. when presidents get involved in that it's an uglyier process. presidents want to achieve. when he gets health care reform passed. and then i think you will see that become more popular as it goes along. but he needs achievements under his belt. >> let's suppose that the health care bill passes some time early next year, what did the agenda move on to? there is still the climate change and energy bill. >> yeah, but i think what the congressman said it's about

jobs. what are the two issues that can defined the presidency, the war he inherited and the job picture. i think that the job picture is more likely to define him. if you look at the 80's and the high unemployment, it was 10.4% and it dropped in months to single digits and that was a perfect time for election and it was morning again in america. the democrats need morning again in america. that's the issue. in 2004 for the reelect that joe was part of, karl rove would say, if the question is terrorism, the answer is george bush. and that worked to turn a vietnam war veteran to someone not tough enough to take on

terrorists.&s1ñ and the democrats have to find a way to turn this ocean liner by the mid-term point to have a reaction. >> congressman, i would like to ask about the tricks of the trade, if you like. going into an election that in this constantly changing battle in the last cycle, the democrats nudged ahead in their use of technology and the internet, and what can we expect in forms of innovation from the republican party in the mid-term? >> daniel, i think the best place to look was in new jersey in the elections. i know in my home state of virginia, we far surpassed the get out and vote record, and it came from the energy now focused on what is going on in washington.

coupled with a very disciplined, good campaign lead by our governor elect, bob mcdonald. and what he says it's important to trump that party. and it has to do with real challenges. it's not perceived here. people have problems at home. when you look at the official unemployment and it's at 10% or a little higher. they say that the unofficial rate, those who are working part-time jobs or have given up, it's probably closer to 20%. that is extraordinary. everybody if not out of a job, they know someone who is. if you see a candidate like bob mcdonald and saying, i will be

the job's governor and translate that vision. and i will take a little issue with david who says we don't talk about ideas. and i will turn it on him, and we have said this that it's not as sexy of a story for the mainstream media to cover our ideas now. it's the incumbent party in power, it's their agenda. which is now up -- >> what is the big idea? >> the big idea is -- the big idea is to get, to produce an environment where we can have job creation again. and that's where i think the obama administration agenda so clearly disadvantages the democrats in this upcoming election in 11 months and advantages us. and it was the same true a month ago in virginia. >> there are some alternative ideas within the agenda like a

defense lawyer against the prosecution. i think there is a discussion in the republican party if there is a need of a second contract in america, and maybe we see by the mid-term or wait until 2012. but now the republican party wants to say, did the prosecution prove its case. and i think there is something else which is away from the substance, the sheer politics what is it that republicans want to be. i don't think they have worked that out. is it bob mcdonald in virginia? is it new jersey race or is it sarah palin. there is a process that has to be gone through for republican voters to decide what is the way back. >> let me respond to that, i know clearly for myself that i believe it's in the mode of bob mcdonald.

and i don't think it's so clear cut that we can be one or the other. if you look at bob mcdonald and what he stood for in our assembly, he was conservative on so many issues. and he didn't shy away and focused those on the kitchen-table issues that were plaguing virginia voters. and began to represent a leader that could actually represent results and get people back to work. >> there is a problem that i think is not just a trend in this country, that there is now a kind of disgruntled or pissed off if you like, of the opposition right. we have the national party and in europe they have a bigger chunk. and australia we have had the

opposition conservative party out -- oust their leader, and we have italy. and here we have rush and what is that clear party. >> adam, i have said there are those in public office and those not. and there is a wkjtq't motive often in terms of those in the media than perhaps of those of us who owe our constitents to live up to the promises made. i think you are right, people are pissed off in this country. because there is a lack of demonstrative results. and as people become out of work, there is more enrage. >> but if you want to talk

about unemployment, you don't want to talk whether barack obama is racist. >> you want to talk about people looking for leadership, and they don't care about that issue, but to get back to work. >> but when that's raised and on the agenda, that's a problem for you. >> i want to make this less partisan although i may come out as partisan and talk about history. i am listening carefully to what you say, and i remember in 90's in a democratic president and took a budget deficit and created millions of jobs. we gave that to republicans and we lost the surplus. the unemployment rate did not start zero in january and go to 10%. it was financial mismanagement that went on for a decade. and you know what, the president is doing his best to turn that around.

that's my partisan peach. -- speech. elections are not about the history but are of the moment. and one reason that president obama was elected, he owañwas y and better than that bum we want to throw out. it's a bipartisan feeling that we do this. it's a tough year for the incumbents. to pick up on what david and adam were saying, one positive sign is that the election is not today. that's number one. because i don't think that the these problems, but he owns them, because he's the president. and the second thing as democrats and republicans where they are, and democrats have the advantage because they have the presidency as far as

message orientation. there are a lot of negatives there. but what is really interesting looking at democrats is the reaction to the afghanistan speech. fully 50% of the parties in congress did not support that speech. but they are following it and going to move forward. if you look at the elections, the mid-term elections of the republicans, there is more of a struggle. i agree with what was said about bob mcdonald. that partisaf+ñpart is scary to me, that the people will take common sense and emphasize the speech. and you have that in 2003, where the republicans had it won and then because part of the party believes that practical common sense doesn't

make sense, you have to be on the far right. and that struggle will play out over the next year. your group may win or may lose too. it will be an advantage for democrats. >> i want to escape from an exclusive-american perspective. we have had the most extraordinary global recession, you may think there are trends around the world. whether antiincumbency or a swing to the left or right. it's quite hard to detect global trends it seems to me. some economies have got back in, and voted back in , in germany. and if anything the voters have tend to swing in the british sense of the word, to play it

safe. adam, you see politics around the world, what do you see? >> there are other trends and taxes have gone up in britain and the united states. deficit again is for who ever wins the general election. and britain is going to be a massive problem and a lot of european countries are not that far behind. but my feeling is that there is a certain kind of realization of the limits of what government can do. certainly in those countries where the government has assumed a bigger role. i was at a public meeting with a member of cameron's team, and they came out and said that was fantastic, because no one asked

me for money. what we are not hearing and probably not in the general afterwards will be not just taxes, which i think have pretty much reached their limit. but real cuts in spending. and we will see that across the spectrum. >> i spoke to a prominent person in american finance yesterdsb+who said that the real question around the world is, what is the hell is going on in america? in asia that's the case and china has had the sense of growing america's weakness. and as america's creditor has more over the united states and less inclined to be supportive in other geopolitical areas where we need their help. a lot of south america and latin america things are looking up. and europe and united states is having a hard time. but the question this person

said is what happened to capitalism? this talk of regulation that the bailouts and whatnot, there is a fear about where america is headed. and you see that reflection in our companies who don't like the uncertainty about energy policy and tax policy. i have spoken to c.e.o.'s asking where the -- is the impetus of private growth. i think that one of the trends and adam spoke to the politics but on the policy side there is a real question of role of government and effectiveness of government regarding the economy worldwide. >> it's certainly true that the outside world always looks to

america and perhaps now.'xñ and america looks to the outside world. we heard from peter about the elections in iraq and brazil and elsewhere. you will be taken up with your own campaigns here, are there any lessons you think you can pick up from trends around the world? >> i think if you look at south america, maybe there is a lesson. but look at what happened in uraguy a leftist individual who remade himself and committed to the voters of that country and saw himself in the fashion of governing like brazil, and not like hugo chavez in venezuela. and contrary to the trends in

europe and elsewhere where we may see a backlash back to conservatism. and i think that points to that people the elect leaders good for them. if you are good for your life and more in tune to market-based policies that recognizes human rights and the defense of those rights. i think those are themes that can perhaps produce in a different way. very much grounded like we call in virginia the common sense outlook that you may see trends again. of this adherence of limited government and taking care. >> i think you can't avoid

elections and that's a fall-out of iran and elsewhere. i think next year there is a growing trend it's boring and organization alal -- organizational and the fact that the g-20 is the regulator. and it's a major shift of what was the polar world and that the united states was in effect. >> two g-20's next year, and that will be prominent. can i ask one final question and then go to the floor. europe is not something that happens people spend too much time worrying about. but there was a famous kissinger question, who do you call for europe.

and europe was agonized for eight or nine years of a treaty that has given them a so-called president and a high representative and effect of foreign secretary. and they have chosen people in these roles that can be described as people that no one has heard of. does anyone care about europe as a weight in the world, as an entity? has anyone asked the kissinger question? >> i think it's an evolving question. >> can you name the presidents of europe? >> eric can. i know who wants to be the president of europe. >> well, he didn't get it. >> i know. i think -- it's not a pressing

question, i think europe is a trusted place in this country. we didn't agonize very long about going in head-long into military conflicts in europe in the last decade. because it was europe. while we wrung our hands and while there were exponentially more genocide committed in africa. not taking a position but it's a way of highlighting the deep connections between. so i don't think we worry much about europe. i think as europe integrates and becomes more powerful, we may over time. i don't think that the average american thinks of europe in the way that europeans want to. >> one concern about the obama administration in europe is that he tended to take his allies for granted in focusing on reaching out to some of the

parts of the world where relations have been more complicated. and there could be a reaction by opinions and he will need allies. >> that's funny and that goes to the previous question. i think one reason why there isn't a trend, because the u.s. and at least around the world, it's not as polarizing as in the past. for both democrats and republicans. and issues are not influenced by cold war issues or u.s. diplomacy. and you can go around europe and see where these turned. and we have a president that is committed to multilateral pluralism. it's in some ways a positive

and in some ways troubling. because the world needs leadership and we are internally focused on putting our own house in order. and that's a dangerous situation. >> i feel there is a huge divide between europe and the united states in regard to strategic issues. on the war on terrorism that this administration doesn't use, and it was written about obama downsizing the war on terror and compartmentalizing it and making it as sweep and broad as the bush administration did. and we covered our respective p.m.'s and the british government wasn't there. and you are seeing that, and the notion of nato alliance and

maybe pledge thousands of additional troops. this is america's war.g we will have 100,000 troops there, we own this thing. and the british have been there and seen it, and say no thanks. there is a view, i am not saying they haven't been in afghanistan. but you are seeing what you described, we don't want to have a sustained commitment there. >> and i think oddly enough the americans don't think see the british as europeans. >> yeah -- >> they don't. >> let's go to the questions from the floor. who would like to ask? yes? wait for the microphone. >> oh, there are people here? >> i my name is ezener, gregory

david raised a point about the c.e.o. that you talked about with american capitalism. i am very surprised as napoen -- napoleon wrote a book about economics and i am surprised that the globalization has released the economics as a primary thesis and i am surprised that we have not examined that at all. >> thank you, that's more of a statement. go to the back there. >> my name is mark, with the foundation of job creation. my question is, is america's problem as not being able to create jobs, where does the

lobbyist fit in? and are they interfering with creation. >> you want that question? >> where are the lobbyists? >> where do the lobbyists fit in the process today, do they interfere or help? >> well, you know i think that's a tough question. i think in the broadest possible sense even the best ideas get altered. and generally not for the better. because there are powerful lobbying interests in this town. and the lobbyists they do well and their job is not to advocate for the public good but for the narrow, for their interests. and we still despite the president running on a platform of let's take the special interest out of politics and

government, it's still very prevalent. i think most broadly, i agree with republicans when they talk that the private sector will create the bulk of new jobs. we don't want to create 10 million new government jobs. that makes no sense. what the federal government can do is create conditions where jobs will flourish. we have had periods, the mid-80's and most of the 90's where conditions were good. we haven't seen that in a while and that's really what we need to do. >> congressman? >> i am not sure how to answer the question whether lobbyists as a whole are helpful or harmful to job creation. there are a slew of lobbyists in this town, some representing big corporations and some small business and some labor and

consumer groups and the list goes on. the job for the party in power as well as the minority is to try to work together to produce an environment that can foster some job creation as joe said, in the private sector. i think deep down americans understand what has made this country prosperous.tub and that's entrepreneurialism, we can't have the uncertainty of tax hikes embedded in the code. businesses don't know how that will playout. if you talk to small businesses

across this country, what they are saying is that we don't have access to capital. we need credit, to create jobs we have to grow and we can't do that without credit. all of this will play out over the year, and how lobbyists intermingle with that, i think they are more in tune with their environment. and we have been talking about an environment ungrossly unfavorable to job creation. >> lots of questions. here first. >> the economists predicted that nato might lose in afghanistan in 2010. however congressman cantor did not mention that in his speech today. does that mean that republicans are happy with that plan? and two, is there going to be success this next year in the

military campaign? >> i personally support this president in the decision he made. and i know there is a lot of concern voiced of the rhetoric around his decision and the discussion of an offramp in 18 months. i am going to take the president at his word, that is a conditions-based decision that will be made. and i think that most americans believe that we ought to support our troops and give them what they need. and ultimately if the mission is successful, we will add to the security of the united states. the mission is sjzto make sure that region of the world no longer can become a safe-haven for terrorist operations and a place from which attacks from the united states can be launched. >> from your program yesterday, how do you see this debate? >> there is every reason to be

skeptical, history dictates that we should be, i question everything. every statement, every position and every note of optimism about this war. and i think that all americans should and our partners around the world should. the notion that the karzai government in this time will help in this time frame, but having someone to hand off is a big issue. and the other issue if afghanistan can be the country. the real bad guys are in pakistan. and that's the problem, the networks and osama bin laden, so what is pakistan prepared to do. the challenge for this

president, the republicans should be happy with this plan, they will argue with articulated exit strategy. i think that the secretary of defense and state were clear on the program yesterday saying that there is a time horizon here, a troop presence ramped up and will go on for as much as five years. and that's a goal of a hand-off to karzai in five years. and that assumes that everything works. and i think that's in place, and again we will see what the conditions are for the president down the line to say. we are not winning but it's time to come home. >> i am curious and it seemed like a side-show in this city, but it's a very live issue for the british politics. the british troops have been dying in large numbers. and the war is increasingly

unpopular, how does this decision by president obama play in britain? >> one of the interesting things is that gordon brown is talking about drawing down troops and there is a modest increase of 500 to just over 10,000. and gordon brown is talking about taking it down next year, and that's an election year. and you see that rhetoric of calculation. i think that the reality of the situation is that both -- it's obama and supported by all mainstream political parties in britain, that next year will be an intense period of pressure, basically where the main driver for reform in pakistan and afghanistan will be, if you don't establish yourself now as a potential government, we will withdraw and you will get

killed. and it's a real gamble, and the problem is that is born quite likely and paid for in the blood of the troops on the ground. so that's a sober moment and that's before you get to the issue of how unstable iraq is. >> next question. >> hello, i am kevin, i am contributing writer to "the economists." given to the summit in copenhagen, what is the president's view of emissions targets that is not rapid fired by legislation and i am interested to hear from representative cantor what is the republican view if there is

a definitive agreement in copenhagen when president obama comes back? >> it's interesting that we have spoken 15 minutes about politics and haven't until your question about the environment. >> i think the largest sense of any constant in human history is climate change. and the real question is the severity of that and the involvement of human causes in all of that. from the larger sense, i think our party will approach it with such , with the notion that all of us want to leave this planet as a cleaner place. and how we strike that balance in the priority of getting this economy back on track is any republican response.

there is much rhetoric now on the cap and trade plan, and most are convinced on our side of the aisle and believe across the country, that is an ill-conceived plan that won't help people get jobs. >> i was predicted last year that the scientific doubters would still have this strong of a voice, so be it. i think it's a test of leadership, as the world is going, if we advocate our role as an economic leader, while we fight about the politics of our congress and u.s., then it will be a step back for our country. we have been out of this debate for too long. and i don't hear from the party opposite any good ideas of how to solve this. i think that cap and trade came

from industry. it is supported by multiple, lots of american corperations. -- corporations, there are certainly losers here but they don't support it. this is a global issue and if we want to continue our slide away, this would be a good way to do it. >> we have time for one more question before i go to the all panelists and ask for their final prediction for 2010. lady here. >> hi, i am mandy from p.s.i., i had a question as you spoke about jobs. and we have seen the job unemployment rate drop. and you talked about your thanksgiving table really, i was wondering if it's representative of the whole country. because i feel like maybe it's

not giving thanks. and maybe the republican party are we going to be able to see the republican party come together with the democratic party in 2010 and work together on some issues and what those issues would be? >> any chance of bipartisanship in 2010? >> first of all, i would say that all of us want this economy to get back to track. there is no question about that. we continue going back to the stimulus decision have continued to profit our alternatives. and as much coverage has shown, it's a one-way street. the health care coverage is taking place behind closed doors. it's in the minority's interest to work with the majority. when you have that power in the house and senate and the white house.

it's in our interest to want to work together to produce results. and it is about jobs, it really is. and is there a constant drum beat away from the priority of saying, look, we want to provide access to credit and take away the uncertainty of cost to risk and promote investment. it is the private sector that is what will bring the economy back. >> can i say one thing, i agree that it will be the private sector, but can you imagine, no one could predict and no one can predict how much worse it would be if the government didn't take the strong actions and if the banks weren't bailed out. in the great depression, unemployment was at 25%. 10% is too high, this is real. a lot of people who have jobs

are afraid of losing them. but bold steps were taken and a lot of people want to ignore that. they want to score points and that's what politics is about. and i will tell you this, some real steps were taken by a republican president. >> let me step in, the follow-up to that is that the steps we are taking in 2008 under the bush administration and many of us that supported that effort in t.a.r.p. and tried to arrest by what all sectors believed to be a collapse in our capital market. that was expected to be a temporary, emergency step. and now the question is what do you do to take back the priority equities and the question is úliwill we live up the promise, is that temporary and be paid back. or are you going to be allow

that to be a permanent, if you will slush fund, and i will take the position that we need to deliver on the promise that it was a temporary, emergency step. >> we will have to break that conversation. y -- i want to ask each of you to give a prediction for 2010. >> i think we face a real question about just the overall direction of the economy. whether recovery if it's happening is more stagnate. and as well a potential for double-dip. but whether it's stagnate and if the economy will harden this view that is out there. and that i think is the big trend in politics next year.

the question mark is to say whether it's a zero-sum game. if republicans the come up in favor of the public's mind. or just more of a referendum on the direction of this administration, i think now the direction is anti-incumbency. >> i think this is will be a water shed view and we will go in a different collection. david cameron will win the british election and we will have leader debates during the election. >> i think 2010 will be the year that the politics of the middle will be empowered. and if not, if the extremes -- >> tell me what that means? >> that means moderate republicans and conservative

democrats having a stronger voice in our debate. that i think you saw in the 90's. and correlary if that's not true, you will see this in next elections. >> i think the elections in 2010 that the democrats will lose their majority in the house. i think it will happen because the americans like a check and balance on federal power. and we have this far outside of the mainstream that many see this country. >> all right, we will be back i hope in the next year to see how those turned out. and now please thank our panelists for a fascinating debate. [applause]

>> next author and researcher william eggers realizes successes and failures of the u.s. government. after that a senate hearing on the children's television hearing of 1990. and also sesame street and new media to keep sesame street relevant. >> in the mid-90's "newsweek" named o mar wasow as one of the

black planet and he talks about his current studies at harvard and what is ahead. >> on monday greg stohr looks at the docket of the high court next year. and a look at how president obama is handling the economy with dean baker and peter morici, and as always your phone calls on c-span. >> this thursday on c-span, a day of tributes to world leaders, including dalai lama

and kennedy, reagan and colin powell. we will see innovations and creator of segway and co-founder of guitar hero. >> author william eggers spoke recently in san francisco about his book of what he sees in the good and bad of government, this is just over an hour. >> thank you all for coming. and thank you for the commonwealth for having me here, it's an honor to speak. it's great to be here in sunny california. you got to love the weather. i am pleased to be here tonight

because so many of my friends and colleagues and many of my relatives are here. my brother and his wife and a lot of my cousins, i have a whole row there, it means a lot to me tonight. if we can put a man on the moon, how many times have you heard that phrase? if we can put a man on the moon, why can't we cure homelessness. if we can put a man on the moon, why can't we p÷ui÷% schools. and from my favorite source, the onion, if we can put a man on the moon, why can't we make killer robot police. it didn't start off as a cliche a challenge by john f. kennedy. >> i believe this mission should be to achieve a goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.

no single project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or for the mission of the space. >> i give to my friend that gives a wicked kennedy impression, but i couldn't do that. in 1969 neil armstrong landed on the moon. and no one who was alive at that time, and i know a lot of you were alive then, could never forget that feeling of pride at that moment. most of you probably remembered where you were. it made an impact on every american including the young, including our president, barack obama. who said as a young boy he

remembered growing up in hawaii, sitting on his grandfather's shoulders and he explained how we as americans could accomplish anything that we set our minds to do. . .

people are mad at wall street and better government today. our most senior executives also believe we have a crisis. 60% said that government today is less capable of executing the net was 30 years ago. then it was 30 years ago. -- 60% said the government today is less capable of executing than it was 30 years ago. who's to blame? it is a natural question to ask, but isn't there a question to ask? all you need to do is visit a

local bookstore. go in to the current events section. it is filled with villains. i wanted us to appear on the front of our book in short black manmini-dresses. why do some big issues fell and why do some succeed? to answer that question, -- why do some initiatives failed and why do some succeed? we wanted to look for patterns. bill looked at everything from the success of the marshall plan to the struggles of immigration reform. when we began this test their reviewing all of these initiatives, to do it for eight

would require a small army of thoughtful and intelligent individuals who were willing to work for free. so the answer was clear. we needed graduate students. with the help of more than 70 restaurants, we took to the task. -- more than 70 grad students, we took to the task. my co-author nih bring a distinct perspectives. john is an engineer by training -- my co-author and i bring distinct perspectives. john is an engineer by training. hewe found that while there were different, the initiatives followed a predictable path, a

series of steps that we called the journey to success. to have a happy ending, the following must occur. you must have a good idea. you must have and implementable design. it must win approval when it goes through the legislature. recall that started. -- we call that start datgate. it is because you go from one universe to another universe better radically different places. by simply visualizing this as a map, that would help.

i am a consultant. my perspective is different. consultants are often called in when an initiative is in the ditch and they need to get it out of it. i am also a bit of a pessimist. this map, while technically correct, it does not reflect the real world that i see every date of government and government initiatives. attend to look and all the possible problems and spell out the systemic barriers to success. bondwe identified the seven deadly traps. we're not going to go through all seven of them today. but to learn about them, you will have to actually read the book, which means you have to buy the book, which is available afterwards i am told they make for fine holiday presents.

you take the process map and you take the traps and to put those together and you have the maps which we think is the more realistic map of how to get things done in government. it looks a little bit like that. there are copies of the math behind you. not all ideas are created equal. the robocopter was a bad idea. new coke was a bad idea. so was the electric board. and they're really bad idea was gerald ford's with inflation albertsons. -- whip inflation now buttons. what a bad idea.

how do ideas like this come into place? you cannot have a successful initiative if you have a flawed idea. bad ideas generally become -- it is the tolstoy syndrome. people shut themselves off from critics. a few years ago, a professor from the university of georgia study how the brain works. he had bargained republicans and art and democrats want a debate between president george bush and senator john kerry. while they watched the debates,

he had their heads wired up to an mri machine. it looked a little bit like that. it is available on ebay for $29.95. westin found that republicans thought that bush had won and democrats fault that kerry had won. the part that was activated -- the part of the brand was activated during the debate was the emotional part of the brain. those hearing the debate were not thinking at all. they were just pulling for their guide. this phenomenon is called by this. it causes a lot of problems. -- this phenomenon is called bias. it causes a lot of problems. it confirms our views, rather

than informs us. if you look at the root of their big problems today, this is one of the things that we found time and time again. so what is the answer to this? how do fix it? the answer is to expose these ideas to new ways of thinking and bring in new perspective. his kind of like having an engineer and consultant look at the same problem. that is the approach that was used to solve one of the biggest environmental successes of the 1980's. it was as a drain. -- it was acid rain. about a mile from the beach at lake michigan, during most of my childhood, we never got to go to the beach. why? it was covered in dead fish. why was it covered in the fish? it was acid rain. it occurs when coal-bearing

plants send invisible pollution up into the clouds where it gets absorbed. then it goes hundreds of miles and land somewhere else. it kills like sanders and the animals and wildlife within it. -- it kills lakes and rivers and the animals and wild live within it. you had environmentalists on one side that wanted to eliminate all pollution. you had coal-burning plants and business interests on the other side who believe that regulation would kill jobs and put them out of business. each of them was locked into their world view they did not disagree. they despise each other. 70 bills were offered in congress to address acid rain. not a single one made it of congress. senator tim wirth from

colorado, a democrat, and senator jack hynes from pennsylvania, a republican came together. and they brought an economist to look at the problem. the economist they broaden was from a think tank out here in san francisco. his name was robert siemens. they took it out of the realm of absolutist on each side. they looked at it as an economic problem. are there any economists in the room? one? you know what they say but economists, do not? economists are really good with numbers, but they lack the personality to become engineers. [laughter] the economist solution was creative.

instead of a command-and-control approach, they left it up to the market how to meet the pollution level. not that epa or the california department of environmental quality. it was workable. it was simple and acceptable to both sides. it was one of the biggest environmental successes of recent decades. it resulted in a 40% reduction in carbon dioxide and sulphur- dioxide emissions. most importantly, by the time my little brother came along, our home town beach was free of dead fish. overcoming the tolstoys' syndrome as all the listening. if we think we know the answer, we close off exploration. let's go back a few years ago to

something you'll experience. in the 1990's, california had a problem. some things never change, i guess. but the economy was in a slump. in part, it was because of high energy prices. gov. wilson and the legislature had an idea. what if we replaced public monopolies with a competitive market? it was not a fundamentally crazy idea. compotation --- deregulation was popular. but it depended on legislation for helmets was designed. the design on the electricity market was really quite simple. power generators had to [unintelligible]

got that? not many people really understood how the new system would work, including most of the legislators. but you know who figured out how the system would work? who figured it out? enron. they understood this new system better than the systems creators and better than the regulators. they soon figured out how to profit from the loopholes in the design, using schemes with cute names like ricochet, fat boy, and the like. they could shift low-cost jews out of california into nevada, send it back over the grid to organ at a higher price and make a huge profit for doing nothing at all.

in the summer of 2000, the crisis hit. and you'll know how the story goes from here. you'll live through it. there is a heat wave. it got to 190 greece -- up to 109 degrees in san jose. energy demands shot up and the lights went out. the weirdest phenomenon of rolling blackouts became a feature of california. the silicon valley have a look -- the silicon valley had the electricity supply of a third third world nation trade electricity prices skyrocketed -- a third world nation. electricity prices skyrocketed. billions of dollars were lost by the state. gov. gray davis was kicked out of office.

so how did such a badly designed bill become law? that is where the process gets really scary. why? because it was an exemplary process. they had hearings and meetings and they visited other jurisdictions. there was bipartisan cooperation. their work until late at night. they did such a good job that the law passed unanimously. as you know, nothing passes california legislature unanimously. no one voted against it. so what was the problem? legislation. they did not design it to work in the real world. they crafted a bill that could pass. they wanted to get as many votes as they could get. but the different parts did not

work together as a system. the design would not hold up to the likes of enron. california's electricity deregulation points to a big factor behind a lot of government failures. it lies at the design phase. only 16% saying that government designs policies that can be a implemented. if you want to get a federal senior executive really going and reanimated, which is not always easy, all you need to do is ask them about the policy design process. this is what they told us. policy designed at the federal level is pathetic. there's a gap between communication and understanding. it is done without

implementation considerations. so what is the cause of this? civil servants will say it is the politicians. the politicians will say it is the bureaucrats. what we found, actually, neither one is the case. the problem is the gap between the two. is the gap that has gotten bigger in recent years. there's a wall between those who employed policy and those who design it. if you are on the policy side of the process, success for you equates with getting a bill passed, getting a bill through the legislature of congress. that is success. but the real goal is way down the line. nowhere is it more apparent than our four-decade quest for energy independence.

by 1980, net imports of oil to the united states were 400,000 barrels higher than they were in 1973. in 1978, president carter signed the national energy act. it was to derive 20% of the energy we use from the sun by the end of the century. the results, we did not quite get to 20%. by 2000 m.i.a. it was.000, it w. then there was the energy act of 2007. getting through the legislature, getting through stargate, is a milestone, but you don't get a ticket take parade until it

works. our next phase is the emblem masoimplementation stage. really smart and capable people become more confident of their abilities and they failed to prepare for all of the risks. [laughter] i am sorry. i cannot resist that. a implementing initiatives is tougher than it looks. anyone who has ever done a rehabilitation under house knows that they estimate of $15,000 in three weeks means you should take out a loan for $40,000 and move in with your in-laws.

that is out to be successful in this initiative. if you're like me, few things get you more frustrated than sitting in traffic. there's one way to reduce traffic congestion. charge people for the use of the road during rush hour. economists have been talking about it for decades. but it is a tough political sell because no one wants to pay for the roads that they think they have already paid for through their gas taxes and they think should be free. london was one of those cities to try it. by the 1990's, traffic was so bad that traffic in london was moving at the same speed or a lower speed than when they had carriages in the victorian age. then a convergence of events occurred to change the political dynamic.

the most important thing was the election of a new mayor who committed to the charge during his campaign. he isn't -- his unapologetically a man of the left. he counts castro and hugo chavez as one of his closest friends. livingston had the most of likely profile you could imagine of a candidate who would adopt a road market pricing based on economists. there were many ways that this thing could blow up. the imagine this thing proposed in san francisco. it had never been done before

on this bill ever before anywhere. political advisers said, do not do it. 70bif it did not work, he could kiss his next term goodbye. the media said it would be a unmitigated disaster. a rabbi in the guardian newspaper was typical. "my synagogue was boãduring the war, but livingston is going to do more damage than the germans." but he did not panic. he took felicitously. -- he took failure seriously. they made sure that this went well. they tested the planet and they tested again. they were fanatical -- they tested the plan and they tested again. there were fanatical about it. then they had a dry run. they wanted to put their control

room to the test. it was like a preseason game, but with the pads on. the day started at 7:00 a.m.. the team had started -- the team had just sat down for coffee. then they call came in. a major car accident. the team is ready for it. add a.m., another call. the communications between the cameras have broken down. there are no vehicles coming into the zone. again, they were ready for it. they have a backup computer system. someone has jumped of the tower bridge. and it went like that all day long. but they were ready for it. they were able to handle everything that was thrown at them. just in case, before the launch, they saient a woman named kate o

walk the entire route, of the pen and a piece of paper and her assignment was to make sure that nothing was going to happen on the road network without them knowing about it. it is 5:30 a.m. the day of the launch. mayor livingston steps out of his flat and flash, flash, flash. he is mocked by photographers. they all want a picture of the mayor on the day that they all think is going to be his waterloo. but they did not end in disaster. it ended in triumph. everything went smoothly. there was not a single glitch. remember the gloom and doom headlines? here the headlines from the day after the launch.

he said it was one of the best days of his life. "can livingston could have a tragic ending. " nothing in public life has turned out better than i hope for. now -- better than i hoped for until now." recall the greek myth of sisyphus pushing a rock up the hill. those who work in government n know the public sector hill is really tough. it is deeper in the private sector. -- i mean, in the public sector. you have politics, culture, incentives that make it uniquely challenging. the sisyphus trap tells us that

success is heavily dependent on people who are trying to get big things done. to succeed actually requires people who are deeply skilled at navigating the public sector terrain. i like to think of these people lazulite the indiana jones of government -- i like to think of these people like the indiana jones of government. the whitdwight does not look lie indiana jones. but he is one of those unsung heroes, the guy behind all of the president's, the cabinet secretaries. he worked at a senior level for

seven consecutive american presidents. that is an incredible feat. he is now in his 80's. the pictures that you see on his wall are the pictures of the great people in history. he helped eisenhower right the nuclear test ban treaty. and he was there when kennedy signed it. he was the guy that lbj turned to for the alaska earthquake recovery. it was the biggest earthquake in north american history. he was watching the news of the earthquake at home with his wife. he said he felt sorry for the person who was going to have to actually put this thing back together again. today's later, he got a call from lbj and he said, boy, you're going to alaska. he helped johnson create the department of housing and launched the war on poverty. he was in charge of new

federalism for nixon and civil service reform for jimmy carter. ronald reagan came in and put him in charge of shutting down the first federal agency to be shut down in 50 years. that is not a simple task force of a servant, but he got the job done. he was kidnapped once by colombian drug lords. soon after, he retired. the one store parallel d aboutwig -- one story that i love about dwight, arthur schlesinger was in a meeting with him. he was the president's historian and close to the kennedy family. dwight was arguing for the

nuclear test ban treaty. they got into a heated argument. after the meeting, he went back and he handed in his resignation. he figured that, look, the kennedys will not want him around anymore. during this meeting, who was looking over? he realized it was bobby kennedy. he said, i am in so much trouble right now. but he went back. in the next meeting, he was invited back. arthur schlesinger was gone and dwight was there. that story teaches us to and courage standing up and speaking

with you believe in. there's only one way out of our predicament, to choose wisely. our hope is that this book leaves a lot of public officials and all of you a little better equipped to navigate the process of making our government better so that we can all have a better future. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. thank you for your comments this evening my name i.

my name is joe epstein. we have a lot of questions. many address your book's central theme, the process of idea through implementation. let me begin with this question. how would you rate the obama campaign for its design and implementation strategies during the election process in 2008. >> that is a great question. i actually wrote a whole thing that did not make it into the book about how the campaign actually performed from the standpoint of execution. i think almost all political professionals say it was one of the most flawlessly executed campaigns. they had their idea. they stuck to that idea.

they designed it. they basically did a lot of things in terms of bringing in a lot of people to help them execute that. in the face of hard things, they stuck with it. and from an execution? stempler, it was a model -- from an execution standpoint, it was a model. in a campaign, you do not have to go through congress, right? that end up being a big barrier to doing things that smoothly. >> let's talk about the marshall plan. you write a lot about it. it is a quintessential example that you use. you refer to it as an example of a successful government program. might not be obama stimulus plan be a modern-day version of the marshall plan, but, this

time, it is actually for us? >> i had not thought of it that way. on the marshall plan, which was interesting about it is that, when it was first proposed -- a lot of you might remember -- it was not terribly popular. the american public was really split on whether this made sense to put billions and billions of dollars into europe and all that effort. what was interesting about how they did it was that, rather than try to ram it through, they allow for a lot of thoughtful legislative debate. daschle said in a lot of senators and others -- they actually sent a lot of senators and others to europe to look at it. then called them. -- they can call them. they had big town hall meetings and went across -- they

involved with them. they had big town hall meetings and went across america. when you look at the major initiatives, there were very few really successful initiatives that we have found that were actually done on a strictly partisan basis. most successes you had a bipartisan cooperation and you had the majority of the american people behind them. >> this is a broad question. what are the best managed government programs? >> as i have been doing a lot of radio programs, a lot of ranting and raving that people are doing on the radio days, but i will say that we have had a lot of failures but a lot of real successes in the last 30 years. people look at me like i'm a crazy person.

we have actually had some really good successes. one of them was acid rain reduction, which i mentioned. another one was crime reduction. in american cities, we have seen 50%, 60%, 70% reduction in crime. that was due to really strong execution in many respects. welfare reform was a bipartisan initiative between president clinton, a republican congress, and the states involved. it had huge reductions and the gut a lot of people to work. -- and he got a lot of people toward. when i talk to the person who drafted it in congress, he said, we are just riding a wave now.

they gave a lot of flexibility to the states for how they can actually implement it. i think that is a really good model. you try things out on a small basis. you do a lot of piloting and prototyping. you see how it works before you go upscale across the whole country. >> how does one does regulate big government without increasing the size of its bureaucracy? is that even possible? >> regulate big government -- >> federal government. >> regulating government is one of our big problems. if you're a senior executive that i talked about, what we call the bridgers, you face so many rules and constraints on how to manage. when we did our survey, we ask what is the biggest reason that we have problems today? they cited partisanship and other areas.

but they said it was all these administrative rules and constraints and everything that actually make it impossible to actually do anything if you are in government. we made that held for sisyphus much steeper than it was. in fact, what we need to do is to deregulate our government is a lot. we need to free up the people who work in theire. anytime there's a scandal, we put in more restrictions because we assume that everyone in government is a scoundrel. we need to be more aware of the need for deregulation and take steps toward that. >> our guest today is william eggers, author and commentator. he is discussing when government works and when government does not work. here's an example, in my

opinion, with this question of how government works. is about the tsa. after 9/11, the transportation security administration was established to ensure the security of air travel. how would you rate the tsa? was it designed and implemented effectively? >> you mention tsa sometimes in polite company and everyone has a story to tell. charitably, it was not known for its customer service in its first few years. we talk about tsa in the book because there is a positive story. a new director came in several years it had been in operation, and kip hawley. he said that, with 55,000 screens, there have to be some

that have good ideas for how to make this easier while keeping us safe. for now, there was no way for him to get to those ideas because there were all these layers of management. it is trendy find ways to get these ideas from individual screeners. that is a wonderful idea. he came up with the idea factor. using collaboration technology, they put something up that allows any tsa employee to submit ideas for a proven tsa operation and improving customer service and so forth. a lot of companies have suggestion boxes and they do not go anyplace. but now, not only would they get to submit their ideas, but other employees could vote on them and they could have debate. he was there participating in these forums. over time, a lot of these ideas actually became adopted.

if any of you have been through airport security where they have diamond lanes and black lines and others for fast travelers, that came from this idea factor. they had another one called job switching. over time, dozens of ideas coming from the frontline were implemented at tsa. it has made it a better agency. it is a wonderful example of how to break through the tolstoys' sender by simply reaching out to a much more diverse group of people to help you come up with good ideas. >> i have a real-life example myself in terms of the tolstoy'' syndrome. thank you for the invitation to segue. i knew somebody in heavy construction and he had several pictures of an extensive data. i told them about your book. -- extensive datig.

i told him about your book. i explained to him the tolstoy syndrome. that was the reason for him ignoring the real cause of the leaking ceiling boom. what you wrote about in the book was very interesting. could you elaborate a little bit? >> if you have been in boston, you would know about big dig, which has led to a lot of traffic. it is one of the biggest urban infrastructure projects ever. it was supposed to cost a couple million dollars. the federal government put in a lot of the money. it ended up being a huge cost overrun and it took decades to actually finish. they actually had a collapsing

tunnel that ended up killing a woman. it was a pretty horrendous process overall. one of the problems with the big day was that they were spending most least federal money -- spending mostly federal money. what we call the case of the red herring bald. -- bolt. over time, it ended up in the collapsing of the tunnel. there was this notion that they wanted to see it in a certain way and they refused to look at alternative viewpoints and see it differently. a lot of infrastructure bad

projects have massive cost overruns. we need to spend a lot of time figuring out how to do those better. we found that the money thfor te infrastructure projects came from the locality, the better ideas were provided. >> this next question has to do with comparing china's form of government with ours. china's government has been referred to as authoritarian capitalism. how would you compare their capitalism to ours? which form of capitalism can take is and implement the most effectively? >> that is an interesting question. before we titled the book, it was called "mussolini's kirsch." -- mussolini's curse.

it is a myth that he could get the trains to run on time. in times like these, when things seem to be going wrong, we have this long before more authoritarian forms of government to get things done. during the olympics, they build all these incredible projects and there were built fairly quickly and everything seemed to go so smoothly. there were a lot of articles at the time say, why can we not, as a democracy, do it that well? why can we not do it that quickly? there was this kind of longing. it is one of the reasons that we bought the book. it is always went to be live it tougher and there is always good to be political obstacles and more debate.

but i don't think any of us would give it up for a second for a little bit more efficiency, that freedom to have that debate. >> the government is spending more and more on washington- based consultants. one could say that the role of col diaz -- the role of lobbyists have been more active. what do you think of the use of consultants? >> as a consultant -- [laughter] that is in import -- that is an important thing to do. in the book, i talk about governing by network. the complexity of our problems and things, whether it is a private company or government or any relation -- or any organization, when you look at

things done over time, they were not done by one agency or another. there were done by a network of groups and people. the manhattan project had over 50,000 academics, scientists, researchers, who were non- government working on it. there were only 5000 government officials. when we decided to put a man on the moon, nasa was really small. it had about 5000 people there is no way that nasa would be able to realize putting a man on the moon within a decade witho a that among the people. they had to go to academics and scientists, contractors and consultants and bring the men. over time, 69,000 were employed to help us realize that goal, putting a man on the moon. over time, we were able to scale

back again. there are a lot of benefits for use in people from the outside who have done a lot of these projects time and time again. >> one of my earlier questions had to do with comparing the marshall plan to the obama stimulus plan. here is a follow-up to that. in a time of the economic disparity, are you in favor of government expansion and more stimulus spending? >> the book really takes a process look at the government in general. this question is the role of government, what government should do in the first place? that is an important question to answer. if you do not answer that, then the other things do not make sense. we tried to address the second question. once you decide what to do, how do you actually execute it? one thing that we say in the

book and elsewhere is that committed this matter if you're a liberal who want universal health care or you're a conservative and what to make government smaller and you want full vouchers and others, execution is really important. i have been working in government reform for over two decades. believe me, i have been involved in many examples of actually trying to find cost savings in government, trying to trim agencies. when the i can tell you is that, actually, making government smaller is a lot harder, requires a lot more executions than launching a new program. people do believe that government needs to be smaller do not think about that. they want to come up with an idea and toss that over the wall. when it does not work, the limit on the bureaucrats. it is important for people on both sides of the aisle, with all sorts of ideologies, to

understand this and understand how government actually works. >> you were listening to the commonwealth club of california radio program guesstimate is william eggers. -- radio program. our guest is william eggers. mccarthy was successful in integrating civilian and military leadership. can you compare this -- this is really kind of an unfair question -- can you compare this to the role that paul bremer play after saddam hussein after the fall of iraq? >> we did look at iraq. there has been so much said

about it. in terms of iraq, we go into a number of the traps that we talk about in the book. one of those traps was tolstoy's syndrome where, when a decision was finally made to go when and you're looking at reconstruction, but they failed to do is that -- there were people in the state department and elsewhere who had a lot of knowledge and look at this as a democracy in iraq project for many years and argued about all the things that could go wrong and all the different problems and possibilities. a lot of the administration did not want to hear that. they did not want to hear contrary voices. they were then shut out of the process. one guy named tom warrick was infamously kicked off the team by rumsfeld. that is a big problem.

they did more war gaming, in terms of looking lending congestion pricing, then we did at looking at the aftermath of iraq. it was obviously a huge problem. they also fell into the overconfidence trap where we thought we would be treated as liberators and so forth. we learned a lot of lessons from iraq from an incident -- from an execution standpoint. with the surge, we have another thing called re-evaluation, where you reevaluate your initiatives. in this case, they did a good job at reevaluate what was working and what was not working in iraq. in some of the provinces, you had some really terrific the generals and other soldiers who

were basically using this method and decided to adopt it over. but there was a lot of opposition. there were some real problems there. but, in the end, you have a real positive story of being able to overcome some of these traps that they fell into initially. >> i almost hesitate to ask this question. it is such a short question with a huge possibility of dancers. maybe you can highlight an answer. how can health care reform be effectively implemented? >> would health care reform illustrates is one of the biggest conundrums that we face today. for health care reform to happen, two things need to occur. first, you need to get the bill passed congress, right? secondly, you need to actually

have a plan that will work in the real world. in some cases, in many cases, those two things actually end up contradicting each other, right? what happens with a lot of legislative bills is that, to basically get enough support and get legislators on board, you end up having to add a lot to it and change the design around and put in a lot of extra things into the bill that you may not have wanted in terms of a pure design. that is one of the issues that we are facing in health care right now. healthcare is right outside of that staragtgate right now. but the question is whether this will actually work in the real world. that is the most important question. you don't get success by just getting a bill passed. it is going to occur over time. it will not be implemented

until 2014, 2015, likely. it is very early to say. i think you can find some aspects there. they will do a lot of pilot projects and be agile and learn from them. the have innovation centers that they're thinking about. but we don't know exactly how a lot of this is going to work in the real world. with welfare reform, one thing we did know is that we had tried a lot in many states before they actually passed it in 1994, a welfare reform bill. >> that is a great answer. i applaud you for it. it is a question that may take many -- this is an interesting one. what do you see government doing to better work with industry. let me add my own till to it -- both small business and big business? >> again, when you look at the big initiatives today, they are not just government alone.

they are involving contractors, industry, academics, and the key skill you need as a public official today is the ability to do that. i think we have had some great examples. a person who really helped get us to the moon was a guy named james west. he was the head of nasa when president kennedy announced it. he had to basically find a way to work with industry, defense contractors, the space companies, and everything else to actually figure out how to cobble them all together to do this. one of the funny things that he said afterwards was that, when you look at the aircraft that was going up, it was put together with low-cost bids in the end, which is a little bit scary. i think we need to recognize -- move away from ideological fight from whether she would privatize

or not privatized or less government or more government -- and realize that, with these initiatives, we have partnerships with the private sector and the public sector. there will have to work more closely together. the more they do, the more public value you can actually create. infrastructure here in california, where the public sector alone does not really build much of the infrastructure, you will need to do a lot more in terms of private partnership, but certainly in the health-care realm as well. >> i hate to see this program and. we'll have time for one last question. why is your judgment on al gore's reinventing government program of the late 1990's? >> reinventing government program was based on the national performance review, a program that i had the

opportunity to manage for several years. it had a lot of wonderful aspects to it. one thing it did was to really create innovation in a lot of the different federal agencies. they had hammer words they would give for people who did innovation. a lot of time and attention when into that, at least the first couple of years. whether the overall issues with it is that it did not actually end up radically restructuring or reforming the federal government. there were small wins with it. one of the reasons is that this is not very sexy, the things that we've talked about, management reform, government reform, innovation. politicians and others lose interest after the first couple of years and then they move onto something else. when that happens, interest wanes in little bit in these programs. i believe it is absolutely

critical and it is the most important kind of government issue that we have today. that is especially true when you think of california and the issues it has had and the troubles it has had. it is a difficult governable nature of the state. there is this notion of making government work better and restructuring its to be better governable is a critical issue. i hope it becomes part of the campaign debate. >> something we do not do. i want to thank the audience for the wonderful questions use of leaded. my special thank you goes to william eggers. we also thank our audience is here and on radio, television, and the internet. tonight's program has been part of the commonwealth club american values cities

underwritten by the tovey family foundation. i am joe epstein. now of this meeting is adjourned. [gavel] [applause] >> mr. eggers will sign books right here. .

>> on monday, the supreme court reporter for bloomberg news looks at some of the high- profile cases on the docket for next year and the possibility of another vacancy on the high court. then, a look at how president obama is handling the economy. as always, the news of the day and your telephone calls starting live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the cs banned book is now available -- death c-span book is now available. it is a unique and contemporary look at abraham lincoln. -- the cs banned book is now available. "abraham lincoln" is in

hardcover at your favorite book seller. it is also available in digital audio. learn more online. >> now, a senate hearing on how well the children's television act has worked. first, remarks from senator rockefeller. this is one hour and 45 minutes. >> we have some of the members coming. they may be slow getting here, but they will be here. the ranking member kay bailey hutcheson is not here today. -- the ranking member kay bailey hutchison is not here today.

we will go to you mr. genachowski and see what happens from there. we have lots of questions. you need to go after your first thing. we would love to have some of your folks come back in. then we have another terrific panel behind that. my approach to this is not to start out controversially. i am so put off by the concept of promiscuity and lasciviousness. i am the grandfather of more than five grandchildren. i care about that. i found out this is the first amendment committee. we have to work carefully. i am determined that we will eventually get to this. i want to talk about the

commission. the committee will talk about the committee in other sessions. i am delighted to see you. the fact that you have been appointed is a testament to the president and his interest in the best people. john holden was ready to retire but he could not stay away from the opportunity to do the office of science and technology. here he is now at ostb. television is a powerful force in children's lives. children in america typically watch between two and four hours of television every day. i try not to think of that in terms of my home, but in homes where parents are both working. there are stresses on them.

you have to be sympathetic but think about the technology and how to handle it. that is what i want to get into today. stunningly, by the time they reach first grade, it has been a long time since i have been in first grade. i think that is seven or eight years old. does that sound right? six? that sounds better. [laughter] they have spent what amounts to three school years in front of the television set. that is by the time they're six years old. i have a hard time getting past that thought let me be clear. -- i have a hard time getting past that thought. let me be clear. television can enlighten and teach. that can come from television itself. it can come from classic dvds

the review history. there are many ways we can be fundamentally unlike in by what comes across our screens. it is now much more than just our screen. it can also expose children to indecent, graphic, frightening scenes. it can be something that all people never get over. i think it has had a coarsening effect on our children and our society. i regret that. i wish i could do something about that. maybe together, we can. i think we have a right to be concerned. 20 years ago, congress enacted the children's television act. 20 years ago was a long time. this law reduced the commercialization of children's programming to read that was

great. less time on advertising and more time programming. it also created a market for more equality and educational programming for our younger viewers. that is very important. these are the good things. these are the policies we want to promote. these are the values that we hold dearly to today. these are what we look to in our children, that they would be a new generation of leaders with a set of values that matches what is required. our media landscape has changed so dramatically during the last two decades. it has been like the blink of an eye. it is a whole 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? our children are part of that and are in comfort with it. it is a world where television

sets are only part of the media mix. it is a world where the television screen is fusing with the computer screen. the cable channels have multiplied. young children view programming over their mobile telephones. it is hard to imagine but i know is true. i see my son and his new wife reading "the new york times" on iphone on sunday morning. i am suspicious of that. i want the newspaper in my hand. i have a weird feeling that the iphone is leaving out some of the context. all you have is what is right in front of you. you cannot get back to another page. there is a need to provide good media content for children. secondly, there is in need to protect our children from harmful content. we need to provide and protect.

we've got to do both. this is why the committee would like to explore how well the children's television act has worked in the judgment of the head of the fcc and how it can be updated to reflect new digital media requirements. 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 monitor their children's viewing, we need to hold discussions like this. if we believe there is some content that is not suitable for children, we need to hold hearings and discussions like this. it will come as no surprise to anyone in this room that i continue to have grave concerns about violence and indecency.

i continue to believe that programming with gratuitous sex and excessive violence harms children and demeans our culture to us and the rest of the world. the rest of the world part is becoming larger and larger. this is not the central focus of today's hearing. let us now begin by identifying how we can work together to improve programming for children in a general way. thank you, julius, for being here. i want to thank the panel that will follow you. one of them has a west virginia background. none of them has an arkansas background. we've got to do best by our young viewers. that is my statement.

i now call upon mark pryor who is our consumer dreguru. >> thank you for your interest in this. you have always been a tireless advocate to protect our children. you are seen as a leader on this nationally 3 we appreciate that. chairman genachowski, it is great to have you here. thank you for your public service. thank you for bringing a new approach and atmosphere to the fcc. i look forward to hearing your statement and asking questions. >> the floor is yours. >> thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the children's television act of 1990 and its role in the digital

media age. i applaud chairman rockefeller and the committee for commencing this timely and important inquiry. mr. chairman, your commitment to children is known by everyone for such provisions as e-rate. the public appreciates it. senator pryor, your commitment to this issue includes the child safe viewing act is well known and appreciated. i want to thank you for the recent contribution of your staff member to my staff. it is an important step in revitalizing the sec. thank you for that. the historic role of this committee and the role it has played is an important legacy to build upon for the future. the children's television act is landmark legislation enacted by congress in 1990 to serve the dual purposes of promoting educational and informational programming and pacing --

placing limits on the advertising to which children are exposed. as the committee. visits this act after two decades, the -- as the committee revisits this act after two decades, children remain our most precious national resource. it remains essential to make sure they are educated, healthy, and prepared for the 21st century and protected from commercial exploitation. second, television continues to have a powerful effect on our children. broadcast television remains the exclusive source of video programming relied upon by millions of households today. the commission's bonds ability to enforce the children's television act remains idle. third, much has changed since it was enacted in 1990. broadcasting has gone digital,

offer new opportunities and challenges. multichannel programming has grown dramatically. it has expanded the choices of viewers who can afford to pay for television. the internet has vastly proliferated. video games have become a privileged entertainment source in millions of homes and a daily reality for millions of kids. mobile services have exploded. we of data and fax -- we have the data and the facts around this. 20 years ago, parents worried about one or two television sets in the house. today, they worry not only about a tv but the computer in the kitchen, the gaming, so in the basement, and the mobile phones in their kids pockets. parents find themselves playing a zone defense across the extended playing field facing an

array of challenges not contemplated 20 years ago. several of these issues are involved in and fcc examination. that process and the one launched today by this hearing reflect an appropriate and widespread interest in the consequences for children and families of the new digital media wednesday. as we review the changing 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 an assessment of the new concerns and opportunities presented by the changing digital media world. exploring these and other

issues have values that injured. it is as essential as ever to ensure that our children have the tools they need to become valuable members of the economy and democracy. said it is the importance of protecting children. video content -- segment is the importance of protecting children. guarded against the marketing of children is as vital today as it was 20 years ago when advertising was limited. there is the importance of empowering parents. fourth, there is the importance of recognizing the. britt roles of the government, parents, and the private sector in the effort. -- there is the importance of recognizing the roles of the government, parents, and the private sector in this effort. i am hopeful the evolving media landscape will enhance

the ability of parents to pick and choose. i am hopeful that all providers of program and will apply creative talents to meeting the responsibilities and obligations to the public. studies show that television can be a force for good and that positive public image as an educational messages to affect behavior in healthy ways. we know that public-service announcements have had real benefits with reductions in teenage pregnancy and drug use in children. this is the time for all providers to act if they are askinacting responsibilityrespo- to ask if they are acting responsibly. i believe the fcc should and will conduct an inquiry into how it can best protect children in

the digital age. i have directed the staff to begin the process. i will work with my colleagues on the commission to launch an inquiry to refresh the record in gathering the misery facts that will inform decisions on how to best -- i will work with my colleagues to launch an inquiry to refresh the record in gathering the facts to inform those decisions. it will be a resource for congress as it examines the issues. i intend for the agency to take concrete action. one area involves interactive advertising on digital tv. five years ago, the commission reached the tentative conclusion for d-tv that it should prohibit interactivity during children's programming that connects kids to commercial material. the versatility will provide new opportunities to broadcasters.

that is a critical goal in this time of economic challenge. protecting kids from inappropriate commercialization remains an objective of the digital era. the commission will study the record fully. i am inclined to agree that the agency should make a tentative conclusion final and say that interactive ads directed at children are off limits without an opt in by parents. i have directed the fcc staff to revamp the children's tv portion of fcc.gov there is useful information on the website. even when it is there, it is not presented in a way that is useful to parents and others interested in identifying educational programming. that kind of information should be easier to find and use.

my goal is fcc for is to have a model -- my goal is for the fcc to have a model website. i commend you for commencing this hearing. i look forward to answering your questions and working with the committee. >> thank you. what would you feel about a little red button on the tv monitor which a child or parent could push? you would push it and find out how what is to follow is rated in terms of family values and things of this sort. was it the pugh charitable trust that showed that 16% of

people know how to use all of this stuff? there's of people sitting behind me who cannot work it themselves. -- there are a few people sitting behind me and cannot work themselves. that includes the chairman. easy ways to empower people to make decisions about what they are about to see, it easy ways for children. how do you make children if they see it is not rated well -- that will entice them. i am looking for a way to solve the problems in the family friendly way that works. enough of that. the children's television act is two decades old. technology has changed.

everything is gone under the broadcast world because that is where we were back then. they watched programming over the internet. there is the television and computer screen. they also use mobile phones. the bulk of the children's television act only applies to broadcasting. that is a function of 20 years ago. the advertising restrictions applied to children's programs on broadcast and cable. the three-hour rule is only for broadcasting. the law has very -- is fairly narrow in its scope and broadcast-centered in its scope. does this limitation nixon's today -- does this limitation make sense today? should we only be concerned about children's media over the

airwaves? do all of these other new forms of media also merit our concern if there is a way of making that happen? what do you believe the fcc or congress should do to update the act to better reflect the digital media world that our kids know today? >> in some ways, we have two sets of parents in the country. we have parents who receive broadcasting and cable and those received broadcasting only. broadcasting only is still the prevalent form of distribution in millions of homes, ref roughly 50 million homes. making sure that broadcast television continues to provide quality educational programming for children is important. f with respect to cable, -- with

respect to kids, parents the receive both types of programming are most interested in making sure that across the river channels coming into the home, they have choices. there is some quality programming on cable. i suspect a big part of the frustration parents have with cable is the tools to identify quality programming for kids depending on their age and level of interest, how to exercise parental control. to your earlier point where you started, i am an optimist on the power of technology it is unleashed in this area to empower parents. i think we should think big and expect big things from innovators, often ignores, and

the media industry -- from innovators, entrepreneurs, and the media industry. a parent should be able to find programming that is a high- quality and will help with vocabulary, history, were of mouth -- warmouth -- or math. the fact that broadcasting is digital is a significant fact. it should allow for more choices through the television in the living room than there used to be. we are at the beginning of that. eari would like the fcc to ask

these questions about the state of the marketplace now. the fcc could use much better data on what is the one on. what are the tools available now? some of this will be addressed in the report the senate has requested. that will be a status report. what are the ways we can empower parents to make choices of the sort you have identified? >> i think we should maintain rigid there are only three of us here talking. -- i think we should maintain region there are only three of us your talking. -- i think we should maintain -- there are only three of us here talking. i will crush the 3 minute rule. >> i want to thank you for mentioning the shell safe viewing act. hopefully, some good will come

about. i encourage you to think about what chairman rockefeller said a few minutes ago about a button on the tv set or remote-control. it is an interesting concept that you could get a status report of what you are watching with the ratings. that would be a useful tool for parents. it would also bring awareness to anyone paying attention that the television set does have the v- chip technology in it. it would pop's millions of parents to set the settings -- it would prompt millions of parents to set the settings.

i think you ought to consider that as an option. there may be good technology out there to make a big difference. another concern i have is the changing nature of technology. our children now have access to video streaming, broadcasts, internet, through their mobile devices. to me this mushrooms the challenges we have. even if we are parents to try to pay attention and set up our cable or satellite box were due v-chip on the television, it is our job is a telephone with that capability -- is our child gets

a telephone with a capability, and everything is open to them. does the fcc have plans to work on that from the parent's perspective? >> we will begin the process of tableting -- cataloging the tools available to parents now. the companion inquiry i am envisioning is where we will ask all the questions about the changed landscape. i could not agree with you more. when i grew up, it was a handful of broadcast television signals in the home. my parents had a hard job for many reasons, but they knew when i was watching television or not. we all had experiences with our children where the landscape is vastly different. you have to think about the mobile phone.

we want our kids to be in the computer, to have access to information. schools require kids to be on computers for home work. it opens vistas to education that we have not seen before. we need to make sure the concerned parents are able to monitor access. it is in our collective interests to give parents confidence and tools to exercise responsibilities that they want. every parent wants better quality programming across all media. no parent wants their kids exploited. they want simple tools to help some exercise their choices. they prefer to do it themselves and not have the government do it for them. we can take a hard look at what

we can do to, to innovation -- we can take a hard look at what we can do to prompt innovation. we can look at why there are better filtering tools on the internet than on television. let's see if there are things that can be done to increase the level of innovation on all distribution platforms. >> as i understand it, in 2007, the began an inquiry -- the fcc began an inquiry about whether educational programming had any significant educational value. do you know the status of that and win the fcc -- and when the fcc will complete that?

a lot of programming that may be called educational or informational does not have real value. >> it is a concern that i have heard and share. i do not have a timetable for when the commission will address the. i do think it is in everyone's interests for broadcasters to have to comply with the act to understand the rules so that there are no surprises. >> thanks you. carrying on the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee dozen incredible amount of good work around here -- carrying on for the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that does an incredible amount of good work around here -- my wife works for a washington public television station. you get the whole routine of

children's television programming. i have been around my grandchildren. i watch what they watch. they are all over the place. the oldest one is quite true. the second oldest one is 1.5 years. they have mastered all of them carried it is amazing. -- the oldest one is four. the second oldest one is 1.5 years old. they have mastered all of them. it is amazing. you have all of these shows that have worked traditionally because they are considered safe and confidence-building. they buy the little products. i have no idea if other

generations do all of these multi-media convergences and whether the standard of 20 years ago about what children should see and hear and watch and learn from and excited by, whether that still works. i wonder if it advances according to what is appropriate these days in terms of their knowledge. >> that is a good question. i grew up with "sesame street," "zoom,"and other programming. every generation of kids finds other forms of entertainment compelling. i think we will be able to address these questions with

respect to children's television workshop and "sesame street 2.0 ." i do believe that creative talent can continue to develop high-quality educational programming that meets the evolving tastes and interests of children in a way that is consistent with gingerstandardst do not change and give parents something for their children that they actually like. thinking of this as medicine that kids do not want to take will not accomplish much. i do think we have enough creative talent that we can

create platforms and demand and create choice to make progress. i think we have creative talent. i think we have demand on the part of parents. i am hopeful that technology can bridge that so that creative talent can supply the demand for parents in a way that is supported by strong business models in the digital world. i look forward to hearing from gary knell on this topic. >> the question of stimulating educational programming is a profoundly important question to me. i almost translate into where our nation is headed. if we do this right, we can make an enormous difference in the

right. if we do wrong, we will get into the violence and things that is easy to tribute to television or movies or whatever. it is enormously important in what it does to the american image overseas. they see things they cannot believe. our kids are taking it for granted and letting it roll off their backs or letting it seemed in -- or letting it sing again -- or they are letting it sink in an unfortunate ways. there was the three-hour rule. those hours had to be dedicated to programming that was good for children. it was designed for children. do you believe the three-hour rule is working? the fcc has the authority to

increase that unilaterally and require more. is that something the agency would consider doing? since the rule was adopted, the fcc has done little to enforce it and has had little interest in it. what can the fcc due to better monitor programs to comply to the three-hour rule, if you configure out where the three hours is? that used to be my problem. it used to be from 7 to 10. it is my impression that a lot of kids start doing their homework at 10. they are watching the parental stuff. it is not subject to any of this. ponder on that out loud.

>> i would be happy to. let me start with your last point. there have to be things that the fcc can do to give the public easy access to the information the fcc has. an important thinking behind the original act was the public check on what broadcasters would be doing. there are rules around identifying programs on tv, putting the information in the broadcaster's public files those rules made cents at the time. we're now in an internet world where the information should be easily accessible to parents. i have directed the media bureau at the fcc to revamp the portion

of the web site that lists the shows. they should be easily accessible to parents. sunlight can help to make sure that we get quality programming. it needs a fair test. it is not getting one now. with respect to the broader question, the next step for the agency to take is to analyze what is going on in the marketplace with respect to broadcasting, cable, and satellite. i think we can see areas of concern and also some good news. there's programming available on cable that was not available 20 years ago. that is good news. that programming is not available to americans that do not have cable. i have questions about how easy it is for parents to find quality programming on cable and the ei programming on

broadcasting. the inquiry will look at the quantity issue, the quality issue, the parental tools issue, and the enforcement issues that you raised. >> could i make one more comment? to emphasize the importance of my feeling about this, i rarely go back and do not have a round table with parents, teachers, guidance counselors who are scared, horrified, helpless in many respects, who feel alienated from the process, have no idea what the fcc does.

you can talk about a website but what do they know about it unless they have heard about it. they desperately want to do well by their children. they feel they cannot. i am not asking for a response. if i am saying how important i think this is. -- i am simply saying how important i think that this is. mark pryor. >> i have beaten him down and warn him out. -- i have been him down and -- i have beaten him down and worn him out. >> thank you for launching this montinquiry. american parents are grateful. >> i think that means he has to go. bless you.

the again. we are so lucky to have you, i cannot tell you. where is my witness list? [indistinct conversations]

>> welcome. are you all good friends and on speaking terms? we have a nation to save, a young generation to save, and an older generation to save. let me introduce the panel. mr. gary knell is president of sesame street workshop right across the street. dr. sandra calvert -- here is my west virginia pride. you are considered an absolute master of the subject. the children's digital media center, you work in georgetown.

i am thrilled that you are here. mr. john lawson the executive director of arlington, va. ms. cyma zarghami, the president of nickelodeon. my grandchildren what's that a great deal. we also have mr. james steyer. he is that ceo of common sense media. it sounds like a very dangerous group treat. [laughter] he is from san francisco. >> i came from lake tahoe. it is a very important hearing.

>> we are joined by the good senator from alaska. he got here too late to make a statement. he just barely missed it. he is terrific. he is 47 years old, the mayor of anchorage. his first term, he walks in yohere and seems to know everything. he is part of the new eagerness of this committee. we are a different committee. we have hired investigators. we look into dark corners. we love of reading up on the insurance industry. we are very good at it. we do not want to have to do that on television. mr. gary knell, can we start with you? >> thank you very much.

we are delighted the you have a new vigor added to this committee and are focusing on children's television. this is so necessary as we move forward into the 21st century. we're celebrating the 40th birthday of "sesame street." it was started with the premise of using the power of television to teach preschoolers to prepare them for school. we all know about the success. i wish i could have brought elmo, but he is busy trying to do positive media for kids. today, we focus on the children's television act. when sesame street was created 40 years ago, there were things repeated in the act. he was about trying to harness

-- it is about trying to harness the educational role of the media. we knew that the television media was teaching. we wanted to limit the negative impacts on children. the whole idea of the act promoting better media on broadcast stations or limiting commercial time on broadcast stations was well intended. in a 2010 context, it is almost irrelevant today. your grandchildren will never know the world before so phones -- cell phones or ipods. everything has changed. the needs are the same. the needs are about education for our kids.

children are dropping out of high school. we know that if they are not reading at grade level by fourth grade, the chances of them dropping out of high school are so great. today, we do not have as big a need in preschool programming. there's a lot of educational preschool programming. there were two shows in 1988. today, there are 47. the need is for six to 11 years now. that is where we need to take a look. i hope that chairman genachowski will look at how we can incentivize the creation of educational content for this group that really needs our help. we know the media can teach and make a difference in their lives. we're pleased that the new broadband act promotes

education for underserved communities. it is critically important because we will see a merger of formal learning and informal learning. on the public health issues, there are huge public health issues. i chaired a task force for senator brownback and senaro ator harkin on food labeling. there is still confusion in the marketplace about uniform nutrition standards. parents and food companies need

to understand what is healthy or unhealthy food. these are things the government still needs to focus on and clarified. media companies play a strong gatekeeper role whether they admit that or not. they are a a channel between the 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 the epidemic of child could obesity? children today are expected to live fewer years than their parents. there's important role for media to play. the importance of education continues in 2010 just as it did in 1969 with "sesame street." there is the need to promote media as a health solution instead of part of the problem. those are things i want the

committee to hone in on as you look at children's television. >> thank you. that is well said and had not been previously said. >> good afternoon. i am sandra calvert, a professor of psychology and a native of west virginia. 21st century work requires knowledge of technology. we examine 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. throughout development, children's lives are imbedded in digital media. in the first six years of life, children spend an average of two hours a day in front of the screen. the amount of media time gems to 6.5 hours a day -- jumps to 6.5 hours a day. television is still the dominant media of choice. newer media are rapidly making inroads into the daily media expenses. congress recognizes the potential of media for children's development when it passed the act in 1990 required broadcasters to provide informational programming to child viewers and restrict the amount of commercial advertisements broadcast during the programs during 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. the 2008 analysis revealed that children's educational television programs were 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. the standardized scores on mathematics, science, and reading literacy trail behind their international peers. this is appalling. educational television can list the scholastic success of our youth.

digital television allows for more channels with ancillary formats. non-commercial stations are creating web site content that supplement the educational messages they transmit via television programs. these new interfaces allow children to create, interact directly with the educational material, and extend the learning they get from viewing television content to a different platform that allows them to control what they are growing -- learning at a pace that is their own skill level. commercial broadcasters have been less likely to take advantage of this powerful option it is timely for the commercial broadcasters to return something to the american public' for the use of our band with. i recommend that congress and the fcc consider the following

steps. one, require commercial broadcasters to expand their educational program offerings on the airwaves and on websites. two, expand the number of players who were part of the informational mix. those who create interactive media should be higher on the list. 3, allocate funds for a center that is a public-private partnership to serve as a think- tank for interactive media. the children's television act was passed by congress almost 20 years ago as a way to use media in a constructive way for children's development. the promise was of a quality children's media environment remains just a promise. it can become a reality in the

early part of the 21st century. thank you for your time. please berger the children's digital media center as a resource to the committee as you considered this and other issues. -- please consider the children's tv digital media center as a resource to the committee as you consider this and other issues. >> executive vice president from the distant city of arlington, va. >> thank you very much for having me here to discuss the continuing dedication to children's television and the ground-breaking efforts made by ion media in this area. i am the executive vice president of the largest

broadcast television group treated i testified in my role as a member of the nab and more importantly as a parent. i am happy that my wife and twin sons are here with me today. >> they are such great looking kids. [laughter] i have been wondering. i want them to stand up. [applause] >> they take after their mother. >> you are right about that. [laughter] >> i hope that statement added credibility to the rest of my statement did we live in virginia, but we do have a home in west virginia that we love. [laughter] >> this is not a conspiracy. [laughter] i am vocationally --

locationally neutral. >> we share the goal of promoting quality children's programming. children are a precious resource. we must provide them with the tools to allow them to succeed. local broadcasters remain the foundation in communities across the country as the leading source of news, information, culture, education, entertainment, and sports. a number of issues surfaced after 20 years. local broadcasters continue to provide high-quality programming to meet the needs of the young viewers. with d-tv, we are doing even more. full power broadcasters have successfully transitioned to all digital broadcasting. on june 12, america became the

first large country in the world to complete the transition to d- tv. millions of households are enjoying dramatically better pictures and sounds as well as new platforms for children's programming. ion airs three digital streams that fills the gap between preschool and tween ages. broadcasters are also preparing to deploy mobile d-tv that would enable people to receive free television wherever they go. . .

>> i will close it now so it does not distract me. we are excited by dtv and news services it brings. since its debut, tivo remains the only 24 ouhour service. it features as programs that promote literacy and help the

lifestyles, and promotes a child's imagination. they recently adopted a set of nutritional guidelines for acceptable foods that can be advertised on the air. they had been called the gold standard in the media's efforts to combat child to the b.c. it -- childhood obesity. we hope that these efforts and a strong effort to parents and business partners about the allocation of wellness to the nation's kids. we hope that this committee will examine in support ways to encourage distribution of a positive media alternatives for children and families. as recognized in today's hearing, additional choices of programming that is specifically designed to meet their needs, and children access media through a number of devices, not

to mention the internet. and of course in any discussion of children's programming, we must pay attention to our non- commercial educational station. i am honored to be of the sit here with my friend, gary knell. as we sit here today, broadcasters are looking ahead to the next 20 years of children's television. first and foremost, we remain committed to providing quality children's educational and informational programming that serves the public interest. we must also remain vigilant against content that is not suitable for young children. in this regard, we must utilize technologies and the most effective control of all, parental control. we recognize the leadership of senator pryor in this area. in conclusion, broadcasters look for to working with this committee as a reexamines the children's television act. our commitment to children is

not limited to three hours a week. as highlighted in my written testimony, broadcasters work very closely every day to serve their local communities. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about this important subject. i look for to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you, sir. and now miss cyma garzhami. >> thank you, and i will be buying a home in west virginia shortly. [laughter] i have been working at nickelodeon for 24 years. cable television was relatively new and you still had to get off the couch this change the channel. i was at nickelodeon when the

children's television act was written. it was a very different place then. children basically watch network television on saturday morning. there were much smaller percentages of divorce and two- parent working families. many & and nickelodeon's content came from canada. "my three sons" was the top- rated program on nickelodeon. now i have three sons. we produce much of our own content and we have been the no. 1 rated children's network for three years. nickelodeon was created to serve all were kids who are watching a lot of adult-targeted television. it was also meant to be a place where kids could relax and laugh. we knew it was to be at -- it was tough to be a kid in a

grown-up world, and it still is. our core attributes are as true today as they were then. we put kids first and we listen to them. we feel that many thousands of studies over the years to better understand their lives. that has been one of the keys to our success. nickelodeon has also followed the guidelines set forth by the television television act, and commercial limitations had been valuable and good for the audience. we at nickelodeon do not feel the need for any additional regulation. today nickelodeons audience ranges from preschoolers the families. we serve as many areas are overall programming day is carefully constructed to serve our audience. morning is for preschool, afternoons are for adolescents, and weekends are for families. we try to tell off than exterior

-- stories that allow them to feel good about themselves. -- we try to tell authentic stories that allow them to feel good about themselves. for families, we added an hour of prime-time program. recent research we conducted told us that kids and parents want to spend more time together. we could not be more pleased that families are gathering to watch shows together. at the other end of the spectrum, nickelodeon has been making gold standard preschool programming for 15 years with shows like "blues clues." last year we extended our commercial-free preschool channel 24 at -- 24 hours and the responses been terrific. we heir to hundred hours of educational content of week. -- we air 200 hours of

educational content a week. we also addressed issues in the world that affect them. we created the kids choice award to allow the kids to vote for their own entertainment, and it has become a version of the oscars for the kids. linda ellerbee has helped explain major news events in a kid-appropriate way. since 1988, we've let kids had their own vote for president. it is one of my favorite campaigns that teaches kids how the nation chooses its president. the kids almost always predict the actual winter. -- winner. every year we selected a to go

off the air and off line to remind kids to go outside and be active and play. thanks to our filly of partners, we have followed our audience as they move toward new technologies and platforms. this generation of kids seamlessly navigate between television, on-line, and mobil entertainment a child or parent can watch a nickelodeon program -- and mobile entertainment. a child or parent can watch and nickelodeon parent from a variety of platforms. they 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 web sites, including a partnership with the national center for exploited children. i believe that today's generation are being far better served with quality programming than any previous generation. and my 25 years in this business of serving kids, i met hundreds of executives like many today you are devoted to doing right

by this audience. after 30 years, we at nickelodeon have a generation of young parents who knew less when they were kids and understand what to expect when they allow their kids to access our content. we have earned their trust and look for to continuing to earn it, moving toward in years to come. >> thank you very much. the ceo of the common sense media from san francisco. you, all this way, breaking into your vacation. we think it is worth it. >> i think it is worth it, too, chairman rockefeller. thank you for having us here today. i am also a consultant professor at the stanford university where i taught for 20 years. i am sure that i had people from alaska, arkansas, and many from west virginia in my classroom in the last year alone. so there you go. i am also a dad of four kids.

>> i am leaving, i am so embarrassed. >> i wanted chairman -- i will summarize what chairman genachowski said. i want to go back to something you said at the end of your remarks. to us, this is truly a transfer emotional moment in history of media in this country. i believe that you said that this is really where i nation is headed. and i think that is correct. 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 economical and future of this country is headed. with all the media platforms that exist today and will exist, it is central to our domestic and international security of the future, period. you cannot look at the issues that we're talking about without a basic framework. we would 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. i believe all along with chairman genachowski that this is a new era, and i think it is critically important. i think it is threefold. educate, and power, and protect. whether it is television, whether our apps that we can down load on the icon, or anything else. i plead that this committee has a chance to lead this nation into the 21st century, and finally, on these issues. when we talk about education, there are two key issues. there needs to be far more qualities television distributed on all platforms. cyma is correct about nickelodeon.

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, as chairman genachowski said on numerous occasions, and if our kids are not digitally illiterate, they will not compete, they will not grow up in the right way, and we need to educate their parents and teachers in that context as well, because they cannot teach or parent without that literacy. and in the discussion period, we can talk more about that and what we ought to do in that regard. empowerment is very simple. that is your little red button. we're much closer to the little red button and then you may realize. we re and review every movie, video game bulk, 10,000 titles today.

they are discussing whether we should rate every app on icons. -- iphones. in empowering parents across the country to access simple, easy to use third-party, non-partisan informational around media platforms is critical. i believe that the technology exists and the information exists. all leadership from this committee will do a ton and that regard. it is out there and it is to be used. we have 60 million users over the course of the year. if you're a little red button can be made available to every family in this country, sen. the third element is to protect. you mention that in your opening remarks and i agree. but the protection element not only comes from leadership from the people like nickelodeon and others, but from this committee and the fcc.

i teach first amendment law at stanford and i believe that we can frame protected efforts by this committee and by this government that balance the first amendment freedoms with the protections for our families. whether childhood obesity or violence are inappropriate sexual message during ball games i am trying to watch with my kids, there are enormous public health issues and a lot of our media today. they're coming out of adult content that kids are consuming and sometimes creating. that protective landscape can be created and overseen by this committee, consistent with the first amendment principles but i have to teach every year to my students at stanford. this really is that special moment and at transformational period that you're talking about. we can work with both sides of the aisle, and one of the great aspects 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 and leadership to change our kids' future. i would lead you by saying that you could not have picked a more important topic. it is so important that i was willing to give up a vacation for a couple of days. thank big and our kids will benefit. >> thank you live. when i started all this, i was so fed up with the fcc i want to remake the whole thing -- just scrap it and start all over again. i do not think that we will have to do that now because we have some superb chairman and commissioners. but it is so incredibly important. it used to be that children reacted to us and now we have to be reacting to children and we are not. and this is the most serious part of it. and as little children, in little corners of rooms, look at

things, television sets or their little hand-held sets, embarrassing things which flow into them in ways that we cannot understand, which we did not have to deal with. i started out with a round television set, watching the giants baseball game. one said -- you could only say one thing but it was television and i was excited. it is a lot different now and i think it does determine the direction of the world. >> if i may, one thing to think about is that kids are not just consumers of media but they are also creators of media. that is what text messaging and much of the content that we deal with on a daily basis in eds. kids that isare creators of med. you have to understand the basic rules of the road and had issues like privacy and identity, and so that has to be part of this

committee's leadership as well. and you're granted, your 4.5- year-old grandchild will be creating media sooner than you think. they have to be educated as creators as well as consumers of media. >> now that you have raised the bar so high in the introduction, i am nervous about the questions i have to ask. first, thank you all for doing this and for being here. i am a parent of a almost 7- year-old, so i have some real firsthand experience, real life experience. i can tell you many of the characters. i haven't seen an adult movie and i don't know how many years now. you entreat me -- a couple of you mentioned this, but mr. now, you mentioned it -- the sixth-11

age group. this is a gap. i do not know what the right answer is. my son now likes to watch george lopez. i explain that this is for older kids but he prefers to watch it. and the adult has the total control over what a kid watches and we practice that with one television in my family and one download lake. how do we get to, without mandatory requirements in regard to ensuring that there is good content for 6-11 year-old son. that is a huge gap. -- 6-011-year-old. my son is not interested in much of it so he jumps to the preteens doubt. at any moment, the boys and girls kids, he is like, change

the channel. everything else he tries to watch. is it or gamete -- orgami? > >> zarghami. >> some of our kids are better able to use media than their teachers. one person told me that heard two-year-old was downloading apps. >> my 6-year-old is using quick books. he thinks that it's very fascinating until he gets as a bell. >> one thing -- one way to go about this is to look at a

pipeline for schools. we have been talking to the department of education, and secretary duncan is a big advocate of trying to merge this, having larders coming into school today. we're figuring out a way in which we can create content that will bridge from the school to the home. we're seeing that homework -- i think the chairman mentioned -- homework is given out and you are connecting, but when you get a high school, think how much more powerful it is when you have harry truman's speech about the atomic bomb and that high school classroom rather than reading it in a textbook. we can do that for a six-nine, and we need to make media as a partner in that, and a figure out ways where we can incentivize people. there is not a lot of advertising money that is available for this age group of 6-9-year-old. even though they have tried to

address that group, along with colleagues at cartoon in disney, which tend to dominate that age group, we have not seen an abundance of programming that is not tipping toward the entertainment side. they go from preschool education to all entertainment, all the time. we have to be rather a way to get the best of all it would end 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 and really try to make that happen. >> if i can, and that by pronouncer name wrong, ms. zarghami but for kids that are not preschool, the morning is also important for you mentioned preschool in the morning, which we took advantage of more than once. but now in the morning, it is important for that age group.

i call it the working family, single parents with you really highlighted, is that 3-7:00 p.m., when a care giver may be there. our mother-in-law who tells me she is straight, but i know based on his comments what he has watched that day. let me just say that. and that is my last question. >> nickelodeon in the very early days to lot of research with kids that find out what it was that they were interested getting from television. we're primarily an entertainment brand for kids. we feel very strongly that we want to do right by them as well. the idea that we could -- i mentioned it earlier, it is tough to be a kid and a grown-up world. one of the biggest issues for kids when we began and one of the biggest issues to date once they get out of the preschool

age is, what is going on at school and added they navigate the real world is bigger kids? they are going to school to get their academic education. cahow nickelodeon early on said, what is it that you want from us and what can we do better? just because something is good for you does not mean that it tastes good, right? light green vegetables. we said to them, so we will not tell stories that are relevant to kids, that help kids navigate bullies its goal, making new friends, dealing with tough issues with her siblings and their parents, and every story on nickelodeon tries to come to some positive conclusion, so that as kids watch kids on nickelodeon that look like them and have the same issues or have exaggerated versions of those issues, that can take it all in and learn to navigate the world that they are

living in in a more confident way. in building the kids' self- esteem, we believe and everyone would agree, is really important, particularly in that age group. >> mr. chairman, i know my time is up. the oilers allowed to call on you. -- >> i would like to call on you. we're not following the rule book year. and senator, you will be next. >> i am grateful for your hospitality. thank you for your generosity. you are very kind. let me ask professor calvert -- in your testimony, you mentioned to 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. can you tell us more about that? >> yes, senator. my thinking on that is that a lot of times, and he did not have all the key people at the same table. -- you do not have all the key people at the same table. that people create media along the -- along with those who study media, the policy makers, the advocates -- if you can get them around the same table and finance that said that we can have created ideas, and then we can advance the educational arena. and i would also come back to the point that ion media does include social content by law that is how it was defined. but then when they begin to create a partnership to look to the best interest of children, and by doing that, one of the

things that happens with studying even the quality of the programming and how it affects children, that there is not a good funding mechanism to do that. they're sometimes private industry doing that and then they move on or foundations are doing that and then move on to another area. by working together, we can begin to create a better quality media environment for children. and i was especially interested in seeing some of the more interactive options appear -- web sites and these hand-held devices, how we can use them to optimize children's development. >> we limit the amount of advertising but we do not regulate the content. is it time to revisit this issue? and what would you all suggest? you know, obviously, there are other issues.

what do you think? >> senator, i can tell you that we have a 24 broadcast channel and will voluntarily adopted a strong best nutritional guidelines in the industry. we think that there is a market for programming for children that parents can really feel safe, feel a set -- feel a sense of safety in their children viewing it. this commands the work of kerry and others and senator brownback and others. we as a broadcaster have heard that message and we have adopted these guidelines. if i may, mr. chairman, all on senator -- follow up on senator begich's question. we are trying to fill that gap

with quality and educational/informational programming 3 is available 24/7. >> i would also point out when you look at the united kingdom that has faced this issue to their regulatory framework, the address the same thing. you have the bbc over there, and non-commercial service, that has multiple more funding than pbs does. that makes a big difference. but they did put florida said of nutritional guidelines for the food marketing, which is not the cause of of this city but it is a contributing factor -- of obesity, but it is a contributing factor. they did come up with the set up uniform nutrition standards. there are a lot of kids over

there engaged in a children's television every day. it is worth looking at. >> in your answer to this, looking not only at the content but the content of the movies or the film with embedded advertising? >> i would agree and i actually think we can go lot further. i teach civil rights and civil liberties at stanford, in addition to running common sense. you're on solid first to grant -- first amendment grounds if you drafted carefully. he is quite familiar with all law and the balancing as well. there is a lot that you can do and that this country can do, not just along the lines of what gary just said, about the uniform nutritional standard that clearly ought to happen in the obey city area, but chairman genachowski talked about making permanent the band on interactive advertising. that is a no-brainer. the fcc can do that and i hope

that they will do that in the coming months. we issued a report this past december and shared it with senator pryor among others, looking at the ads that aired during sporting events. they are extremely offensive to me when i'm at a function with my 5-year-old. the are two things that can happen. there is industry leadership, which has been extremely slow to materialize, because for obvious business reasons, so it needs to be leverage from this committee and elsewhere. but there are ways to balance the best interest of kids with the need to make a profit and a market context. the second thing i would add which goes to your question about movies is that the concept of digital media literacy, which should be in every school, in every classroom in the united states -- and we are doing it in omaha right now, a pilot program, and thanks for the bucks for doing that.

it should include education for kids as young as kindergarten about how to distinguish between advertising and real programming. when you have embedded and product placement, kids have to understand that. they need the judgment to do that. media literacy programs and schools can teach them to think about that. one of that big part about the program that you oversee, which can be part of the new broadband efforts, is that it will in fact give kids the ability to distinguish between ads and traditional programming. if you put all those together, a lot of the challenges that advertising presents tickets, which are enormous, would be dealt with in a very serious way. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator nelson. senator klobuchar.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to all of our witnesses. i did think that parents are on the front line and have to make a lot of the decisions. always there was some magic technology that would allow them to do that. -- i wish there were some magic technology that would allow them to do that. it makes a big difference in our kids' lives. some research shows that the average american child today spends 44.5 hours a week and part of the screen. kids with the least in, watch the most media with police supervision. -- kids with the least in cocome watch the most media with the

least supervision. i 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 were unable to navigate it. that goes back to something simpler. you have a button to push for something that will allow parents to very readily see what is on the air waves and also to block it. 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 the truth in my household.

i had to call my daughter in minnesota to figure out how to switch the channel on the tv. she is 14. mr. spteyer. >> i think we're close to that reality. i think that we will get there more quickly than you think. and that child safe viewing at preventing -- davis the ability to do that. -- gave us the ability to do that. i think the v-chip technology is there. the rating really does not matter for parents. i think that the key is to marry that technology -- not just for the v chip, but the cable networks to distribute the vast amount of cable programming, and easy use third-party ratings. they are much better than the current ratings that that tv

industry gives out. those mean nothing to me and that is my field. i think the technology is there and we're moving quite closely now. there's rating on every bit of programming. it will be on your ipg. the challenge is to integrate their ratings into that, but that is easily done a good rating system -- an expensive proposition to write every television show on television but it can be done -- and then it will be on your little red button. that information is just about to be available. what we could use from this committee and the fcc is clear direction to the industry to distribute that to every home in the country. but we are there -- and all you have to do with the vchip is to keep it on and keep it open just

-- and do not keep it open to the silly mpaa ratings. your little red button will be a reality sooner than you pay. you need it right at the point of decision for the parent, letting them make a decision about which particular programs, whether violence are commercialism, is a proper for the kids. >> i want to switch to one other topic. on the agricultural committee, we are working on another bill for the schools. i've learned a lot about something i had already seen and differences in the schools that my daughter had attended, nutrition and the affected have some kids. -- and the effect it has on kids. thank you for that. and where do you think that is going, and also, ms. zarghami, utah about "dora the explorer"

and other programs this is clearly an issue of kids thinking that the two of k and getting the blessing of door they explore. -- that put some foods are ok and getting the blessing of dora. >> i hearing like this helps a lot because it puts a spotlight on the service that is not well known. it is a free, over the air service made possible by digital television. it is advertising supported, and your knowledge that importance and the wall. but it is a problem for us it is so under recognized, not only in the marketplace but in the public interest community, the children now study being quoted

-- i was invited to their presentation and the risk criticism of broadcasters, not that they were airing three hours a week, but because some of their is a quality issue. it was not even mentioned. there are distributing a quality children's programming, 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 and distribution. i think you are asking questions about that and this hearing itself is a wonderful beginning for us in terms of validating that if -- that there is a commercial model for broadcasters willing to provide quality children's programming beyond the requirement and adopting some guidelines. >> ms. zarghami, it could be

brief. >> we will work with all the food companies that have taken the cbb pledge. we have made a pledge. we have council meetings every couple of months where all our food advertising partners, everyone in this business is trying to get it right. and the last thing i would say quickly is we do a lot of research with families and parents. and parents are on the front line on so many issues. this childhood obesity issue is very complex. but what kids really want is to raise the kids and for their kids to be safe and they want to provide for their kids. with that in mind, we have to figure out how to navigate what they need to help their kids be better cared. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. i'm going to have to close this because we have a vote.

i like to do this with two things, and please forgive me. mr. steyer, i really am passionate about this question. it is not a subject of the day but it will be the subject of others, violence, promiscuity, and i completely messed up and said that the sec actually does have a party over and decency -- the fcc ashley does have all authority over indecency, but no authority over violence. i got that wrong and i apologize to all. but we had a shocking incident last year at a hearing on this subject. i had prepared a dramatic presentation on violence and

promiscuity, that people could look at, members of the committee could look at. i was doing it in absolutely good faith and i was absolutely shot down -- mostly by members of my only side of the committee, because of the first amendment. there was an automatic nine said that because the first amendment to exist, you cannot even be talking about it, so do not waste my time. i was furious and i was undeterred. but it makes me so glad that you took off a few days from your vacation to be here. because we are going to need you to help us work this fine line. if in fact we're going to do, which i would very much like to. and i would close in thanking all of you. i think these kinds of hearings

-- are there 50 million people watching? i do not really care. i think it emboldens all of us and makes us hungrier for solutions, for answers, makes us proud and more determined to fight. one of the things, and i will give this one to you, doctor, that as i have watched my daughter and her husband who live in st. petersburg, having grandchildren it home which is a big event, and i've watched him closely over the past several weeks, and it occurs to me how little i know about them. in fact, how little i know about children and how little i know about teenagers, and what goes on inside their mind that may not have to do with television installations of that sort. but what are the pressures of the modern world that makes

today's child different from, if they are, from children before. and 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 analysis or particular articles -- and my generation does not understand children. we love children and worship them, we called them, we beg them, we do not understand what is going on inside those little minds. and what gets them to select this over that, do this over that. i think that is a pretty important background. not just that parents are frustrated, because they cannot control viewing habits, but that we have an obligation to start on this with the understanding the children's art today. i'm sure the 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 light at the end of the tunnel on this? >> there is always live at the end of the tunnel. >> i am very happy about that. i cannot thank you enough, all of you. i think this is the 1.3 more baggage -- i think that this is important. mark begich thought that this is incredibly important, and that is what we've got to hear. this has to be something where there are all different kinds of people, but i want to plow ahead, and i am determined to do it. and i greatly thank all of you. so are hearing is adjourned. -- so hour hearing is adjourned. -- so our hearing was adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> next, remarks from gary know, president and ceo of sesame workshop on the challenges of keeping mr. stev"sesame street"

relevant. and then, newsmakers with dr. francis collins of the national institutes of health. >> in the mid 1990's, a newsweek named a omar wasow one of the 50 most important people to watch in cyberspace. he helped found a charter school in brooklyn and explain it technologies on oprah. tonight, he talks about his current studies at harvard and what is ahead on q&a." on washington journal on monday, greg stohr previews the supreme court. and then a look at how president obama is handling the economy, would the baker and peter mor ici, and as always, your

telephone calls starting at 7:00 a.m. here on c-span. >> this thursday on c-span, a day of tributes to u.s. and world leaders, including that dolly llama, ted kennedy, roland -- ronald reagan, and walter cronkite. a look what is ahead for the new year. russian prime minister vladimir putin discusses his future from his call-in program, the global economy, and the creator of this that way and the co-founder of guitar hero on innovation entrepreneurship, plus the art of political cartooning. >> now remarks from gary knell, president and ceo of sesame workshop, on the challenges of using new media to keep open "sesame street" relevant to young audience. this marks 40 years since "sesame street's" debut.

>> welcome to the national press club for our luncheon. i am the president of the national press club and a reporter for "usa today quo." we provided them for the programming in journalism, education, and fostering a free press worldwide three for more information about the national press club, please visit our web site at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i like to welcome our speaker and guests in the audience today. also like to welcome those of you who are watching us on c- span. we're looking for today's speech and afterwards i will ask as many questions from the audience as time permits. please hold your applause during the speech so that we have time for as many questions as possible. for our broadcast audience, i like to explain that if you hear

applause, it may be from the guests and members of the general public to attend our luncheon and not necessarily from the working press. i would now like to introduce to our head table guests, from your right, the washington bureau chief of the "cleveland plain dealeruz," communications direcr for toyota in north america, the bureau chief of the "buffalo news" and a past president of the national press club, the dean of the annenberg school for communication in journalism at the university of southern california and chairman of the board for the corporation for public broadcasting, the director of journalism recruiting at national public radio, the president and ceo of the corporation of public broadcasting, and skipping over the podium, bloomberg news and

chair of the national press club's speakers' committee, allison fitzgerald, investigative reporter for bloomberg news and a speaker committee member who organize today's luncheon. thank you very much, allison. the president and ceo of public broadcasting systems. the chair of the young members committee. the senior associate for the opposite pbs. and finally a radio producer for the associated press. [applause] most of you are familiar with our learn term friends, big bird and grover, from sesame street. they had been coming into our

homes cents sesame street debuted in 1969. the man behind this is gary knell, chief executive of sesame workshop, a nonprofit educational organization that produces sesame street. public television favorite, and celebrating its 40th anniversary this year, is to create innovation and educational content for all media. their methods -- barbie on the television screen to offer games on cellphones and video games. he is brought into the global mission, including groundbreaking co-production and south africa, india, northern ireland, and egypt. he is also has found it at 24 our domestic kids' channel in the united states. sesame street i announced last month that it would join president barack obama's initiative to promote math and

science education come going toward lessons in those disciplines. in the past, the muppets have taken on such issues at childhood obesity, military deployment, economic insecurity. in addition and to the educational segment, they create a major market for toys. mr. now announce that sesame street has entered a 10-year deal with hasbro, the world's second-largest toy manufacturer, for elmo, cookie monster, and grover. the deal means that mattel which has had exclusive rights to those characters will have to look elsewhere. before joining sesame workshop, mr. knelt was the manager of media international and bread and multimedia companies based in bangkok, hong kong, and

singapore, where he oversaw the development of monthly business magazines and several trade publications. he also has served as senior vice president and general counsel for new york station, and worked and the california state legislature and governor's office. today, mr. now will discuss the challenges of ewing -- using new and ever changing media to keep their megoals in step. please join me in welcoming to the national press club mr. gary knell. [applause] >> thank you very much, donna. it is important for me to be here. i want to wish everyone a happy holiday. today's talk is going to be brought to you by the letter n,

as an national press club, and the no. 6, which there are six lessons that i would like to discuss with you today. >> i've got dresses down here. does anybody want any dresses? >> robert, what are you up here for? >> i wanted to show off my of dresses. i think i have your size. >> i do not think so. >> happily little silk number with an empire waist if you are interested. or a cocktail dress, with a provocative line. >> what makes you think that anybody wants to hear about this right now? >> is this not the national press club?

-- national dress club? >> no, the national press club. i did not think so, grover. i am in the middle of a speech. >> i love speeches. perhaps i can help you. is this a speech about the industrial revolution? >> no, not the industrial revolution. >> good, i do not know anything about the industrial revolution. is it a speech about getting better abs and 30 days? because as you can see by my amazing, i know a lot about raw card ads. check out my midsection. >> great, it is really nice.

but it has nothing to do with what i want to talk about, which is the way that new technologies are able to teach kids. >> teaching kids using new technology? gary, this is your lucky day. i know a lot about new technologies. >> are you sure? >> gary, do you see that right there? i cut right through it because i am on the cutting edge of new technology. >> okay, i guess, i get that. i did not know that. >> i can help teach the children of the world using nine technologies, using iphone apps. >> that is terrific. there are a lot that can be used to teach kids. >> no, not apps.

everybody is doing the apps. i am talking about the iphone napps. it is simple. you have to take a nap with your i found right next to your head, and all that information in your phone goes directly into your tiny little brain. >> i don't think that is going to work. >> but once we get it working, it will work like gangbusters. gary, it is for the children. come on. >> let's just move on. what else do you have? >> tweaking. >> you're saying that twitter can be an effective tool. >> note like birds between.

had you ever heard of little bird say, tweet, tweet, tweet, tweet? >> what is your point? >> she is to we need the answer to quantum mechanics. >> we need to get on with this. we have some great thinkers and members of the press out here. >> where? >> they are right here. >> are you sure it is this group? maybe they can help me set up mind eifi -- they can help me set up my wifi? well, you have your little speech. use your blueberries to get in touch with me. if you bring up the blueberries, i will come out running. >> thank you, grover. [applause]

>> you think you have a tough job. i am the only grown man who is the ceo who has that dimmest rhine -- demonstrate the potty time elmo and of audiences. i want to acknowledgement francmy friends, tony bush, onef our board members emeritus, and jim davis and, my first boss in washington. you can blame him if you hear something that you do not like. and my son is here today. thank you all for coming here today. .

>> it was at a dinner party in manhattan, where we know all important things are decided that a public affairs producer and a foundation executive got together a and thought about the idea that television is teaching our kids. it is not a question of whether it is teaching, it is what it is teaching. maybe instead of teaching jiggles about sugar sweetened cereal, that we could teach them

letters and numbers and get them prepared for school. we can build a culture of learning that they will move into that can help them succeed. they got together at the harvard graduate school of education, which is nothing about television. a bunch of television producers who knew nothing about education. they sewed up with a one sock puppet who they literally thought was a member of the weather underground. his name was jim henson. that threw them all in a room, and out came sesame street. it was rejected by cbs, nbc, abc, and even pbs at first. it was a show that was so out of the box and so revolutionary that it was barred in the state of mississippi its first year, because it showed an integrated cast that was getting along.

it was the first show that had hispanics and african-americans and asian-americans and green grouches and tall yellow canaries all living on the street together. this was really revolutionary television. today, some 40 years later, we have one more emmys than any show in television history -- we have won more emmys. we have just launched our 40th season on pbs, which is a remarkable partnership that is now in its fifth decade, where we have been really able to teach generations of children who have grown up and our parents themselves through the muppets and sesame street. we have been able to connect to parents and kids around dual learning. that is why we put things on the show like the internal segment

we had last year called a " desperate houseplants." we had a spoof on mad men who were juxtaposed against saddam and an angry man and happy man. my friend, and head of nasa, we were chatting and they are going to be experimented with putting some worms up in the space station. i was reminded that we had tony bennett on the show singing "slimy to the moon." this is all about using media to help children reach their highest potential, and being able to create something out of a media that was used to criticize. it was a vast wasteland, as the

chairman talked about. today we see strong parallels in the digital media environment, where first person shooter games and mindless, misogynist, virtual worlds can drain a children's survival time for a more worthy pursuits like improving literacy and mathematics abilities. we can turn this situation around, starting today, if we study the history of what sesame street was about. today i want to take you on that short history and talk about a few of those lessons. lesson one, education and popular success can mix. over the past four decades our programming has become an educational model and a popular success. this requires appealing characters, music, animation, great celebrities, pop culture

relevance. but the success is really build on an underappreciated preface, that media can be a powerful and an intentional teaching tool. we have stayed true to our callers with strict licensing standards as we go about these new things we have done. we have a pledge not to market to children, which we pledge never to break. listen to is recognizing the value of research and development. -- lesson two is recognizing the value of research and development. we stuck to their research plan. we call this our 41st experimental season that we are in production now. as we go out and studied with a key -- with the key demands on preschoolers are today, we bring in experts from around the country to teach us how to

approach the topics. lesson 3 is to think global an act local. i talked about the 140 countries we are involved in. two doesn't, we it -- into a dozen, we have --we have an hiv- positive muppet in south africa to deal with the one in nine children who are infected, who are stigmatized by their fellow children. this is a way to show that you can be friends with someone and play with them and not necessarily get sick. the culture of silence is broken. we are working with palestinians. i just did a press conference

earlier in november where we opened the new studio for palestinian version of the show where we are promoting role models for young boys so we have some role models for them rather than rock-throwing older kids for them to look at. they can look at being a teacher or doctor or other role model that they can look up to in the world they are growing up in. in egypt, we focus on girls' education, where 50% of the population is illiterate. we have a star on the no. 1 children's show in egypt. ask any egyptian cabdriver in d.c., they will tell you. in india, which has 150 million children under the age of six, think about that -- these kids

are now being able to benefit from eight hindi show produced in delhi. these are local puppeteers, writers, educators, directors, all produced in these countries. they have had a huge effect on these populations. we have been supported by agencies like the u.s. agency for international development, which has been a huge supporter of our work. we have been able to leverage private sector support. we were able to bring in the largest insurance company in south africa and they are fully funding the project. it is a model for what we are trying to do around the world. the fourth lesson is using a culturally iconic appeal to target specific populations in need. we have found that as media has gotten much more competitive, we have had to really target populations where we can have a deep impact.

we tackled the childhood obesity issue by making cookie monster a role model, and being able to teach that cookies are a sometimes food, not an all the time food. we were joked about on "saturday night live" that we were going to make him pay pilates monster. i have had angry college students come up to me. i assure you, he still loves cookies, but we know there is a mom in silver spring who is able to have a conversation with her child that even cookie monster does not eat cookies all the time. this year, thanks to cpb we were able to do some work around economic insecurity. what do you tell your kids when you lose your job, or you have

to move in with grandma? we brought forth real-life families who have had upheavals in their lives, and for the power of sesame street, we were able to highlight these families and build tools for talking with your kids and coping mechanisms without creating an abnormal theme of optimism in your home. that is exactly the message we have been able to spread in the project. i am most proud about our work with military families, where we really came into this project trying to do something for the families of our troops who were just not getting the attention. i read an article in "the new york times" that a soldier's wife and his kids were being kicked out of their house because they were behind on their mortgage payments. i came into the office and said

we have to do something. the staff came together and build an incredible outreach project. by talking and listening to your kids and connecting from a distance, this was about deployments and multiple deployments. it has had a huge positive impact on military families of preschoolers. there are 700,000 preschool kids of active-duty military and reservists in this country. the new study came out from the rand corp. talking about older kids from 8 to 18 suffering real setbacks in terms of growth and emotional growth when dad or mom or overseas for their third, fourth, or fifth deployment. this is such a success, we tackle the next issue, how to talk to your kids about coming home with an injury and creating a new normal.

we brought in real soldiers who had lost limbs and had prosthetics. these people were able to highlight about creating a new normal in their family household as well. we are in production now and were pleased that katie couric has agreed to host the third piece of this trilogy, which will deal with the grieving process, the most difficult one to address. how to families cope with the most difficult thing they will ever have to cope with? cady lost her husband at a young age, and she has agreed to host this pbs special for 2010 which will be in prime time. we are so thrilled to have her as part of this. finally we did a project with the uso tour dozens of military bases with a live show with the muppets, to bring joy and hope to these kids on military bases as they get through the difficult times they are facing.

these are examples of how to use this cultural icon to bring change to targeted specific populations. the fifth lesson is that media convergence has arrived big time. it is the first year where more viewers will access sesame street contents for other platforms than broadcast television. think about that. sesame street now has a broad digital distribution. we start with pbs, which is an enormous partner and many stations they have which have been such a few supporters of our work for 40 years. we spread to video it on demand platforms with sprout, to itunes, hulu, youtube, on cell phones through the verizon v- cast platform, and on sesame street's on website.

that is really leading to lessen 6, which is in a vague or melt away. the veterans affairs secretary had a great quote, if you do not like change, you will like irrelevance even less. i have this up in my office now. we have taken our television show and looked at it as a bloc, because kids do not watch one our programs anymore. through the great partnership with pbs, we were able to create a block of shows which are cut into 3 04 pieces, where a child can tune into elmo's world and the show looks new and different and speaks to today's kids. i tell our staff that our boss

is a four year-old girl with a remote-controlled. if she doesn't like our program, she switches us off, and we are not meeting our mission of educating the children. the final piece of that is thinking about technology this way. my grandmother bought a lot about the refrigerator as an amazing invention. i never thought about the refrigerator as an amazing invention. in fact, it was an appliance. it is an appliance. we look at the blackberries and the iphone and all this up as amazing inventions. your daughter looks at it as an appliance. that is how you have to think about these things. to kids growing up today, they will never know role before cell phones and ipod -- never know a

world before cell phones and ipods. to add of three children are putting their under 2-year-old in front of television and electronic media every day. one out of three have a tv in their own bedrooms, under 2 years old. the american academy of pediatrics says that is not a good idea, but parents are just growing up in that. as the millennial generation moves into the parenting world, watch that ruth get totally blown off. whether we like cannot -- whether we like it or not, this has to impact children's programming. media conversion has arrived big time. we have to use these applications and use the library and use mobile phones as tools and not simply as empty vessels

that denied add to our value. that is why we -- that do not add to our value. that is what we are constantly looking ahead. last year, sesame street published 120 books and sold over 20 million copies of books. we announced this week that we are launching our new sesame street's e-books program. littery c has been a big focus of what we do. -- literacy has been a big focus of what we do. you can visit the web site and check out free electronic versions of sesame street books like our best selling placid, ago the monster at the end of this book." some are simple flip books that the child can read along with a parent or caregiver. we want to use whatever we can

to encourage children to read. looking ahead, there are several trends that our nation must invest new resources in. five years ago we talked about -- mobile kids starting at age 3 or younger are passing around their parents cell phones. that is why we created iphone apps that focus on building vocabulary. huge numbers of words that kids walk into school not having, compared to those in so-called professional households. let's use these technologies to promote vocabulary. it is on demand, it is on my

time, wherever i may be. kids simply do not understand the concept of "sponge bob is not on right now." that does not make sense. it is always on online. we encourage visual discrimination, counting, and number recognition. players held grover in the kitchen to count ingredients to make delicious and nutritious meals by tipping the iphone back and forth. rover tells you how many ingredients to ketch and in towns the items with you. we continue to look at other ways in as study a few years ago where we had mommsen disadvantaged neighborhoods put

a different letter of the day up in front of their kids. one day maria comes on and says, please talk to your to yourc is for couch -- c is for couch or chair. in one month, the children learned the alphabet. it is a little crude at the start, but the kind of thing that we can do. we launched and new learning system that is really amazing. it connects grandma in florida with granddaughter in ohio, with elmo as a facilitator, reading a book through a video conference on to cell phones. we are going to be rolling this out in the future. most importantly, we are focusing on the needs of older

kids, 629 year-old kids. there is a lot of programming for those kids -- 6 to 9-year- old kids. fourth grade literacy rates are directly tied to graduation, which is the greatest indicator of staying out of poverty. we have to test these kids before that time. that is why we launched "the electric company." it is on-line. we have over 20 million video downloads that feature celebrities and others promoting literacy. we use new media to help produce a literacy solutions. the center is challenging industry in new ways. last month at google headquarters we brought together groups to introduce the

new cooney center prizes for innovation. it is a public-private partnership with the white house office of science and technology policy and others. the next decade, what is going to happen? we will see less distinction between formal and informal education, as kids in the -- and a new generation of parents demand a new tech-savvy learning institution. the workshop is creating a totally new model for early education that will be revealed next year. we are calling the new system sesame 2.0.

it will develop a totally modern preschool of tomorrow for america's young children. just blocks down pennsylvania avenue, our leaders are currently debating health care in an environment that is all too often neglected the needs of our most present -- most precious asset, our children. generations have benefited from a simple but elegant social innovation called sesame street. based on the lessons we have learned, we can and we must now innovate for a new digital frontier. if we do not, i fear that our children will not be able to compete or really cooperate in the complex age that they will inherit. through our global work, we will continue to use the longest streak in the world to challenge conflict, promote health outcomes, and address the lack

of basic education for so many. i hope you'll join us on that journey. thank you so much. [applause] >> we have all sorts of questions for you. sesame street has among the longest records of so-called educational television aimed at children. you have affirmative research that shows that watching the show are playing the games actually helps prepare kids for school. >> yes, next question. [laughter] sesame street is the most researched program in history of television, i can assure you -- i can assure you. a couple of very famous studies have been done. a longitudinal study tracked

kids all the way from preschool to high school, and saw kids who were exposed to the show on a regular basis ended up doing much better in academic performance versus those who did not. there is countless research out there that you can access our web site and other places. >> you are the dissipating in the president's science initiative. -- you are participating in the president's science initiative. can this ashley change attitudes of students about math and science -- can it actually change attitudes about math and science? >> we think so, because we will be a will to use the power of the muppets to really promote simple lessons for early map. for instance, shakes, triangles and rectangles and numbers, measurements, these sorts of

things. the next season of sesame street which is in production for next year will be focusing on the scientific method of assumption an experimental, etc. we will be a will to play that out and focused the nation on science and math. we will be launching a program called "map is everywhere." -- "math is everywhere." it was surprising even to us, president obama talked about us as one of the leaders in this, and we had "the new york times," sally ride, all these

incredible scientists who have done amazing things in the world. the only picture leading the science effort for the the united states of america was elmo. we take that with pride. >> one of the criticisms of people who are entering adulthood now is that they have an outsized sense of entitlement. some say it comes from the "everyone is a winner "method from sesame street. do you feel that is misplaced? >> you are special. [laughter] >> i think so. >> actually, i don't think sesame street has always just been about that. unlike most children's programs, it has been a window on the real world. that is why we have grouches, because it is about teaching children that not everyone is so

happy and great every day. you have grouchy people. we actually have been able to have many diverse characters on the show over many, many years. part of that is to show kids that they are different. we are different, but we are the same, which is a little different than everybody is special and everybody is great. you want to build self-esteem and kids, but they also need that basis of reality. sesame street has been a good reality check. you go back and look at the early shows, as they have evolved over time, a lot about race relations in the early days that were really cutting edge back then. they were a real picture of what life was like in 1971. we forget. you should go back and look at some of those. >> with increased competition

from disney and other for- profit businesses going after the children's market, how do you maintain the sesame street ran? >> that is a really good question. -- have you maintained a sesame street branch? >> you had sesame street and mr. rogers neighborhood. at last check, there were 56 preschool shows on six competing networks. how do you stand out? what we have tried to do is three things. one is to focus on the targeted families that i talked about, to keep relevant, so when we are working with our friends at the national wic association, we have been able to really impact moms who are in disadvantaged

circumstances, to teach the kids healthy habits. that is one we have stood above the crowd. the second is using new technologies, and all the things i discussed before, and being able to push iphone apps, and just making sure we are where the kids are. the third is international. we have been able to spread internationally and really have a profound impact on some of these countries like egypt, in indonesia, and south africa, and next year in nigeria and palestine and jordan and other places. if you drive around jordan today, you will see billboards of the muppets all over, sponsored by the bank of jordan. it shows you the power of these iconic characters in being able to reach across cultures. >> speaking of your international work, how do you insure brand consistency while

thinking globally and acting locally? >> legally, we maintain the copyright and on the programs, because it is critically important that we do not lose quality or have partners go way off stride. part of the issue is, do we ever have a partner who wants to do something antithetical to sesame street's mission? the answer is no, because we rematch vet partners who really want to -- we pretty much vet partners who want to work with us. we have been able to maintain equality with them by training their riders and puppeteers, actually bringing them to new york to be trained by our staff so that when they go back they

can create something quite amazing. some of these international productions are stunning. i really proud of the quality we have been able to maintain over the years. >> sesame recently announced that after 15 years of having sesame street toys manufactured by fisher-price-mattel, it was switching its contract to hasbro. why? >> change is good. i think we are really excited about engaging in a new partnership with hasbro. is a very forward-looking company led by a very dynamic ceo who has a real vision for bringing play into children's lives. we are hopeful that we can expand the sesame street' toys

and play and game experience. that monopoly and all the big gains you have seen over the years. that play experienced throughout the years, so it is less focused on what we call the fourth quarter and focused on the year- round business that we can see out there. this question always does come up about the funding and why we need support from different agencies. the resources that we get from hasbro or from other big partners of ours goes to pay royalties, all of that research and production that we are able to present to pbs and other partners around the world at a

fraction of the cost that it would otherwise be to either the public broadcasting stations or to the taxpayers. we are really an example of that public-private partnership. having hasbro as a partner going forward just gives us the real foundation for growth in the next decade. >> or you risk being confusing customers with the new brand, the hasbro brand? >> no. they will be elmo and cookie monster and all your favorite muppets. they will not change. >> how much do the characters generate in annual toy sales? >> we get about two-thirds of our income from so-called entrepreneur real activities, including books and home videos.

they include international program distribution. it is not all about toys, but we are able to generate about two- thirds of our annual budget, which gives us a solid foundation of resources that we can use to plow into the development of work with things like military families, childhood obesity, or the other issues that we take on. >> the expect consumers will notice any changes in the tories -- do you expect consumers will notice any changes in the tories? -- indy toys? >> we have had a great relationship with mattel. it was not about them not getting the job done, it was about the new vision for our partnership. i hope that you will see an

innovation in educational toys, which is something we really want to get a little more into as we explore partnerships with hasbro, going forward to push the age of toy technology with play, by using the kids' favorite characters with educational outcomes. >> how will you shoot that -- how would you ensure that items from hasbro meet safety standards? >> we were the first ones on capitol hill testifying about cracking down on lead and other poisons that were found in some of the chinese factories. hasbro has been a leader in this effort, and our general counsel serves on the toy industry

panel that surveys, visits factors, makes sure that our tories are safe and appropriate going forward and that worker conditions in factories are appropriate as well. that is part of what we put into our contract. sometimes contracts get violated, not often, but if they are violated, they will lose the rights to the franchise. >> does your new agreement with hasbro extended to their plant children's tv network? >> no. >> dora the explorer has been tweaked to try to appeal to kids older than her target audience. the sesame street ever tried to appeal to older kids? you mentioned a little bit about that. >> yes, college students. [laughter]

i dare anyone to walk around a college campus and find someone not wearing an oscar the grouch t-shirt. that shows the power of cross generation impact the program has had. we think sesame street's is aimed at the sweet spot, the 2 to 5-year-old. they are exposed to so much more content at a younger age. we are seeing shows skew in number than they originally did. we are also seeing on our website that we are getting huge numbers of kids in those age ranges who can really benefit. the average visit time on our

website is 25 minutes, which is a long time. that means everyone -- for everyone coming on for five minutes, another is staying on for 50 minutes. we think that age group can really benefit. internationally, the children are older, and a lot of adults watched the show internationally. >> speaking of adults, is anyone thinking of starting a sesame street for old adults who cannot keep up with all the new technology? [laughter] >> jim henson did do an office management program with the muppets once, hosted by john cleese, which is one of the funniest things i have ever seen, which maybe they ought to bring back somehow. we believe that the show is actually built for adults, and i would challenge those of you who are up at 7:00 in the morning

to tune in to sesame street. i think you will have a great time watching get an seeing adam sandler and seeing feist and all these great artists who come on the show every single year and do great songs. nor jones stood up by the letter y and sang. the kids do not know who these people are. we had anderson cooper jumping out of a trash can on the grounds news network's -- on the grounds news network. we had dan rather not an walter cranky, and pox news. you probably heard about it. we went on bill o'reilly's show.

you should check it out on youtube. >> how do we get rover to come back? -- how do we get rover to come back? >> i don't know. maybe he is somewhere. >> i think have a question for a grover. do you feel 40? >> do i feel 40? can you touch my back? does that feel 42 you? i like to say that i am older than a breadbox was still young enough to live at home with my mommy. [laughter] >> sarah price, who is by, wants to know how long sesame street will be on tv.

-- sarah price is 5. >> we say that life begins at 40, and we plan to be around for another 40 years at least. >> that is good to hear. >> were you worriedgrover? >> no, but it is nice to hear from the big cheese himself. i will keep going to the gym. >> one of your fans in the audience wants to know how much food as cookie monster eat? >> it is not just duties. gary was saying -- it is not just food he eats. he does not eat just food. he would eat these microphones right here. >> he ate the lifetime achievement emmy in prime-time television.

>> it came out of gary's paycheck kerry cavanaugh >> are all of the characters monsters? >> sesame street is a place where lots of different monsters and people and creatures live. >> are you a monster? >> i am a monster, yes. >> how do we tell? >> monsters are kind of furry allover. robin williams was mistaken for a monster. [laughter] >> bert and ernie were the original breakout stars. now it has been elmo four years. when will the world finally recognize the true genius of grover? >> thank you, thank you for that question.

maybe starting today. >> you had a visit from first lady michelle obama. what were your impressions of her? >> she is a lovely lady, and very tall i think even big bird had to look up to her. >> they did say that was the coolest thing they have done since they moved into the white house. >> what do you think the politicians on k street here in washington can learn from sesame street? [laughter] >> i think that is all the questions i have time for today. thank you very much. goodbye, everybody. [applause] >> ok, we are actually almost out of time, so grover had good

timing there. on december 14, karen hills, the administrator of the u.s. small business administration will discuss efforts to drive economic recovery. she will not be bringing any burry monsters that we know of. december 15, the hon. dick armey will discuss the future of the republican party and the need to return to its roots in the fiscal conservatism. on december 21, francis collins, m.d., the director of the nih will discuss biomedical research. i would like to present both of our guests with the traditional and much coveted npc mug. grover does not seem to notthumbs, so -- grover does not

seem to have thumbs, will give that to you. how often in your career do you get upstaged by puppets, and also, who is your favorite muppet? >> the answer is often, and grover. >> good answer. [laughter] >> i have been abused by muppets around the world. it is a wonderful job, and i hope we can continue to work with our great colleagues to do great things for kids. thank you for having us today. [applause] >> i would like to thank all of you for coming today, especially our young folks in the audience who gave us such terrific question is for grover.

i would also like to thank national press club staff members for organizing today's lunch. the video archive of today's luncheon is provided by the national press club's broadcast operations center. our events are available for free download on itunes as well as our website. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website. thank you all, and we are adjourned. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> in the mid-1990s, "newsweek named omar one of the duty most

influential people to watch in cyberspace. he has helped found a charter school in brooklyn and explain the new technologies on oprah. tonight he talks about his current studies and what is ahead. >> on "washington journal monday, a look ahead at some of the high-profile cases on the docket for next year and the possibility of another vacancy on the high court. then a look at how president obama is handling the economy with dean baker with the center for economic policy research an economics professor peter morici. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> now available, c-span spoke, abraham lincoln, great american historians on our 16th president. a great read for any history

buff. it is a unique, contemporary perspective on lincoln. from lincoln's early years to his life in the white house and his relevance today. in hardcover at your favorite bookseller, and out in digital audio to listen to any time. available where digital audio downloads are sold. >> while embedded with the u.s. air force in southern afghanistan, free-lance video journalist lanceaxe -- david axe learned about drones. >> i would guess there are 100 creditor and reaper drones. they look like giant model airplanes, about the size of a

small compact car. there reaper's look about the same, but they are about twice as big and look more like fighter jets and model airplanes. you can hang bombs on these things and their noses carry a bunch of different sensors, carol -- cameras, radar, and things like that. they can stay in the air a long time. it is not impossible for one of these to orbit for a whole day, soaking up vast amounts of imagery and data, peering down and taking radar snapshots of terrain. he could think of them as manned aircraft, except the man in the aircraft is actually sitting on the ground. it is still talking to the ground troops and the air controllers. they actually use a chat program like instant messenger to do a lot of the communication with

the guy's receiving the support from the drones. there are fairly precise. they did not carry large weapons. it is a far cry from a b-1 bomber dropping a 2,000 pound bomb. >> this printer is about a quarter of the size of the reaper -- the predator is a quarter of the size of the river. it is very efficient for what is does, which is stay airborne for a long time. the payload it can carry as much smaller. it can carry to missiles. weight is fuel, and fuel is time aloft.

the payload is a little smaller, and the picture is not as nice as the reaper, but it basically does the exact same mission. >> the throwing units in afghanistan do not actually handle many attacks. most of the drone operators sit in these trailers and steer the drones. most of those guys are in las vegas. they work at air force bases in nevada. the guys in afghanistan just launched and recovered the drones. they are also responsible for drawn operations in certain small areas, usually around air base. it is like a 24 hour operation.

they are constantly dragging drones off the air strips and launching them by remote control. then they passed them off to the guys in las vegas. the guys in las vegas have them fly around for a day or so and then return control to the guys in kandahar. they fly around and look for roadside bombs, rockets, or any activity. >> that took a plane and took the pilot out of the cockpit and put a satellite dish. the pilot is still always controlling the aircraft. the plane is always looking for the human control aspect. one mission can be so long that a regular person could not stay up there that long.

it allows us to do the majority of the work back in the u.s. you can do for hours and then have a two-hour break and then do another four hours. >> that have video cameras and high fidelity radar that takes these really impressive snapshots of terrain. in the morning, you take one snapshot. you come back in the evening and take another, and then compare them. if you see differences, like if that corner looks like it has been disturbed, like someone is chopping up the ground, you may have spotted a roadside bomb. they will come in and bury it when you are not looking.

when you take it to snapshots and compare them, it is called change detection. they revisit areas and take greater snapshots and send in the ground teams to pick those things up. >> how is the report different from the creditor -- how is the reaper different from the predator? >> the significant difference is we get to carry more. we typically carry four missiles into bombs -- and two bombs. the payload is actually different. there were able to put better optics so you can carry more weight. because you can put a bigger engine on it, it can go higher and faster.

it is tough to get the predator or 100 miles an hour. you can push the reaper of over 200. >> uri also using it to spot roadside bombs. -- you are also using it to spot roadside bombs. >> that is correct. it uses radio waves just like regular radar would work. we are trying to help keep the roads clear. >> david axe was embedded with troops in southern afghanistan in october and november. to watch this program again or to find other programs produced with his material, you cannot check out our website, c-

span.org. >> coming up, highlights from the senate health care debate. later on "q&a", omar wasow, co- founder of blackplanet.com. >> in the mid-1990s, "newsweek named omar wasow one of the 50 most influential people to watch in cyberspace. he has helped found a charter school in brooklyn and explained new technologies on over. tonight he talks about his current studies at harvard and what is ahead on "q&a". >> monday, expanding broadband

to rural and underserved areas of the country. that is on a good communicators" on c-span2. newsday, a look at what is ahead for the new year. the rest and prime minister discusses his future from its annual culling program. austan goolsbee on the global economy. the co-founder of a guitar hero , plus the art of political cartooning. >> since august, dr. francis collins has been the director of the national institutes of health. a $30 billion budget is under his control. he is our guest this week on