>> thank you. but morning, ladies and gentlemen. it is and honor and privilege to be here before the committee. and join in my role as analyst with bloomberg new energy finance division, focused on the clean energy sector. our group provides data and insight on investments, the technology, and trends in clean energy. my remarksrepresent my views al. in june 2010 my firm -- my firm produced a steady entitled crossing the ballot of death,

solutions to the next generation of clean energy project financing gap. that examined the challenges facing energy technology companies looking to scale opera. it in companies based in encompassed interviews of investors in the clean energy space. other peace studies have advanced the discussion. most notable has been the innovation council work which examines the same conundrum come up with a focus on american competitiveness. my fellow witness and others have provided important insights in this area. the current energy sector has seen significant growth recently. in the fourth quarter of 2000

london, our firm counted the one trillion to new dollar invested in this sector her. we have seen energy making progress. the price of a solar modules has dropped by more than half in the last 16 months. prices for lithium-ion batteries are starting to take down. a substantial part of this progress is the result of innovations, but much of it is due to economies of scale. unit costs have come down. all this raises the question of whether or not the capital markets are providing sufficient financing to address the value conundrum? i argued they do not. the vast majority of new capital and drink the sector is directed toward well-established

technologies. $5.1 billion of the $263 billion we tracked last year came in the form of that capital. within their portfolios these are now spending less money on the early state companies and making fewer investments. the so-called technology stage it has not been bridge so far. the riddle of later stage commercialization also remains unsolved. it appeared the solution might come from the cut public stock exchanges. public market fund raising has all but evaporated. today there are half a dozen next-generation firms looking to ipo.

it remains to be seen if any one of them will float their shares. there does seem to be an appetite for investors for dot- com companies. but the risk appetite for clean energy companies is is different at this moment. i would like to take a moment to address the question of where the u.s. stance in terms of clean energy diplomat. development and deployment should be addressed separately. in terms of deployment there can be little debate that the u.s. trails other nations in terms of the installation of new power generation. the same goes for the manufacturing of that equipment with the u.s. liking behind china and others. the question of the technology development, there remains much to play for. the clinton energy marketplace

cannot be sustained by subsidies brevard. we have seen signs of declining support from government and around the world. the industry will compete and on price without government support. for some technologies, this is already occurring, but the date that happens far and wide still lies ahead. will the u.s. be home to that most critical technologies and the manufacturing capacity? will the u.s. be a market maker or a price taker, buying equipment from companies overseas? this remains to be seen, but there are hopeful signs despite the lack of investment. the company is home to world- class research institutions, is the hub for a venture investing, and in my view it nations may be better positioned to own a long- term energy future and the united states.

the only question is whether these resources can be coordinated policy must enter the picture. thank you very much for your time, and i look forward to your questions. >> that you very much. mr. tin cans? >> members of the committee, and at the break you institute in oakland, california. it is an honor to discuss the role of government in energy information. advanced policy and markets are at a key point. in recent years advanced sectors have grown rapidly, adding jobs, while reducing costs for many technologies, could solar and batteries. cost declines marked important maturation and progress.

policies port is poised to turn it from boom to bust. total federal spending supported at industries surged to $44.3 billion into the asinine. it is now poised to decline 75% to $11 billion by 2014. that includes the analysis conducted by the britain institute and published at the brookings institution as beyond boom and bust, putting clean tech on a path to subsidy independence. slated to expire by 2014. my authors and i suggest smart energy policies. energy deployment subsidies

should be performed to drive and reward innovation and move advanced energy sectors toward independence as soon as possible. we should strengthen our federal and a strengthenr and d and investments. our recommendations find much agreement with recommendations of the american energy innovation council and with bloomberg thinking. i am happy to discuss those questions in detail, but i want to focus on subsidy reform. when discussing the role of government in innovation, it is important know that energy is a commodity. like a lot of copper we do not care about the qualities of a kilowatt or a gallon of fuel. we care about the services we derive from those fuels. while new pharmaceuticals or electronics, and a premium from customers by offering new

features, new energy technologies must compete on price alone. this is an extremely challenging task when facing competition from fossil fuels that enjoyed over a century to mature. it helps explain why the government must play a more expanded role. in light of this the role is critical on two fronts picket policy is key to jump-start market demand for nation technologies that cost more than conventional fuels and would otherwise not attract private- sector investment. government policies must strive -- must drive state innovation and improvements that can advance these sectors toward competitiveness with fossil fuels. with funds now poised to contract, my colleagues believe now is the time to reform energy subsidies to ensure they

accomplish both of these objectives, driving market demand and continue innovation. he should not abandon today's still maturing advanced energy sectors, but neither can we afford to subsidize these industries without making progress on price and performance. we outlined a set of criteria for reform to ensure these policies reward companies for developing and continually improving technologies. optimize the climate policies should establish markets among technologies at similar stages of maturity. they should avoid blocking out new technologies to promote a diverse energy portfolio. they should provide certainty and maximize the impact of taxpayer dollars by unblocking private investment. market creating the climate policies should provide targeted and temporary support for technologies that are still improving. they should be designed to drive

and reward continual cost reductions and performance implements and reduce subsidies levels and support as technologies improve. these subsidies should fade away entirely as advanced sectors become competitive. the role of government in driving markets and innovation for technologies should be limited and direct. the goal is to be help develop robust industries that can stand on their own and thrive without subsidies. several policy mechanisms may be designed to meet these criteria, and i look forward to discuss these in the questions to follow. i thank you for considering these recommendations. thank you. >> i believe senator murkowski wanted to make a statement. >> i would not be leaving unless i were expected at a markup. i am intrigued about how we get

to reform of some of our subsidies at how we figure out what that ramping is. i think is a key part to what we need to consider. i have a whole series of questions that i would like to submit to both of you for the record, and perhaps we'd have an opportunity to visit outside of the hearing to follow up on some of proposals. this is an important topic. we recognize energy, the energy sector is one where things are constantly evolving, how we appropriately to integrate the federal government into the incentive process is an important one. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. >> that may go ahead with a couple of questions -- let me go ahead with a couple of questions. that me ask mr. silver -- let me ask mr. zindler, one of the

policies that some governments pursued is to establish clean energy banks to help with the element of clean energy. i believe the united kingdom and ahead withnhave moved this. can you describe what this phenomenon is and what you think the benefits might be if we were to consider that, or if you do not think it makes sense here, say that as well. go right at it. >> a quick update. as you are well aware, in the u.s., under your leadership and others, there has been an attempt to establish a clean deployment administration, and as you know, and it is important to mention, this same idea is being pursued by other countries

of around the world right now. australia is close to finalizing a $10 billion green investment bank. the u.k. is committing 3 billion pounds. india has made some announcements. the basic idea is to create a separate public entity that gets funding from government, and then it can operate autonomously in making investments in new technologies, and then as those technologies develop, and are winners, they get a return on that investment that they can continue on. the idea is it does start with a nut of government money to begin with, but that it becomes self- sustaining. one of the potential advantages of this model is by pricking it out of government infrastructure you can give it

more leeway to make faster decisions and to operate in a more flexible manner, and to make it kinds of financial bets that you get in a highly regulated government program. that is the idea. it is interesting. what is potentially most interesting is its ability to address the demonstration value of -- and that is the $200 million that is needed to build the next plant or a plant that uses the new solar technology. that kind of capital banks will not lend because they have the money, but did not want to take that much risk. venture capitalists will take that much risk, but do not have that much money. it falls into a black hole, and an institution like that that is willing to provide large amounts

of capital at a higher risk rate offers real potential. >> let me ask mr. jiang is a question. you list in your testimony here several policies that could be structured to accomplish some of the objectives you identify, and one of the policies you mentioned that there are reverse auction incentives. you say those could be established for varying technology to drive industry competition and innovation. could you elaborate on that and tell us what -- how do you think that might work and what examples of that we should look at. >> thank you, one of those technologies is microchips where the government played an early role for most of the market, for the space program.

that drove down the cost of this apologies to the point where they can be more widely adopted by the private sector. reversed auctions have the potential to play a similar role. in southern california, utilities are using these programs to berkshire solar panels at record prices at the resort -- and to use the mechanism to create eight opportunity for firms to bid cost for their projects to meet a certain set of demands that utilities' need to procure from solar projects. the winning bids have strong penalties for noncompliance, which is a critical aspect, to ensure people are creating accurate bids that they can meet. southern california utilities are recurring sever hundred megawatt solar per megawatt power, which is a significantly

lower price. it is a model used in other markets in india and china, in brazil to varying degrees of success. meets many ofel that the criteria that creates competitive markets, drives down prices, because it drives competition, and firms have an incentive to reduce market share. it is one of the policies we should look closely at. i call on members on the republican side have proposed, and it seems the idea has been bouncing around here, and we should look at it and consider ways to drive opportunities and get cost reductions for these technologies. >> senator frank and? -- franken? >> i wanted asked mr. jenkins --

i spoke earlier about government support for industry for the oil industry and gas industry and support for the industry into the a lot of shale fracturing and directional drilling. can you talk a little bit about that? >> this is the result of an investigation the institute conducted interviewing industry folks as well as government researchers. what was the process of development of the key technologies that enable the shell gas revolution? what we found is the role of government in support of innovation in the private sector was critical to the development of a number of technologies needed to unblock

previously unrecoverable resources. that includes the eastern shales project, that were undertaken in the 1970's by the energy research and development agency, in collaboration with the gas research institute that receive partial funding from the energy regulatory commission. the questions about theingquestionsgri, questions about funding, gri -- it is an intriguing model here. early technologies were developed by the department of energy and the morgantown energy research center in west virginia.

sandia national laboratories played a key role to detect potential fractures in coal mines. the key technology was later applied to understanding geology of shale deposits and understand where the fractures would occur so and she could figure out where to locate their drills. beyond the initial demonstration, there was a period of time when shale was recoverable, but expensive compared to more conventional extraction technologies. this is the second role government has to play. the government instituted the section 29 credit for an unconventional gas from shale, sands, and coal methane. they make it profitable for the private-sector to develop those policies. there would have been no return

for private sector innovators. >> the government brought an industry, created the technology, that made it possible, which is the first valley of death, and created the market and subsidized the second valley of death. when my colleagues on the other side who are not here, when they sing the praises of fracturing and demonize government involvement in picking winners and losers, it seems like they do not know the history of this industry. would that be fair statement? >> that may be the case. i believe the history as a clear history, that the government has played a substantial world.

we should not diminish the private sector + wall. the capital requirements, -- that will unlock the private sector to do what it does best. >> i will take that as a yes. mr. zindler, this is what the chairman was asking about. i the keys took its. i want to specifically talk about the clean energy development administration. do you think that is a useful model as a way of helping get over the second tally of death? >> potentially. it certainly has that opportunity. there is a short circuit in the market, as i tried to

articulate. basically, there is not the right kind of money out there for this kind of tasks, for large-scale demonstration projects. whether it is some other model or you change the tax will, whenever it is, that is a market disconnect that is screaming out for a solution. there are a number of interesting ideas out there and that is one of them. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> date you have additional questions? if not, we can conclude the hearing at this point. >> i do not want to put a crimp in your day -- >> go ahead. >> i want to ask about china, and sometimes the u.s. government helps u.s. companies

come up with technologies, and then when these companies don't do something in china, china insists on their intellectual property being -- giving up their trade secrets in order to do business in china. i think this pilots basic free trade principles. senator webb has looked at this issue, and i think this committee should export solutions to this problem. do either of you have opinions on how funding agencies can better protect taxpayer-funded technologies? >> i will take a crack at that. a tough question. this sector -- u.s.-china clean

energy trade relationship is at an interesting juncture. as you may have seen last week, the department of commerce announced fairly new substantial tariffs on chinese goods, sold equipment, reported to the united states. there is some tension there. i will check carefully in my remarks. i think to some degree the chinese government made some of the most important decisions about clean energy when it made it difficult for outside companies to compete with contracts there. now he essentially, and in the meantime, we sell a scale-up of domestic wind turbine manufacturing in china for solar photovoltaics over that time, and they have become world leaders. and the one hand, i esther

stand -- i understand the importance of preserving jobs. the cost of solar has never been cheaper than it has been. >> and that undercut solyndra. guest: part of the issue was that solyndra is an interesting example of a company that was trying to look longer range about driving down costs and got caught up with what was going on at that moment. the conventional sector has scaled faster and prices have come down faster. >> solyndra was undercut by the fact that the chinese spent so much in promoting their own solar industry to make it so much cheaper they were undercut and their long-term viability

became longer term. they at a higher quality, but more indexes -- more expensive product? >> the feature arrived faster than anticipated. the sole or market has rapidly expanded at got ahead of itself the last couple years, and that has driven down prices sharply. >> mr. jenkins? >> i think the current market for today for advanced technologies are substantial, but they are almost entirely government-created markets, created by subsidies in europe, china, or elsewhere. we need to keep our eye on all to the prize, the development of cost-competitiveness triggered a

global market without subsidies. the game in the long term is who can develop the technologies competitive enough to export the global markets? demand growth is coming from outside the oecd countries. those countries will be unable to subsidize the deployment of a technologies. one thing we can focus on to drive competition and to reduce the cost the taxpayer investment now is investments in creating these markets have to drive down the costs of technologies. if we do that right, we will provide the right continuity over the medium term and the thet policy to incentivize markets. this can take root and out the need for public support.

>> what we are doing is fighting for the future. >> that is right. >> because we are saying is we know when the solar, wind, other renewals, other clean technologies become price effective, and they will and they can and they have to, that there is going to be an enormous world market, that if we do not do this now, where not want to be part of it. is that correct? >> that is and exactly correct, and we can look at the history of shell gas. we're not the only country in the world with a large amount of shale gas resources. it was the united states that

developed extraction technologies first. it was because of the government partnership that dynamic sector that was able to develop those technologies. now the united states enjoys a massive source of domestic energy. if you look in 2005, not long ago, that sector was a tiny creature and this technologies were still cost ineffective. you cross that to the point and you have a revolution in the energy markets. that is a parable for what we can and should do the other technologies. energy demand in the nyad states is fast, and shale is great, but we cannot rest on those laurels. we should continue to develop a diverse sorts of cleaner energy technologies. winning the future. >> i cannot think we can end on a better note. >> thank you both very much.

this is very useful testimony and we appreciate it. that will conclude our hearing. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >>, here is a look at the prime time schedule. starting at 8:00 p.m., a testify -- testimony on the ongoing implementation of the

financial regulatory law. then developing alternative energy and why setbacks are possible in the future. then a defense department briefing on a recent report that found 1 million counterparts -- counterfeit parts entered the supply chain and had an impact on a mission's failure. >> i want you to think about not where everyone has been, but where they are going. that guy in front of you could win an academy award sunday. the car behind you could be a future president or the mayor of new york city. the guy sitting to your right to be a future nobel laureate. ok, not the guy to your right, but certainly the one to your left. >> watch commencement speeches

on c-span. leaders shared their thoughts with the grandeur in thought -- with the graduating class of 2012. this weekend, noon and 10:00 p.m. eastern. >> jay carney talked about his upcoming trip to iowa where he hopes to push congress to extend renewable tax credits. this is 45 minutes. >> ok, i expect nothing but easy questions today for obvious reasons. thank you. ha-ha! let's start at the top. jim?

>i have my children in the highest place of all, but other than that, i am waiting. come on. >> the international atomic agency today said they reached an agreement with iran to get access to sites, documents. last week he said iran needed to show concrete steps to explain what its programs are about. is this the kind of step the administration is looking for, and does it suggest this is the thing that ultimately leads the easing sanctions? >> progress is important, and we appreciate the efforts to conclude an agreement with iran on procedural framework to address the concerns about the

nature of the program. it is important to note the announcement today is a step forward, an agreement in principle, but as we said in the past about the totality of the obligations and their fulfilment of them, we will make judgments about iran's behavior based on actions, not just promises or agreements, which is not to say this is not an important step. it is. deal -- theian's negotiations deal with it fatality of the concerns. the iaea has a specific track, and this is a piece of that. broadly, we judge iran by its actions, and we are at this stage because when the president

took office the world was not unified in its view of iran. iran was internally unified in the position it took with regard to its failure to meet its obligations. that equation is reversed because of the efforts that the united states and our allies and partners have taken to develop a consensus about the fact the issue here is iranian behavior, its refusal to live up to its international obligations, its refusal to take steps thus far to eliminate the turnabout its nuclear weapons ambitions. iran faces a choice. they're urging faces a choice. they can meet their obligations and -- or continue to fulfill -- to fail to fulfill their

obligations and get harsh consequences, the kind we have seen to the unprecedented sanctions regime that has been leveled against iran. [unintelligible] >> does iran specifically know what it needs to achieve for sanctions to start -- >> the process of discussions within the framework is where that kind of issue will be brought up and litigated. the principle i talked about at the beginning is one that will be applied by the united states and other members of the p5 plus 1, that promises are one thing, actions are another. we are clear-eyed about drainage behavior and -- about iranian

baker and what has taken us up to this point. we will continue to pressure iran, move forward with sanctions that will be coming on line as the year progresses, and we expect this to have the kind of effect on iran in terms of making it clear to the regime what price of continued failure to meet its obligations will mean for that country and its economy. it is important note the first round of initiations or positive, they produced an opportunity to have a second- round tomorrow in baghdad, and we look forward to further progress. we are not at this stage of negotiating what iran would get in return for fulfillment of its obligations beyond the general principle which they would be able to rejoin the community of

nations. >> a question about colin powell. he said he was not ready to endorse the president. he said he wants to keep his powder dry. >> the president appreciate it the general's support for years ago. -- four years ago. he has served in several republican administrations, self-identified himself as republican, and it is up to him and every american to decide whom they will support going forward. the president -- the commitments the president made in terms of national security and domestic policy our commitments he has worked hard to fulfill in office. in the national security realm, which has particular resonance

with general powell, the president's record has been judged to be exemplary by outside observers and commentators, whether it is taking the fight to al qaeda, ending the war in iraq, having a plan to refocus our efforts in afghanistan and begin to end that war, something you heard a lot over the weekend at nato. the rebalancing of our foreign policy toward asia, because the importance of that region of that world in the 21st century -- these are significant accomplishments that the president has achieved in the years.ree 1/3 1/2 >> does the white house expect

to get a political bump after what happened yesterday and over the weekend? a lot of these issues have resonance with the campaign. >> that kind of thing -- issues that were discussed at the summits are matters, international economic growth, as well as the alliance and security -- these are substantive issues, not something that most americans view through a political lands, not something that the president views through a political lens . when it comes to the first basket, that was a discussion of the g-eight, the measures your needs to take to address the crisis, this had and the effect on the american economy and

americans, as they cope with their personal economic situation, as we emerge from worst recession since the great depression. the account -- this reinforces the need for the united states and elected officials said here by constituents to get the work done to help create jobs. that is why the president has an agenda that does that, and is filled with items on the list that have traditionally enjoyed support from both democrats and republicans. we need to act on the things we can control to help insulate the american economy and people from the kinds of headwinds we have experienced in the past and continue to experience. >> outside chicano, but you get

the impression americans paid attention? >> americans cared deeply about the issues that were discussed at nato. united states has been at war for more than 10 years in afghanistan. the costs of that war as well as the war that the president ended in iraq have been profound. both in terms of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform as well as the financial costs. the people have a keen interest in this and in policy that is the best in afghanistan, that allies, support of our al and contains a vision for transferring responsibility for afghan security to afghan

forces as the united states draws down. the president has a vision for ending this war responsibly, and the u.s. engagement in this work responsibly while fulfilling the mission objective he laid out after a review of a policy which as you know was a draft when he came into office. -- adrift when he came into office. >> does that help the president -- >> you are seeing everything through the political lens, and that is not how the president views it. these macro issues affect and matter deeply to the american people at a macro level.

the need for balance in the approach that european countries take to the bureau sent crisis i think is one that is something that is shared by leaders across the region as well as by the president. most americans want to make sure their president is working with his european counterparts to the advise the europeans on a way forward for them, that creates the kind of stability that european leaders want, the people in these countries clearly want, and would be beneficial to our economic growth. >> the president sees this as the last chance of resolving the issue over iran's nuclear

program, meaning it is a breakdown at some point? [unintelligible] >> i do not want to speculate about specific meetings and the results and the terms that might be down the road. the president has made clear there is a limited time here. the window is open. the potential for a diplomatic solution here remains and it is the best possible solution to this problem. that is why the president has put not only significant resources into this effort, but has rallied the international community in support of this effort. not just the the issue is, but everything that preceded it, which was unifying the community, creating a consensus about iranian behavior, creating

a broad coalition of nations that have agreed to the most stringent sanctions regime in history, a regime that has resulted in real impact on the iranian economy and political situation. but the president has made clear it this is not an infinite. of time here for the iranians to act. that is why they need to take this seriously, to take the opportunity for iran to join the committee of nations. >> the president has voiced support for the occupy movement. did their actions in chicago sour his support? >> you're making brought appearances between different groups.

what the president has set in the past is he has understood the frustrations that americans he failure in particular of wall street in some cases to -- the role and crisis. -- the role in the crisis. that is one channel he was talking about in the past. the president addressed the protest in chicago yesterday in his press conference and committed chicago for -- commended chicago for how it carried out the nato summit, he believes that every leader who attended felt it was a success.

>> this morning, ed rendell became the latest democrat to pile on the president about bain capital. >> president addressed this yesterday when he was asked about it. i would point you to his words. i will echoed them by making the point that the issue here is not whether private equity plays a role in our economy. the issue is what experience do you bring to the presidency, and the president was clear that his

job is not just to maximize the profits of a few. it is to look out for all the shareholders in america, in other words, all citizens. that includes from top to bottom, the most fortunate among us as well as those who might have been laid off a company that has failed or in a downsizing or restructuring, to help make sure that programs are available for job retraining, to ensure that those and make -- that those americans have adequate health care. the point made a survey was clear. the issue that somebody who aspires to the presidency says the number 1 criterion for the job that he has is his experience in business and that he would bring to the job of the

presidency the same approach he brought to business -- it is absolutely appropriate to examine what that would mean in practice and what that approach would mean, and his point yesterday was that that is not the approach he had. [unintelligible] i think he addressed this yesterday. i think every democrat -- >> another question i have heard asked about is is it's hypocritical for the president to track romney's rec baiord at bain capital? >> those folks are not running for president.

he appreciates support from americans from every block of life, from every area of the economy, and as you know, you reported on its, the fact of the matter is the president's support as demonstrated by contributions comes from small people who contribute a little bit, not from a huge donors at all. for more details, the campaign can help you fill in the blanks. >> why would you conclude or by with the white house and the president concluded that because mitt romney ran his for a second -- a certain way that he would run the country the same way? mr. romney has talked about

experience he has, and that does not mean he would start taking the same actions as president, right? with the president, he did not start running the president as a state senator for a community organizer. >> he made the case that that record -- >> but he did that as a president. why are you saying he would run things -- >> the former governor himself has said as much. he is not running on his record in massachusetts. he is running as a businessman who can do for america what he did in private equity. that i think -- i think americans would expect that

credential deserves some scrutiny. that is all that is happening here. it is also important to put in the context of different ideas about how we move the country forward economically. what the president's vision is, what his record is so far, since the end of the recession, says his policies have kicked in, 11 straight quarters of economic growth, and compare that to -- and what he would do to continue to invest in education and research and innovation, to ensure our economy grows, is balanced approach to deficit reduction and dealing with long- term debt challenges and compare that to what root huggins across the board, republicans who upport the ryan republican budget, including the nominee, what they would do and what they say it would do is refer to the same policies that were in

place in the run-up to the financial and economic collapse, the worst recession any of us, most of us, have seen in our lifetimes. [laughter] maybe i am wrong about that. [laughter] what the republicans have not put forward is an alternative that is any different from the very policies that helped bring about this. policies that maximize benefits for the wealthiest americans and hope that those benefits trickle down -- i will entertain another question -- but will trickle down to middle-class americans are not policies that this president agrees with. he has a different vision.

they're not policies we need to theorize about because we have seen them tried and have seen what happened. we saw the middle class economy stagnates. we saw the wealthiest american'' incomes increased. >> there is a new poll in which twice as many people say they are worse off now under 30% sayt obama thean -- they are worse off now. under the question of are you better does this give president obama pause? >> a finding like that needs to

be given context. four years ago today we were just in the early stages of economic free fall. unemployment had not yet sky rocketed to the point it would under -- as a result of the decision. we had not quite gotten to the time where the economy with the track by 9% as it did at the end of 2008, where four years ago would be the middle of 2008. it is a fact that the worst recession since the great depression had not fully blossom four years ago. if you look at the same data, most americans agreed with the idea that that recession was caused -- its causes predated president obama taking off the street is a fact that if you ask

most americans did they want to go back to the policies that helped lead to that's is rationed, the answer would be no. president obama's policies have taken effect. we have seen our reverse of all those trends. we have seen economic growth, steady. we have created private sector jobs every month for over two years. we still have further to travel on this road to recovery. there is no question that the circumstance we are and now economically and schechter rate we are on economic and is better than the trajectory of the country was on for years ago today. >> the campaign has put out a video about -- in which workers from a copper bus company who were not union workers who feel like they got shafted in the

deal the administration helped put together during that bailout talk about how they feel like they were victims and how the administration picks winners and losers. do you have a response? >> i have not seen the ad. the president is very proud of the record he has and those who work with him on him to say the automobile industry. -- to save the automobile industry. that is a debatethe fact is thaf those workers at the company like that one and many others across the country would have lost their jobs if general motors and chrysler had been allowed to fail and eventually liquidate, which was the only alternative to the action the president took. i mean, it is simply a fact that

had that action not been taken, against a lot of sage advice both economic and political from a lot of people, those jobs would have been lost and we would no longer have the no. 1 auto maker in the world. we would no longer be in a situation where we are creating manufacturing jobs at a rapid pace for the first time in this country in a long time. again i have not seen the specific ads -- i do not, but again, listening to what you say, what i would say is that the alternative to the actions the president took is the loss of all of those jobs, everybody's job in that industry. the president was not prepared to let that happen. he insisted that companies that received taxpayer support only received it if they took steps to reform themselves and improve the kind of products that they were producing.

that happened again, and for that reason, gm, chrysler as well as for are stronger now than they have been in years. >> on bain, is that attack not driven by concerns in the administration and the campaign that mitt romney is better in the economy than the president? >> i will just repeat what the president said. again, citing the president. if someone is running for president and citing as his primary credential the reason why he should be voted into the white house his experience in business, then that experience, what he did at this particular firm, certainly bear scrutiny. that is what the president was talking about yesterday. >> is he trying to undermine the fact that most americans think he is stronger on the economy?

>> i think that is a slight exaggeration of the facts. in polls that show that americans still have anxiety about the economy -- we completely understand that, and that is why we have to make sure we are taking steps to help the economy grow and help it create jobs, because the whole -- hole dug by that terrible recession is very deep and we are only part of the way out of that hole. we have now recovered a substantial number of the jobs that were lost prior to president obama taking office, but not nearly enough. that is why we have to do everything we can, working with congress, working in an administrative way, to help the economy grow, to help businesses

grow and higher american workers for manufacturing jobs here in the united states. we need to do all of these things to make sure this economy continues to grow. >> is there a move to leave afghanistan early -- is ambassador crawford leaving afghanistan early and what affect will that have on the wind down? >> he is leaving early for health reasons. as you know, at the president's request, he came out of retirement to take the post. the president is enormously grateful for the ambassador's hugely valuable service to this country in his long career in afghanistan, iraq, and previous posts. he has done an extraordinary job in his current post and he has been a key part of the implementation of the

president's strategy in afghanistan. that strategy will continue, obviously. the leadership team is strong and the president looks forward to the further implementation of his strategy as we just discussed over the weekend at the nato summit. >> has the president spoken with cory booker since sunday? if not, have anyone in the administration or any campaign officials? >> i do not have any calls to read out. if the president -- the president has not had that conversation and i am not aware of anyone who has. >> was chairman of have cory booker campaign on the president's behalf? -- was there a move to have cory booker campaign on the president's behalf? >> cory booker has done significant work as mayor. he has done a terrific job. the president believes that.

i think on this issue, the president spoke out about how he views it and why he thinks it is -- he goes right to the heart of what we fully expect an you fully expect, which is what is your vision for america's economic future? is it doubling down on policies of the past? is it going backward to an economic policy that envisions not just the bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, but even more tax cuts for wealthy americans, retaining subsidies for corporations, a luxury jets and the like, cutting medicare and a deficit reduction plan that would ask nothing more of the wealthiest americans but would ask a huge

amount from students, seniors, veterans and the like. there is that vision on the one hand and to the president's vision which is a balanced approach to deficit reduction, an investment education, research, development, and infrastructure. a situation where we deal with our long term fiscal challenges by ensuring that everyone gets a fair shot and everyone plays by the same rules. that is the president's vision. >> does the president think that having been in private equity disqualifies him? >> the president's point is not that private equity -- private equity is an important part of our economy. the difference here is that his likely opponent has made clear

that his number one credentials for being president as he sees it is the reason he should be voted to the highest office in the land is his experience running a financial company. we know how that has played out, the policies that are produced from that vision, played out in massachusetts. we know broadly speaking how republicans supported and the likely nominee supports played out in the first part of this century. the president has a different view of how we need to move forward. the president's job is not the same as being a ceo of a

financial firm worrier absolute primary objective is to max -- where your absolute primary objective is to maximize profits for shareholders. that is a valuable thing to do, but it is not the same experience, the same perspective that the president believes is the best for a president to have when he or she sits in the oval office. >> there is an accusation of cherry picking of negative examples. there were jobs created by bain. what do you say to that? >> is absolutely appropriate to examine the record. if we're going to get in the specifics of a campaign ad, i really encourage you to talk to the campaign. when it comes to what the

president's decision is, what his perspective this, the things he said in a press conference yesterday, i am happy to take your questions. for the specific strategy or the contents of this or other ads, i refer you to the campaign. >> catholics institutions are now suing the administration and accusing him of stifling religious freedom. this has to do with providing contraception. a cardinal this morning said it is straight jacking -- straightjacketed or handcuffing religious institutions. any response to that? >> the administration has worked closely with all communities of faith to hear their concerns and promote the common good. our doors remain open to face and community leaders.

the policy the president has outlined -- or rather, that he has outlined, meets two important objectives. one, ensure that women have access to important contraceptive services including -- important preventative services including contraception. number two, that there is religious freedom and no religious institution will have to provide these services direct plea. we will continue to work to develop final rules that implement that policy. as we do, we will continue to ensure that millions of american women receive the preventative services they need. i cannot comment on the specific lawsuit. i can simply tell you what the president's policy is and remind you that the president has worked with leaders of religious

institutions on this issue. he will continue to do so as we take further steps toward implementing this rule. the president, as he reminded you, began at a job in chicago that was funded in part by catholic charities or catholic institutions. he is very well aware of the important role that institutions like that play in our society. they can be more helpful than any government program, as he has said. he believes strongly in religiously betti and the need to protect it. he also believe strongly in the

need to give women access to services that are essential, including contraception. >> is this a failure on the part of the administration officials were not able to secure a deal with pakistan to reopen talks during the nato summit? >> we continue to work with pakistan on this issue. we did not anticipate that the supply line issue was going to be resolved prior to the summit and our teams continue to meet. we're making diligent progress. we expect this issue to be resolved. we have said that and the government of pakistan has said that. >> do you expect to be able to transition out of afghanistan without this deal in place?

>> the fact is, pakistan says it wants to resolve this. we are interested in resolving this. it will be resolved. we're confident. we did not anticipate it being resolved prior to the summit. we're continuing to work toward a resolution. >> is the president disappointed after the fact? >> how could he be disappointed? you are setting up a straw man about it being resolved before the summit. we did not expected to be resolved before or during the summit. he met briefly with the president, but there is no expectation of it being resolved before the summit. but we do expect it to be resolved.

i am afraid i will have to leave you filled with anticipation because i have not read the speech. >> does the white house believe that mark sullivan should apologize to the public? >> the president has addressed this issue on a couple of occasions. he has great faith in the secret service. he believes the director has done an excellent job. the director move very quickly to have this matter investigated and took action very quickly as a result of that investigation. i do not want to anticipate his testimony. >> there are now stories that this issue has spread to another agency, with the dea

investigating its own staff. does the white house believe this is an isolated case? >> i understand the dea is going to conduct its own investigation so i would refer you to the dea. thank you saw very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> book tv is 48 hours of nonfiction books every weekend on c-span-2. it is also live tonight. we present a history of american war reporting during world war ii. eufaula's five journalists, walter cronkite, andy rooney -- he follows five journalists

including walter cronkite and in the rooney. he will talk about that at the press club with walter cronkite as a son. -- walter cronkite's son. that is live at 6:30 p.m. .org.rn on book tv see testimony and the jpmorgan trading laws, the future of the derivatives market in the ongoing implementation of the dod-gfrank law. -- dodd-frank law. on c-span-3, a defence department briefing on a recent armed services report that found that 1 million counterfeit parts from china entered the supply chain. all of that getting under way at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span

networks. next up, from this morning pose a washington journal, a look at middle east diplomacy with mark ginsburg. host: you are the president of leilina productions. what is that? guest: it is a non-profit that was meant to open up relations between the united states and the arab world. a bipartisan group of experts led by a former middle east negotiator came together to try to figure out how we begin reaching the millions of arabs

who bin ladin and the al qaeda operatives were trying to convert because of their anger and animosity toward the united states? television is the most important medium in the arab world. it was the inspiration to try to meet these millions of eyeballs in the arab world by producing new television programs that would entertain as well as educate. host: where do you broadcast and how many viewers do you have? guest: we broadcast on the largest satellite stationed in the middle east. they are our principal partner. it reaches tens of millions of viewers. we have produced about 150 hours over the past 10 years of prime- time television series, educational programs, children's animation, educational series, reality shows, and our shows have not only been popular, but the tv networks have begged for more.

it is because we have a unique, a cooperative enterprise between american and arab tv producers that we are able to reach these years. host: when you develop content, how are you able to access a willing ear or willing eyes? how do you win over hearts and mind to read your message? -- -to your message? you are using cartoons, documentary's, storytelling. how do you choose? guest: we went to the middle east as well as to hollywood. we brought the best young minds together and said here are the reasons we have such challenges in the middle east. help us develop new television programs that would deal with each of these issues. give us some ideas for television shows. give us ideas for reality shows

and documentaries. we have a story about a young boy then and a young boy -- boy and a young boy izzie whose fathers are archaeologists and they discover a lamp with a genie who takes them on journeys to discover their common histories. we bring arabs who have never been to the united states, put them in an rv, give them a camera, and say here, go discover america through your eyes. we will try to help you understand who we americans really are. then they go back to their own countries and tried to explain what they have seen. it is not americans telling arabs who we are. it is arabs telling arabs who we americans really are. host: our guest is mark

ginsburg, president of leilina productions, in everything from kids program andming to document -- from kids' programming to documentary's, to mtv type programming. guest: in the arab world, for example, our on the road in america series had over 40 million viewers during a season. each of our episodes have reached 9 million viewers. the effect that it has had has been remarkable in that many of these arabs have said i did not know that about the united states. i did not know that about americans. they have been fed over the last 30 years some pretty evil propaganda about the united states. now that the middle east is changing, we are changing with it. we're no longer focused exclusively on who americans

are. it is also educating them on what they want to become. for example, our next television program that just had its first production in cairo is called generation entrepreneur. it is going to be competitive in trend-era of competition where the best ideas are going to -- intra-arab competition were the best ideas are going to be rewarded and it will result in a program that will succeed -- that will be seen across the arab world. it will be teaching the skills of entrepreneurship. host: here are the numbers to call. elisabeth is on the line from

kentucky. caller: thank you for taking my call. i live in a very rural part of kentucky. i have lived in larger cities. but since 9-eleven, there has been this ingrained thought of a holy war with is long, that we were attacked by muslims not individuals -- since 9/11, there has been this ingrained thought of a holy war with islam, that we were attacked by muslims not individual extremists. guest: we just finished the production of a new television series called american caravan. we selected four young americans who had never been to the arab world and took them on a journey across the arab world in the wake of the so-called arab awakening. these young americans have encountered young arabs who

basically have been taken to the streets and we have explained to these americans their aspirations, goals and objectives in life. that television series, which is sort of the opposite of our on the road in america series, will hopefully be airing in the united states and will, in effect, do what you would like us to do, which is to show americans that young arabs aspire to the same things we do, hope, aspiration, opportunity, education. these are the things we need to understand about the vast swath of arabs in the middle east. host: kelly and the republican line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question about the relationship between the new face of the middle east, having spent some time there. ideologically, their beliefs do not coincide with their

declarations. why do we not treat it more like we treated the shinto religion with japan and the past? make them separate church and state to deal with us on that level. do you think that would work? guest: it is hard to characterize the middle east. every arab country has its unique culture and traditions even though they are all bounded by arabic and islam. to answer your question, one of the great challenges is to have democracies flourish in the middle east that are not necessarily tied to the strict sense of islam. is it possible for them to coincide? absolutely. indonesia is the largest muslim country in the world and it flourishes. same in malaysia. there is going to be a presidential election in each of tomorrow. it will be very interesting to see who emerges as a

presidential candidate. one thing that is clear, and we need to understand this, is that while there is a certain piety across vast swaths of the arab world, the young people taking to the streets still want to have hope and aspiration of good relationships with the united states. their animosity toward the united states is not directed towards americans. it is directed toward policies they believe to be unfair. that is always going to be the case. we will never be able to satisfy them completely. one of our goals is to bridge those differences by showing that those differences deserve to exist and may not always disappear but need to be better understood. host: you are in your 10th year. how do you find your productions? guest: most of our money has been raised from private

foundations both in the arab world and the united states. with great gratitude to many of the individuals coming to our event tonight which is celebrating our 10 years of television diplomacy, we have accepted from time to time funding from the state department. one of the things we are very proud of in our approach is that there is no editorializing in our programming. what we do and what our staff does is to tackle the hard issue. we take no prisoners when it comes to confronting the issues that need to be confronted, and that is the uniqueness in terms of our programming. host: harvey in washington, good morning. caller: good morning. i notice that this is a not-for- profit that you set up.

but the u.s. government, as taxpayers, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on radio and television in the middle east. why do we need to have a private sector not for profit on top of that? should we not do one or the other? guest: that is an excellent question. one of the great challenges we face here is it has been very difficult to raise the money we need to do the most effective job. there are two hundred 54 television stations the proliferate in the middle east and they all want new content from the united states. and yet the united states government has poured huge amounts of money into a television news station called alpha zahra -- called al jura. its audience is infinitesimal compared to what we've been able to reach. one thing we think there should

be is a merger, a corporation for public television that would, in effect, reach the arab world and bring the best of the private sector and the public sector to gather. but there is no doubt that one of the things that is necessary is that there needs to be a recognition on the part of the u.s. government that arabs are going to watch their own television stations first. they are not necessarily going to tune in american stations, which is the unique nation of us. we ew york city, dave, democrat. caller: thank you. a lot of people from the middle east live in my community. they control the cigarette stores and things like that.

when we go in and talk to them, they are disappointed with what is going on with their government and everything and how they are portrayed by the u.s. press. they find it totally unfortunate that they have to live up to these reputations and everything. slowly, you know, even though the first thing you say is i you are a nonprofit organization, come to harlem. talk to the people who are really from the middle east. they came from the middle east. they were born there. they are living in our communities and compare the two. guest: if you go to our web site, you can see some of the answer some of some of our shows. the first couple of episodes of

"on the road close quotes today's young arabs a to the arab neighborhoods in some of the important mosques in the u.s. where they talk to arabs. one of the need natures of these program has been to see the interaction that has occurred between americans and american- muslims, african-americans, and arabs. that is exactly what we hope to achieve in these tv series such as "on the road." we want to do precisely that. get to the nitty gritty so that arabs themselves can see that we are a nation of diversified the use, but we all share many things in common. we share, of course, a great deal of hope that the challenges and animosities that existed between the u.s. and the arab

world would dissipate. host: the name means "evening." why in the name? guest: we were trying to appeal to name that they would like. it is also easier for americans to phonetically an ounce. it connotes a certain amount of, well these are our evenings. these are our productions. all of our programs in the arab world during primetime. that is in that evening. host: bonnie tweets -- guest: our goal is clearly a long-term goal. laylina tv will not change

everyone's opinion over night. tonight at our event, we will have an important person speaking along with tom from the "new york times." how do we as a country use the best resources of hollywood and madison avenue to reach the very minds and hearts that are necessary? the next generation of young arabs, the% of the population in the arab world is under the age watch tv. trying to educate and connect with them. that is part of the goal. host: marc ginsberg is an

adviser to the department of state for the muslim world. the president of laylina tv and the anniversary of the tv network. that's good to a caller who is a republican. caller: i want to say, bravo, marc ginsberg. i see that you have been very busy. this is exactly what is needed. i have long fought for over 10 years that media is the way to reach people before they are radicalized. it would help prevent them from becoming radicalized if they are aware of the other side.

i wanted to say, have you tried to offer or show them the truth about radicalization? or are you trying this approach first? if everyone could sort of take a peek at that, i have also heard on british tv interviews with many arabs who are saying, wow. that is a wonderful. this dialogue of eight people and a variety of women speaking with the radicalized people and having a debate. that is exactly what we need to see all the sides and not just one. thank you guest:, first of all for your kind words. it is very much appreciated.

we did a documentary called "back from the brink." was directed at the very heart of your question. how do we approach d radicale-i station? -- de-radicalization? we essentially confront the radical dogma whether it is gangs or muslim who are radicalized. what needs to be done in order to reverse the trends of radicalization? some of the worst terrorist atrocities were about to be committed by self-radicalized, both americans of arab descent here in the u.s. and radicalization is still occurring with it is in debt and -- in the middle east -

yemen or th. our is meant to answer that. it is becoming a very important documentary in pakistan and afghanistan. host: if you posted on youtube, wouldn't that reach more people? recoverying to guest: some of the costs of our production. arab satellite stations that air our programming only pay us about 20 cents on the dollar for each dollar that we need to raise for producing. if we put all the programs on you too, we would not be able to get back any been of the costs of production . if you are able to find someone

who can donate the money that would help reduce costs -- one of the things you need to understand is that we do not take the concept of the program to an arab satellite station and say, here is the idea. we need to produce the show and the pilot and produce the series. we need to front the costs in order to do that. host: independent color from michigan. go ahead. caller: i have a lot of respect for what your doing. i have lived in that area and i have a different perspective for what you have. we found out that the two pillars that makes the islamic religion and islamic people violent you can climb--it is you want, but those two enabled them

a lot. they are always young. once married, they are no longer part of our humanity. host: where did you live? caller: we live in [inaudible] guest: in any walk of region, there are prejudices' and both difficulties in the civil liberties and civil rights. the tax against christians in egypt in the wake of the

resolution -- in the revolution have been prolific by muslims in egypt. i have seen this type of religious and the effect to the middle east apart. the fact of the matter is, one of the reasons why laylina tv was formed was to use of the people. se stereotypes need to be overcome. once you overcome the stereotypes, people will be able to deal with you. they may not always like you are what you stand for, but the fact of the matter is, millions and millions of arabs, just want to live in peace and have the same opportunities that we do. if we begin to understand that,

we made never get rid of those who engage in a chip, but we can reduce their numbers dramatically by powering the majority. let's take a look at host: this kids' programming. we will continue to work with president of the laylina tv. tell us about this. the would pose a father guest: guest: his father works in petra. they are digging and working together. they found this lantern. out comes a beautiful genie.

she says that she will show them both but it is that americans and arabs have in common. the first journey that the g enie does is become the tour guide. the whole series about showing the different perspectives for a young audience for how americans and muslims have a lot of history and a common all the way back to the founding of the u.s. they go on these magical journeys throughout history. it is one of the remarkable achievements for us, which helped fund the production of this. it has become an educational

training program in jordan. i am sure it will become proliferated around the middle east. host: let's go to a democrat caller. hello. caller: i just want to say that i came from russia a little bit ago. we were exposed to it a region which was a soviet friend of communism. i find a lot of narrative in what islam is preaching and representing and what was taught to us.

i do not know if you are familiar with this. i think what is being avoided here and the message within islam. i have read the qu'ran in translation. when they preached to their people, they can find every answer in the qu'ran. it preaches violence against unbelievers. there is no gguest: there is not that people can pick up any holy book and interpret it as they wish. but when you stop and think of the hundreds and millions of

arabs who subscribe to the faith of islam, they do not read into the holy book of the are farqu'ran to a gauge in hatred. there are groups in every -- or who use it to engage in hatred. some years holy books to justify what is essentially a high of jacking up religion for their own means. host: there is this concept that the blue jeans, for more people than bullets. [laughter]

guest: they love blue jeans and rock-and-roll music. our program is meant to educate. it is not just young people we are preaching. we are also reaching the parents, as well as the mothers, sons, and daughters. there is a program about what women have in common with the sister cities that link the u.s. and arab world. we try in each of our programs to target specific demographics to reach audiences that we think could contribute to changing attitudes and views in the middle east. host: anna in philadelphia. caller: did you say how much of

the funding comes from taxpayers of dollars? and my comment is, i think that we can learn something from the arab culture in terms of modesty. hollywood has managed to make our media pretty much sex and violence. we need to examine our own culture before we go out and represent ourselves to the world. i appreciate your answers. guest: first of all, only 30% comes from the u.s. government. 70% come from private donors like yourself who consider programming like this to be essential. we have not accepted nor have we been offered any money from the

middle eastern governments. third, with respect to modesty, one of the reasons why we were inspired to start laylina tv is that he saw that what parents were watching were third are forced reruns of "jery er" or "baywatch ." these are the only images of america that they got. we wanted to produce original programming. there is not one of the television studio in hollywood that is producing new television content from the arab world right now.

we are the only entity in the u.s. that is doing that. we went to hollywood and asked for help. we said that we need help. we're having to learn all of this programming from scratch. they said, show us how you will make money and then we will side with you. that is the last answer i have from hollywood. but that is not fair. we need their support. you broke down the money percentage wise, host: but what are we talking about? guest: we raised funding from donors. we have the lowest overhead costs of any tv production in the world. it is less than 10%. almost all of our money goes into our programming.

we have a staff of three people. we sub-contract out for our production arrangements around the world. host: let's here from atlanta, georgia. good to see you. caller: good to see you. what is a possibility of some insightful programming in iran? guest: good to talk to you. we have not reached the audience in a run because of our programming has largely been every bit. the persecution of any minority in the middle east -- our target

audience has been largely focused initially on the arab world because we thought that in the end, that would be our best chance for making a difference. like anything else, i can produce 35 new tv shows if we have the money to do so. it is the money that holds us back from doing more. host: michigander , independent caller. go ahead. -- michigan, and depending caller. caller: this country needs more help than anything right now. guest: i understand how you feel. we have spent a fortune trying

to build these countries. but the funding that we send them is much more smaller than you realize. what we're trying to do is basically bridge the gap that exists to reach his audiences. frankly, i do not agree with to. we can change the hearts and minds. in 2000, i could have cut with a knife the amount of support that bin laden had among young arabs in the middle east. that has changed dramatically. that radicalization has largely given way to having arabs come to realize that their fate is in their own hands. we have national security interests in the middle east. as long as we do, we cannot turn our back. what we are doing is supporting american ideals to the private sector.

the publichost: laura, republican, go ahead. caller: it and we have photons, we would not be able to see each other. host: go ahead. caller: what many people talk about has not been addressed. as we speak, they confiscated

their lands. that is a major issue. it should be addressed. what you are doing is wonderful, but not focusing on the root of this issue. guest: if they were going to be accused of engaging in a propaganda -- what we are doing is to promote dialogue and exchange. that is certainly not brainwashing. second, i could not agree more that solving the palestinian issue is crucial. it is a crucial goal for american policy. i am on the advisory board for peace. we have tried to play a small role in this. hopefully we will continue to do so. there's no doubt that we treat

all hearts and minds in that area will help break the logjam. that is why what we're trying to do here is important. host: laylina tv celebrates its 10th anniversary. guest: we will do more programming in the middle east, this time focusing on women and reaching out to them and educating the more on entrepreneurial opportunities in the middle east. host: marc ginsberg, president of laylina tv.

>> the bigger scientists cannot predict whether they are a few days ahead of time. plus, your phone calls and tweets. washington journal is live every morning. hillary clinton, secretary panetta and general dempsey will be speaking on c-span3.

let the 10:30 p.m. >> fact checkers examine claims made about president obama and mitt romney. they will also examine the impact of third-party political ads. this is one hour. >> good morning. welcome. to welcome you to our morning paddle on fact checking in 2012. this is a project that is funded by a foundation and of the generous contribution of donors.

our first panel is chaired by the director of factcheck.org. >> thank you. we will discuss a presidential campaigns, president obama and mitt romney. i will introduce the panel in turn in a second. then we will discuss what changes have been brought about by our collective fact checking. we will make our predictions for the rest of campaign 2012. i panelists from my immediate left --

glenn kesslerhe has multiple sks international correspondent and business reporter. it is the kind of stuff -- a lot of that experience comes in handy. to my far left, james drinkard. we both came to washington together. he has come back. among his many hats, he is no accountability editor of the washington bureau.

he is trying to keep the politicians accountable for their misstatements. we are going to present seated. i am going to move this podium back so the rest of you can see. i will turn it over to you. >> thank you for inviting me. i think it speaks to the fact that for the fact checking business, business is good. it is a growth industry. we are all seeing how busy we are even though it is just made.

we are friends and competitors. we read each other's work. we have a lot of respect for each other. we also compete. occasionally, we will disagree. we are all committed to this journalism that kathleen and brooks did. we are glad to see so much of it. thank you for inviting me. i thought i would talk about health care and some of the deceptions that we have seen in health care and later we will talk about the deceptions we will see in health care. if you go to the next slide, why are there so many falsehoods in health care? a couple of reasons. if you go to the next slide. it is a complicated issue.

complexity scare's people. that makes it ripe for falsehoods. it is costly. we are all paying more. finally, there are scare tactics. i was talking to kathle abouten this, you go back -- kathleen about this, once medicare started in the mid 1960's, medicare became a prime topic for scare tactics. when we have issues of life and

death, it is right for faucets. -- falsehoods. because of the nature of our database, we can extract data. what this really shows is that, you are much more likely to have falsehoods in health care claims than in general. if you look at that ratings account for 18% of all of our ratings, only 15% for health care. if you look at the bottom, the false readings account for 20% of all the of our work. our number is skewed towards the red end. this is not scientific.

we do some effect checks, at one point, i counted, we have done more than 600. so many of them are repetitive. they are talking points that the parties use. they use over and over again. the value is one defect check it once, we can apply that -- once we fact check it once, we can apply that to the people who are doing it. they are making the same claim that somebody made on the national level. i think this is a telling chart. i want to talk about the two prominent falsehoods that brooks asked me to address.

this was our ally of the year in 2010. the law is a government takeover of health care. we raided this in many different ways. -- rated in many different ways. it was typically used by republicans to describe the democratic health-care law. it was even used by romney to discuss the democratic health care law. it was also used by michele bachmann to describe romney's health-care law. he has used the line and been a target of it. of course, this claim, if we go back, this originated with a memo that urged the house

republicans to use this line to describe the health-care law, in particular, what was then in the bill, the public option, the option there would be a government? run -- government-run program. that was removed from the final bill. it of course conjured images of a european-style medicine system. it was a very inaccurate way to describe the health-care law that relies on private industry, on private health insurance companies providing coverage. health care exchanges are themselves marketplaces where private health care providers compete.

it was ridiculously false. on the democratic side, this is more from the democrats than from obama himself, the claim last year about the budget, that it would and medicare. the details of the budget, it has been modified to include a medicare option. back then, it was a better system exclusively. in the view of many democrats, it would so drastically change medicare they felt it would not provide the benefits that medicare had traditionally provided. they overreached by saying it would and medicare. an attempt to scare old people, a tried and true tactic. we read this ally of the year for 2011 -- rated this ally of

the year for 2011. what we singled out in was the way that some groups portray this. in one ad, there was a man who looked like paul ryan pushing a granny off a cliff. a line that did not include any details that said the program ends medicare. since we did this, i think many democratic campaigns have adjusted their rhetoric and made it more accurate in have been described the plan. that is not to say they are choirboys. there are still plenty of falsehoods. the rhetoric has improved.

i know this because i have heard from democratic super pacs which have almost saw the good housekeeping approval for their rhetoric. here is our at, would you rate it so we can show the republicans? i am heartened by that that they pay attention to a work and they are concerned about getting things right. that is not to say they are not stretching the facts. sometimes we will have instances like that. with that, i will go back to you. >> thank you very much. it is good to be here. thank you to kathleen. i remember as a young political reporter, not a week went by when i did not call her up and ask her for her advice. i am going to talk about how both sides talked about the auto

industry bailout. this is important for president obama. it is one of the centerpieces of his reelection campaign. as joe biden likes to say, bin laden is dead and general motors is alive. it is in his interest to play up what he did and how he did it. romney, on the other hand, has the opposite problem in that he famously wrote an opinion piece for the new york times, the headline was "what detroit go bankrupt." -- "let detroit go bankrupt." he did go on tv today it appeared and said, that is what i said. it is a great clip you are going

to see repeatedly. so, it is in his interest to say, they ended up doing what i had proposed. what obama did was not that great. it is in obama as interest to say, what i did was amazing. it was against unbelievable odds. i will take a few examples of what i looked at about the way the men talk about this. this is something obama likes to say, chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it as american tax payers. they repeat it six years ahead of schedule. the every dime and more -- he sounds like a used-car salesman. the math was totally fake. what he did was he was only

talking about the loan that was made during his presidency. the words "during my presidency." he does not talked about the loan that had been advanced, $4 billion that was given by george to the bush. -- geroge w. bush. what company pays back more than they owed? when the treasury department writes about this in their official press releases, they will say, $1.3 billion. it is not being paid back. the way the white house will spinet, it is they paid back every dime and more. a more honest presentation, the way the math went was chrysler

paid back 1 ander% of obama's loan and 70% of bush's loan. the government got back 90% of what it invested. i give obama 3 pinocchios for this. the white house hosted a blood post cold fact checking the fact checker to argue. obama likes to say it was a tough decision. he will say a line like, it is good to remember there were some folks who were willing to let this industry die. that is a subtle way of reminding people about romney's led detroit go bankrupt. interestingly, when i would ask the white house for examples, they cannot give me an examples of romney.

they gave me statements from republican lawmakers when which you look at the statements, it was all a question of tactics. in particular, the republicans did not want to give a sweet deal to the united auto workers. they had less interest in the power of the uaw. there were a couple of quotes from people who said, chrysler is toast. give it up. that is not saying they want the industry to die. it is stating a fact. if you read a book, there was a big debate about whether they should let chrysler died. obama's advisers split. his chief economic adviser requested a special meeting with the president to make the case we must let chrysler died.

the only real example was in the let us. that is not -- in the white house. that is not what the president was referring to. romney says things like, -- to the great irritation of the white house. romney will try to say, they ended up doing what i proposed. they ended up doing the bankruptcy. if they had listened to what i said. the problem with that is by every account of experts in this area, the proposal that romney had was not a viable. the time he made it come out

early november, december, he was saying, no government bailout. maybe a eventually, but not enough. -- maybe eventually, but not now. it is easy for him to say, in the end they did a bankruptcy. that is not what he was proposing. that is not what happened. the democrats like to pretend that he is not being consistent. he was remarkably consistent, particularly when you go back and look at his remarks in the 2008 campaign. he tried to spin it as in the end bay accepted what i plan to do. it is not the case. he is left with saying things like, i take a lot of credit for the fact this industry has come back.

he also likes to say, he tries to say that obama kept a bad deal. he will say things like, they gave the company to the uaw. he said the kind of did what i wanted to do. they did it the wrong way with the government's heavy hand involved. the more complicated it is, the easier it is to manipulate the facts. there is a trust known as the voluntary employee beneficiary association. it was created to take on the retirement operations. it owns about 10% of general motors. it is not giving it to the uaw. it is a percentage. it is managed by a three -person investment committee.

recently, romney has tried to say, 100,000 jobs were lost under obama's watch. i checked the data, if you are going to do it the way these guys do it, to count from january, the actual number of jobs in the auto industry, dealers, manufacturers, has gone up about 50,000. how does he say that it is 100,000 jobs lost? they decided that in this instance, they are only going to count the jobs lost in 2009. not anything that has happened since then. even though i went back and showed the campaign that whenever romney talks about on the president's watch, he is talking about the entire presidency.

that is why he got the rating he did. >> thank you. >> i am not going to be as the magic as these deaths were. i just picked a couple of my favorite -- as a thematic as these guys bang were. i just picked a couple of my favorite. it is something romney said on fox. they were talking about the task force obama had created to investigate why gas prices were so high. romney said, "i can cut through the baloney and tell him, opened up drilling in the gulf. open up drilling in the other continental shelf. drill in north dakota, oklahoma, texas." it was a familiar cry from the republican side. we had heard it from a lot of the candidates.

there was an ad after that that said, obama had restricted oil development and said that energy policy is main energy prices we cannot afford. the most succinct summation was in the title of a book it gingrich wrote in 2008, "will hear, drill them, a tooth -- drill here, drill now,. pay less." we are all todd the price drops as supply increases. it makes sense. this argument revolves around the domestic oil industry. oil is a global commodity. the u.s. shares that -- the u.s. share of that is not a controlling market. it is the world market that

influences prices. we have said that a lot of times. every time somebody brought this up. it kept being repeated. we had a science writer in our bureau who was thinking about this and wondering, how else can i get at this? how else can demonstrate the fallacy? he got together with one of our tete-a-tete guys. the two of them pulled all of the information on gasoline prices over the last 36 years, that is when and unleaded gas started. for that same time, they pulled data on domestic oil production. he ran an analysis. to find out what was the relationship between these two data set. zero.

absolutely no correlation between the two. they decided -- we did a story just walking readers through this. they ran the numbers another way. they found that gas prices did not follow any bipartisan pavin either. the average gas price since 1976 and the democrats has been two dollars and 75 cents. under republic and, it has been $2.34. they had a lot of fun with this one. we are still here in this. -- hearing this. it is a lesson we kurt -- learned the hard way. fact checking is not a magic solution. people tend to believe what they want to believe. we have all had the experience

of one side embracing the fat checks. -- fact checks. this was another example of that. they did not just have been at off-the-cuff situations. -- they do not just happen at of the cult situations. -- off-the-cuff situations. in the state of the union address, to be statements creep in. in obama's appearance he asked congress to help revive the economy through construction projects. it is something republicans have resisted. what obama said was, "take the money we are no longer spending

at war, use half to pay down alan debt, paid the best to do some nation-building." -- use the rest to do some nation-building." it is budgetary sleight of hand. you have to remember that the wars were financed by borrowing. stopping wars that were financed by borrowing does not create new money. it just means you will be borrowing less. even in a carefully crafted message, you can look for wrong assumptions. they are often their. >> thank you. i cannot mention the prerogative of mentioning a couple of my favorite. when gasoline prices were higher, we are hearing must now because the prices are going

down. no price is advertised as extensively as gasoline. when the concern was in its peak -- >> it is because we started drilling. >> obama was being criticized. the line was, bring in more canadian oil. your prices will go down. obama is propping up gasoline prices by not approving the keystone xl. what this ignores is there are other pipelines that already crossed the border between the united states and canada. without the keystone being constructed, there are 1 million barrels a day of excess capacity.

the keystone would add to that. it would give canada an advantage. it would not bring it dropped more of canadian oil into the united states. the whole attack was based on facts that were not in evidence. the democratic side, we had to tweak the obama let us -- white house for the graphic. one of the claims they made was that romney's social security proposal would cut social security benefits by as much as 40%. if you look at that, what they are talking about is a progressive indexing proposal for those at the upper income levels. they would advance their future social security benefits only in line with inflation.

for somebody who is not born yet, 70 years from now, that would result in benefits for upper income people. 40% or less than are scheduled. the problem is the white house says nothing about their own proposal, which is nothing, which in 21 years will result in a benefit cut of 25% for everybody. further cuts further on. we get these distortions in both sides. some are busier than others. we are entering into a busy one

them. i would like to ask the panelists we have put all this work in. people have this tendency to believe what they want to believe, . they scratch pretty hard to find the facts to support what they believe, whether they are true or not. they tend to ignore things that are right in front of their nose if they conflict with their beliefs. we wrestle with that all the time. think about the behavior of politicians. what examples can you give me? how much change do we bring about in the behavior of politicians? i will give you my example. some politicians, none. barack obama we once tweaked for saying he had worked his way

through college, this is in the first at he ran nationally, we wondered about that. what did he do? the campaign got back to us. the campaign said, one summer he sold newspaper subscriptions. another summer, he scooped ice cream. that is not working through college. we came down on him through that. obama adjusted his rhetoric. he said he got through college on hard work and scholarships. it made it true. that is about as much change you are going to get. when they are using deceptive lines that have the utility. thank you for bringing up the memo. this brings up something i see over and over again.

when somebody running for office, the stakes are high, when they have a plan that works, the utility of the line will trump whether it is factual or not. both sides are reluctant to give up a false claim for a distorted fact that is working for them politically. this is just a personal subjective impression. i want to give your impression. i find that on the republican side, they tend to keep saying it. democrats will sometimes, they will push back with indignation. the term false equivalents comes up. i never hear it from republicans. meaning, you are implying that

our allies are equivalent to their lives. -- our lies are equivalent to their lies. i see little change in behavior. what about you guys? can you give me examples of politicians who have tweaked their rhetoric? >> and the one involving obama. -- another one involving obama. one was a line he is using about gas prices. he said gas prices were higher than they have been. when you control for inflation, they were higher in 1981. the next night he started using the line, giving it differently. making it accurate. after recalled one guy out for a

fact he got wrong. he tweed, i misspoke, - tweeted, i misspoke,. the democrats have adjusted their rhetoric on medicare since the big careful over the. i of the year. -- over the line of the year. we have not gone back to rate those claims. the new plan does include the medicare option. i think there has been an adjustment as they tried to get it right. underwriting it is the calculation -- underriding it is

the calculation that it works. we are going to use that line. even as we grow and there are more of us, maybe you can speak to this, the calculation. the fact checkers on going to raise a fuss about it. >> i did not receive much adjustment. normally they say, as we know it. you can change the law and that ends medicare as we know it. that means nothing. i move to the other panelists. what adjustments have you seen? >> i agree with you. i see subtle changes, tweaking of language.

romney will slightly tweak it after. some of his talking points after i have been to him, -- dinged him. ultimately, if it is a line that works, they are going to use it. he called his book "no apologies." there is no evidence to the claim. he is going to say it. you are going to hear it again. you are going to see it in his convention speech. even if he has decided, i guess i went too far, he is not going to change it. it works. ultimately, you can see, there

is a certain calculation that they feel they have to back up their claims with facts. everyone of these eds has a citation that indicates there is something behind it. often, the campaigns will be quick to provide you with data. they will try to argue why they think they are right. it is a different matter than if you go back and look at some of the old richard nixon ads. ultimately, we are talking about the most important office in the country. the stakes are very high. you are going to throw away the presidency because he decided your facts are not right? >> not much.

>> over time, it is a slow process. i wrote a piece called, "effect checkered challenge." i challenged both to give a 50 minute speech without any factual errors. it was mostly a device to recap some of my favorite. i never expected to hear anything from either campaign. i was right. [laughter] >> the only direct knowledge of a change made because of something we wrote was the republican primary campaign. newt gingrich claimed that under his speakership in the house, he had achieved four straight

balanced budget. two of those came after he left office. he was claiming credit for things that happened under another speaker. that is right. that is the other piece. we kept pointing out, we kept pointing that out. finally, one day, gingrich told an audience he had set the conditions for four straight balanced budget. i said that right for the fact checkers. it was not a week before he relapsed. a similar thing happened with romney. he said, on day one and i am going to get rid of obamacare. -- on day one, i am going to get

rid of obamacare. michele bachmann pointed out the error of that. she said, it cannot do that. you have to do that in a reconciliation. later on he said, on day two a i am going to do it rick cancellation -- on day two i am going to do a reconciliation. for obama, he is to say, -- he used to say, you can keep your doctor no matter what. we wrote that, that is a promise you cannot make. employers provide most health care. conditions change. they can change the plan. they can drop it altogether. what obama did was say nothing requires you change your doctor.

>> one thing about newt. he was an avid reader of the fact checking columns. he would talk about them. during one debate he pointed to romney. when i gave a movie four pinocchio's, he said since it cut four pinocchio's, they have to correct the errors. >> they use us when it is convenient. a question i am interested in. i do not think it is our job to change their behavior. if we thought it was, we would be doomed to have their heart broken. it seems our job -- and some politicians are going to do this, they have been doing -- since politicians are going to do this, they have been doing

this for ever, our job is, those readers who are interested, they have some place to go to sort through the distortions, the confusion. i did not view the politician as my audience. i did not judge my work by how much we change their behavior. i think we ought to apply a different metric. >> i would say that, my hope is actually we change voter behavior. that voters become more knowledgeable, more adept at being able to figure out when a politician is spinning them. being able to be a sophisticated consumer of political ads and political themes. therefore, the next time they see an ad where granny is thrown off the cliff, it is not as

effective because they say, i read about that thing and i know that is not true. i do not have to pay attention. if the change of voter behavior, politicians would have to respond to that. -- if you change voter behavior, politicians would have to respond to that. i got an e-mail thanking me for said a new light. -- shedding new light. >> i agree. our role is the role of the journalist. we are to empower democracy. we will give people the information. they can use it in making the decisions they unmaking in that democracy. >> we were asked to come up with

predictions for the course of the remainder of the campaign. i can summon up in four words, more of the same. what the think? what can we see in terms of deceptive or false claims? >> i think we are going to see a lot of connecting the dots. what we have seen from democrats where romney has not explained much of his plan. if you go to his website, it is skimpy on specifics. the democrats have said he supports the ryan budget. the budget would allow this terrible thing to occur. from that, they make these tremendous inferences of what might happen. in many cases, we have been given falsehoods to these

claims. the specifics on not there. -- are not there. that is one theme. the other theme is, they have their lines down. they have the talking points. those talking points are getting repeated. by the parties, by the supertax, by everybody. although, as many have shown so affectively the way that you can coordinate with the coordinating, these lines are getting -- without coordinating, these lines are getting used again and again. it is the same lines we are hearing from the republican campaign that we are hearing from the superpacs about what

nmed -- medicare would do. >> there is a poll that shows how close this election will be. i do not think the dynamic is going to change at all. the stakes will get higher and higher. there will be no money available for positive advertisements. on either side. they will be spending so much time tearing each other down. obama had such a money advantage over mccain, he was able to run just as many negative advertisements but still have one-third of his advertisements be positive. that is not going to happen. with all of the money going to the funds, by the time november comes of, it is going to be the most nasty, brutish, campaign in

american history. we will not know who the winner is until late at night. >> i would agree with everything that has been said about the repetition. i think we will see a lot of that. the economy continues to be the issue. also, they have done this capacity. the only place we might hear something new is its subject matter changes. you can have distortions on subjects we have not talked about, like foreign policy. the obama administration has a tendency to put an overly rosy gloss on the situation in afghanistan. we may see more of that -- in the middle east, we may see things. one of the things we like to do is to have -- we do not have

designated fact checkers so much as we have reporters we enlist. we bring in our experts. if the subject shifts, the one thing we have not mentioned -- to the extent we hear from joe biden, we are going to have a lot. he recently said that the raid to get bin laden was the most audacious act in the last 500 years. we just wrote a little piece ying, d-day? pearl harbo? 9-11?

>> when he was talking about crime in michigan, -- you had to wait 20 minutes, the statistics were changing. things were getting more of a of line. we had three different misstatements. we are just about out of time. do we have time for any questions? i guess we do not. thank you for your attention. >> if one of the goals of the process is increasing [applause] the likelihood the candidates change their behavior, we hear that does not happen very often. the panelists have not taking credit for something they deserve pettit -- credit for,

the claim that romney has produced 100 dozen jobs. it has been backed off. one person commented that government romney had crafted the most carefully statement to make his claim accurate. the bottom line was, thousands of jobs. now they claim appears to be, he can claim a larger numbers across the life of the company. that is a significant claim. other republican candidates contributed. all of the fact checkers look at it carefully. they said the evidence did not support the claim. the model that assumes it educates the electric provides one model. i want to make another case. it provides the basis for local station managers when they receive third party eds to

identified the current facts. assuming the distortions are clear-cut. what website has set up an e- mail process -- 1 website has set up an e-mail process to ensure the accuracy of third- party ads and to make sure they are fact checked. one of the things that should make that easier it is the existence of a fact checking organization and that claims do tend to be repeated. as a result, the website has set up a log that summarizes fact checking and linking to it. hoping that when the stations get the advertisements, they will see what has been checked. they can make that judgment.

we have also put on line a sheet of but the process. -- a sheet about the process. we will be talking about it in the next panel. we think it will be easier for you is to be protected from deception if they can recognize -- for viewers to be protected from deception if they can recognize the deception. if they can recognize a pattern that tends to be tied to deception and go to the fact checkers. you are seeing a rotating video that runs on the site. it shows a pattern of deception. our hope is that over time people will come to recognize that when you see one of these, perhaps you do want to go check the facts. we also think that there is a role for viewers to thank stations when they are doing a good job.

there are stations that a doing a great job. they do it routinely. this is focusing on improving things. we want to praise those who make the democratic process work. the local stations are our first line of defense against air pollution. most of these advertisements are not going to be aired nationally. as a result, it is decisions at the local level that act as the protection. insisting on the accuracy before they aired them. and also fact checking. as a result, to honor brooks jackson we are establishing an award that will be given with our sister school and will honor

the network, broadcast, or cable, that does the best job of fact checking presidential at. -- advertisement. we hope that behavior will be emulated. we will be giving a second award to the best local broadcast nation for its fact checking. we will be trying to distribute the fact that these awards are available. we hope the industry will submit the best examples so we can praise what is good. with that, i would like to introduce a man who is going to report on a study we did to find out what station practices are. we did this to set up the question for our next two panels. >> thank you very much.

good morning everybody. here is the power point. next on this. to better understand how local stations deal with third-party advertisements, fact checking of political content in news and online, we surveyed 2 06 local broadcast station managers and executives from march 26 to may 15, 2012 online and by telephone. they included those responsible for stations under corporate ownership and those owned by local -- owned locally. because this was an opt in sample, we do not know whether they are representative of podcast patients in general. our focus -- broadcast stations in general. our focus is on consistency.

the understanding of the fcc regulations governing the airing of various forms of political advertisement. next slide, please. we found wide variability in the understanding of federal regulations. we found differences in the treatment of third party political at. the numbers who engaged in programming on the new shows. we found differences in the treatment of prague -- advertising in the stations. next slide, please. turning to regulations, among those who asked the federal regulations, we found a range of understanding of the differences between regulations regarding advertisement for federal office candidates, in which the candidate appears in the

advertisement, and state office candidates, in which the candidate appears. we see 24% say the regulations concerning the broadcasting of political ads for candidates for state office of the same as sec regulations. -- are the same as fcc regulations for federal office. they are not. 28% say they are different. 34% say some are the same and some are different. further, station managers and executives differ in ways in which they treat political advertisements. 74% at the station managers said advertisements run by candidates for federal office

must be run as presented. no edits, the suggestions for cuts. -- no suggestions for a cut. 54% say advertisements must be run as presented. there is the difference between the two. on the federal side, 12% say stations can and it was a guest at its. -- can edit or suggest that it's -- edits. while most report airing third- party advertisements, half say they were aired one third-party advertisement in the past month, some screening for --

some do screening for accuracy, some do not. 56 percent and take some steps. 74% make steps about airing third-party advertisement. 17% say it is at the corporate level. focusing on advertisement watches. among station managers who run third party advertisement most report engaging in a little advertisement watching. some report will \ there was deception ands third-party, advertisement. -- there was deception in that third party advertisement.

20 percent and only do it for some of the deceptive advertisements. -- 20% only do it for some of the deceptive advertisements. these hardly ever or never report deceptions. next slide, please. so, overall, product advertisements are subject to greater scrutiny than third party political advertisement. of the 206 we spoke with, at 86% and do some screening to decide whether to air product at. 54% due screening -- to air product advertisements. 54 percent and do screening. -- 54% due screenings. only 32% say they have rejected