eric holder's successor loretta lynch will be sworn in monday as the next attorney general. she will become the first african-american woman to head the justice department. can watch it live monday at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> washington journal, john locke, and technical corn dish to our on a new study for current rights. thenn colleen eubanks discusses to force the child support system. washington journal, like at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> today's the 2015 white house

correspondent annual dinner and watch our live coverage tonight at the columbia eastern -- 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> the export import bank held single conference in washington dc. the event included opening remarks from fred hochberg. this is 20 minutes. [applause] chairman hochburg: good morning.

welcome once again to the 2015 export/import bank annual conference. april 23, 1910. exactly 105 years ago, teddy roosevelt traveled to paris to deliver a message to the world about the character of the american people. roosevelt had just finished his presidency and he was invited to reflect on his time in office and speak about citizenship. they wanted to hear from him what he thought set americans apart and he delivered one of the most iconic speeches in our history and one which i think perfectly captures the american spirit. he said, it is not the critics who count. the credit belongs to the person

who is actually in the arena who strives valiantly. who knows that triumph of high achievement and who if he fails at least failed while daring greatly. there is something uniquely american about risk taking. about striving for new frontiers. about failing and getting up again, dusting yourself off, getting back in the saddle. very few cultures value that. and that is something that truly separates the american spirit from the rest of the world. to put it simply, what teddy roosevelt meant was that success belongs to those who show up. who are not afraid to take on risks or step into the arena. look around this room. what do you see? i see entrepreneurs.

i see innovators. i see main street american businesses sitting side by side with buyers who count on your quality of goods and services and to borrow a phrase, i see job creators. lots of job creators. and the thing about those pesky job creators is they always show up. every time i visit a small business that uses our insurance to break into new markets overseas, every time i meet an entrepreneur who use our working capital to hire more employees, every time i speak to a group like this, full of people who use exim products to take on foreign competitors, all i ever see are job creators. that is who shows up. that is who is in the arena. and america faces a choice

today. whether we will continue to engage in the arena of global competition or whether we will retreat. it isn't easy going up against russia, china, to win export sales and the jobs that come with them. you know how tough it is out there. if you're an american business looking to grow your overseas sales, you have to contend with a lot of uncertainty. the dollar has risen to new heights. the price of oil has dropped to starting lows. new multilateral institutions such as the asian infrastructure and investment bank are forming. not only could they tilt the competitive landscape, they could also further cloud transparency and global finance. u.s. firms and competition and worldwide market has never been more intense the nature of that

competition has changed fundamentally in recent decades. you know there is a persistent myth out there, a belief that a u.s. company goes simply goes head-to-head with a foreign rival competing for sales solely on the merits of quality innovation and price. it is a romantic idea. it is just not how the world works. it is not reality. the reality is there is a lot of hard-nosed competition. of grueling hours, red eyes and long nights in the office. american workers produce the highest quality, the most innovative good and services in the world. they can step the arena and compete with anyone, but they shouldn't have to compete against whole countries. there are some 60 other versions of exim in countries around the

world. and many of them don't play by the same rules that we do. they are propping up the domestic exporters. they are offering bargain basement financing. that often relegates free market factors like price and value to the sidelines. more and more u.s. companies are not just competing against their counterparts in china, japan and elsewhere, they are forced to compete against china inc. our foreign competitors, particularly those in asia. they are forceful and unrelenting in the global marketplace. exim is not like them. we don't want to be like them.

we're actually capitalists. we don't take the place of the private sector. we simply provide a backstop for american companies when private financing is unavailable. how do we do that? by reducing risk. we unleash opportunity. let me tell you what that means. you know in the past, i have talked to you about planes trains, automobiles. this year i want to talk to you about fire trucks. in 1926, henry ford had a conversation with a chicago entrepreneur, william stuart darling. the conversation prompted him to transform his equipment company into a manufacturer of fire trucks. when he rolled out to first commercial fire truck later that year, built on the chassis of the model t, it marked a new chapter to remain innovative and competitive to this very day. after he passed away in 1935 his wife, mary, took the reigns. she ran the company for 40 years raising a family and building on

an iconic idea. today darling still manufactures fire trucks and pumps just like this one. after 100 years, you can still talk to a darley. so i did. i talked to three darleys. last summer i had the opportunity to meet the founder's grandsons. peter, paul and jeff. [laughter] jeff told me that buyers get to choose over 150 shades of red. that is more than you'll find at revlon. he told me unfortunately it is a little lost on him since he is also color blind. jeff and his brothers lead the business these days fulfilling orders for fire trucks and increasingly overseas buyers. one of those buyers is lagos, nigeria, the largest city in africa. recently their fire fighting

capacity was in dire straits. they knew they needed to upgrade their fleet. the city turned to a town of fewer than 14,000 people chippewa falls, wisconsin, where darley builds their trucks. for a small family-owned business, getting into the global marketplace is intimidating. securing the financing necessary to win overseas sales is not always possible. private financing proved unavailable for the lagos transaction so darley turned to exim. there is a picture here. he said make sure you take my good side. mark, as any good person said boss, i didn't know you had a good side.

[laughter] - darley took a $16 million loan to deliver 32 fire fighting vehicles and the training for the fire department and the result, we reduced the risk and darley unleashed opportunity. here is what opportunity looks like. the fire trucks will support 100 u.s. manufacturing jobs while fortifying lagos with quality, reliable equipment. those 100 jobs could easily have ended up in china or austria where darley's competitors are located. i think we can all agree we would rather have those jobs go to chippewa falls and other towns in the darley supply chain. even though darley is a small business, 100 manufacturing jobs is big business when you're in a small town in wisconsin. today 80-85% of darley's exports are financed by exim.

that means more jobs, more security for more american families. in fact that is why today we're awarding darley exporter of the year aword. let's give that company a round of applause. [applause] now the opportunity we are unleashing isn't just the opportunity for one company to grow. the question is will america seize the opportunity and continue to lead in the global economy? the global middle class is expected to grow at more than 200 million people a year for the next five years. that is the size of the adult population of the united states growing year after year. they are going to need smart highways, power plants, bridges, satellite communications

consumer goods. the demand will be unprecedented. who going to step into the arena and meet that demand? the rewards are huge. a robust economy. a vibrant manufacturing sector and most importantly, hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs. america can't afford to sit this race out. we need to use every tool in our arsenal to make sure that u.s. companies are able to get into the arena and win. exim is one of those tools. trade agreements such as the transpacific partnership are another. we cannot turn our back on american workers. we have a responsibility as a nation to break down every barrier we can so our businesses can reach the global middle class because every sale an american firm loses out on means that good paying jobs are not going to texas, california, or

chippewa falls. instead they are slipping thousands of miles away. at exim, our vole to support american exporters. but at our core we're about u.s. jobs. these are private sector jobs. the fruit of free enterprise. evidence of america's ability to compete in the global marketplace. and we measure our success not just by the number of jobs but by the families made stronger by each of them. how will america keep writing those stories in the coming age? we have talked about what is ahead of us. we know that export jobs pay up to 18% more making that progress real for more american families and we also know that as demand grows for each sale whether it is fire trucks or ice cream, the jobs either come to america or they go some place else. it is a zero sum game. that is the choice being made. it is a fact that some

politicians seem to ignore. who feels the impact most of all? small businesses and they make up about 90% of the exim customer base. more and more small businesses are making exporting a part of their d.n.a. they know the opportunity is out there. but many of them don't have access to the financing they need to compete globally. exim provides that access when there is a gap in the private sector. people like the darleys, they are not well connected. they are not crony capitalists. they are not interested in hand outs. they are ino vators who want to make more american-made goods and export them to the world . gabriel is one of those exporters. we met last summer in mesquite,

texas. he runs a small concrete business out of a small warehouse in east texas with his wife jane and their son david. they would be here today but they are celebrating his 60th birthday in spain and he had planned that trip about six months ago. the company is called fritz pack. they manufacture 40 different specialty products like plasters. the things you will mind the swimming pools and sports arenas. if you gone to a cowboy game you have seen their handy work. just as he was preparing to move into a new facility, the great recession hit. gabrielle was forced to lay off three of his 14 employees. people who are like family to him. he even contemplated selling off the business. but then gabrielle and david

came up with the idea of going global. but when your typical sale is $10,000 or $12,000, your local bank isn't always interested in financing you. and that's the problem they ran into. so when private financing proved unavailable, they turned to exim for reliable insurance package to protect their overseas sales. the result? exports now account for 35% of their business. and now it is not just the nfl. it is world cup stadiums in brazil, the olympic stadiums in vancouver. and the best part, that export growth allowed gabriel to rehire those three laid off employees delvin, pam and andre. they're back in the fritz pack family, they're earning a paycheck and creating more great exports. it is a testament to the obama administration, the ground work

we laid, coupled with the hard work and ingenuity of american private sector that we have added 12 million jobs in the last five years. and we landed almost 600,000 since january alone. and at exim we're proud to have done our part by supporting 164,000 jobs last year alone. i used to run a family business. and, in fact, my mother -- my mother and my brother david are here, sitting right up front. so i know firsthand the jobs are more than just a number. but as a country, we often don't talk about what those jobs mean on a personal level to our friends and family. we often don't think about what a job really means to a person who has one. having a good job is a tremendous source of pride and

self-esteem. it brings added meaning and purpose to your life. it is a part of your identity. how often are we all asked, what do you do and where do you work. being able to provide and protect your family is one of the most fundamental of human needs. a good job makes it easier to pay the mortgage, buy groceries or send your kid to college. it is just one example of what we strive to make possible. even though the u.s. has added jobs at an historic rate, there are still too many americans for meaningful work and good paying jobs are still out of reach. u.s. small businesses still

struggle to secure competitive financing and china and other challengers are still doing whatever they can to beat american companies in the global market. i know you just finished breakfast but let's not ignore the fact that our competitors are trying to eat your lunch. that is what is happening today. with all of that today i went to close by talking about tomorrow. when i say today and tomorrow i'm not just talking about this conference although i do help -- hope that you will engage with speakers and panels, meet each other, strike up a deal or two. we have buyers from more than three dozen countries. what i am talking about is how we as a country succeed in tomorrow's economy. what is required to succeed are good paying jobs, global leadership, resilient small businesses all made stronger by

exim. the years ahead are critical. whole economies will succeed or stagnate based on their ability to reach customers beyond their borders. and while it was created more than 80 years ago we were not built for the needs of yesterday. we were built for the needs of tomorrow. for all that america has accomplished, we still face the same choices over and over again. the same choice faced by teddy roosevelt, the same choice we faced today and the same he will face tomorrow and that is whether we will continue to climb back into the arena. it is a choice about whether or not we're going to show up. there is a struggle ahead of us for the durable economic foundation for global leadership. for the countless jobs up or -- for grabs, but we have to

keep entering the arena. we have to show up. we are proud of our path supporting more than 1.3 million u.s. jobs since 2009 and generating a surplus of $7 billion for taxpayers over the last decades. we also know that american businesses and workers are counting on us to be alongside them tomorrow. so we will keep fighting every day to reduce risk, unleash opportunity for small businesses, job seekers and entrepreneurs who count on us for certainty and support. it is a fight that we look forward to and it is one that america can and must win. thank you, and enjoy the conference. [applause]

>> today is the 20 15th white house correspondent association annual dinner. watch our live coverage of the event starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern, with the guest arrival along the red carpet. president obama will address the more than 2600 attendees in the ballroom. tonight's entertainment will be cecily strong. >> the white house national security adviser susan rice gave the keynote address at the export import bank conference. this is 30 minutes. [applause]

>> i am going to be very brief because i know if you people want to get a flight, and we also half our national security adviser here and there are more pressing things in the world. we do not want to create any crisis in the world. let me give you a little more information about exim which leads into our speaker. we went to look into our authorizations and last year 70%, a full 70% of the work we did, the financing we did was in the developing world. and the fact reminds me that i had dinner once with susan rice and i said we were not a developed agency, we were an export agency, and she said we were a development agency. she was right, i was wrong. this summer president obama

convened an african leaders conference. he brought his ministers of african business, government officials, it was a two day event. at the close of that, the president singled out one exporter who he thought represented the best of american entrepreneurship and the african export market. let's see what he had to say. obama: kasum was born in kenya. her family was originally from india, eventually she emigrated to the united states and started a small business in california. she started as a small engineering firm, and then it started to manufacture small power generators. with the help of export import bank including a line of credit

and risk insurance, they started to export are generated to west africa. i just met her backstage. stand up. [applause] thank you so much. she is an example what is possible. so let's follow her lead. [applause] chairman hochburg: how many people get to be introduced by the president of the united states? that is something we all aspire to, i only know one woman who has, and let me bring her to the stat. ge. [applause] kusum kavia: thank you so

much. it is an honor and a privilege for me to be here this afternoon and to welcome you all to our keynote speech. that was an amazing moment that was made possible last year through the u.s. export import bank. my name is kusum, and my husband and i decided to start our business in corona, california. today we are an engineering and manufacturing company that specializes in power generation systems and epc work. with the help of the export import bank, we have been able to grow our business, create jobs, and support global projects. in fact, today we also brought our customers, guests from nigeria, to be the first time attendees to the conference. we are completing -- [applause]

we have recently completed an 80 megawatt gas turbine power generation system, along with other power plants in sub-saharan africa. africa is very important to our strategy, it is important because we know that growth lies there, and most importantly both my husband and i were born in africa. [applause] again, it is an honor for me to introduce this year's esteemed keynote speaker, white house national security adviser susan rice. ambassador rice was previously a member of obama's cabinet.

her experience in foreign policy allows her to bring a global perspective to our discussions about u.s. exporting, and i am just so thrilled and excited to have this opportunity. please join me in welcoming ambassador susan rice. [applause] ambassador rice: good afternoon everyone. it is great to be with you. obviously i want to begin by thanking kusum. i cannot replicate the wonderful introduction of president obama, i thank you for being kind enough to introduce me. your story is a truly powerful testament to the drive and ingenuity of american small business owners, and how the export import bank facilitates connections and commerce that lift up our world. i want to thank my friend fred

not only for his invitation today, but for his outstanding leadership of exim. you have held the reins through a challenging time, and throughout it all, exim has provided critical support to help get the global economy back on track, and indeed to help spur global development. so thank you very much. [applause] a president obama has made promoting prosperity a top domestic priority, and a key pillar of our national strategy.

even as we face challenges from countering terrorist threats to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to combating climate change, we are promoting prosperity around the world. of course president obama is by no means the first american to emphasize the connection between a strong economy and a strong foreign policy. during the depression president roosevelt proclaimed that americans full and permanent domestic recovery depends in part on a revised and strengthened international trade. after world war ii president truman noted that, "peace freedom and world trade are inseparable." today, once again confronted with the changing world, i would like to lay out how the obama administration draws on america's economic strength to bolster our national security and prepare for the challenges of the future.

first, we are expanding economic opportunity starting with american workers. we are now in the midst of the longest streak of private sector job growth on record. businesses have added more than 12 million new jobs. we have brought unemployment from a high of 10% in 2009 to 5.5% today. [applause] ambassador rice: and critically, wages are on the rise again. fdr was right. this is linked to robust international commerce. that is why president obama launched the international export initiative in 2010, to help american companies reach overseas markets and create new jobs. and it is working.

since 2009 exports have made up one third of our growth. they make up 11 million american jobs, and those jobs pay up to 18% more than non-export related jobs. we're also encouraging foreign investment into the united states. business leaders already recognize that the united states is the best place to locate, invest, and hire. we're making it easier. we have cut red tape, and helped generate more than $20 billion in job creating investment. that is good progress, but there are more markets waiting to be tapped.

that is why the export import bank is so essential. last year financing from the bank helps thousands of american entrepreneurs reach new markets and grow their small businesses. it supported 164,000 private-sector american jobs. and it did not cost the american taxpayer one cent, not one. in fact, exim returned $675 million to the american treasury. [applause] that is the very definition of win-win. i can tell you, when president obama meets with foreign leaders, exim is a very important part of our diplomacy. so i join the president, members of congress from both parties the american chamber of

commerce national association of manufacturing, and small business owners across the country in calling on congress to reauthorize the exim with a long-term mandate to continue its vital work. [applause] today we are pursuing a most ambitious trade agenda in history. we are working with congress to secure support for a critical piece of legislation. you may have heard about it. the bipartisan congressional trade priorities, and accountability act. this bill will help us finalize the transpacific partnership and the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. and ultimately, to create a free trade zone that encompasses two thirds of the global economy.

with the united states at its very center. with this legislation, congress does not cede any power to have the final word on trade agreements. rather, it sets the parameters of front. a deal to protect american workers, protect little property -- intellectual property. in short, gives us the leverage to bring home the best possible agreements. and that brings me to a second way we promote prosperity. increased trade and investment is good for the global economy but to realize its full potential, everyone has to play by the same rules. by 2030, two thirds of the world's middle-class, more than 3 billion people, will live and

work and buy asia. to sustain america's growth, we need to be part of those markets. so we are working hard to finalize the transpacific ownership and break down trade barriers across the dynamic asia-pacific region. at the same time, through tpp, we will ensure that american businesses can compete on a level playing field. we will protect access to shared spaces like the internet, the seas, and the sky, so that goods, people, and ideas can move more freely across the region. and we will raise the bar on global trade, enshrining the high standards and enforceable protections that americans expect. our economic relationship with your europe is already the largest in the world. we conduct $1 trillion in annual two-way trade, invest $4

trillion in each other's economies, and support jobs for millions of americans and european workers. the transatlantic trade and investment partnership will lose a -- boost all of those numbers. and if we align the rules that govern commerce on both sides of the atlantic, we will effectively set the standard for commerce around the world. these agreements will secure real economic benefits for the a real economic benefits for the american middle class and advance american global leadership. our security and our ability to shape global events are closely tied to our sustained economic strength. but the global economy is not going to wait for us. so the choice is not between moving forward with these agreements, or maintaining the status quo.

the choice is between leading the world in a direction that supports american values and interests, thus enhancing the safety of american citizens, or being left behind. these trade agreements are an integral part of our vision for a future where all countries follow the same rules of the road, and all countries benefit. a future where growing prosperity, supports our shared security. at a time of shifting power in in an asia, tpp confirms america's commitment to the line region into the alliances that have underwritten growing prosperity throughout the asia-pacific for decades. as asia continues to grow and drive the global economy, our strategic interests in the region will become even more

important, preserving peace and preventing maritime or territorial disputes. also holding the rule of law advancing human rights, and promoting inclusive development. we are committed to shaping the development of this region that will only grow more important in the future. meanwhile, we will strengthen our transatlantic bond, and put us in a stronger position to take on shared challenges with our closest allies. we seek to build an economic relationship to match the scope and further strengthen our security partnership with europe. let me be clear. growing the global economy is not a zero-sum contest between established and emerging powers. if we work together to grow the

whole pie, we will all be better off. that is why president obama elevated the g 20 to be the premier forum for global economic cooperation. to make sure that the world's fastest-growing economies are also part of the economic discussions. that's why we will encourage new institutions like the asian infrastructure investment bank to uphold the standards that underpin sustainable and inclusive economic growth. we are also committed to modernizing established institutions of global finance like the international monetary fund. file the imf coordinated a and response to an international debt crisis brought on by on a oil shocks.

today, the imf is the first responder to global crises. helping ukraine stand up against russian aggression. securing our allies in the middle east against extremists. providing economic relief for countries fighting ebola in west africa. rules governments the proposed governance and maintain our veto power. congress should pass imf reform so that we can enjoy our g 20 partners to strengthen this full work of economic security. [applause] -- bulwark of economic security. [applause] third, we are experiencing prosperity through inclusive growth.

developing economies provide new markets growing middle classes, , and customers that are essential to sustaining american economic strength. we are forming partnerships that help countries lift themselves up. we are harnessing the resources and expertise of the private sectors to improvise -- amplify our efforts. so take the lines for the food security. we are strengthening agriculture and helping farmers across africa raise their incomes. take power africa. $7 billion from the u.s. government, including support from exim, we have brought in a more than $20 million from the private sector, increasing assess to electricity across africa.

american firms are eager to expand into african markets. a they want to do more businesses with the united states. that is why these are such effective tools for securing broad-based development. the african growth and opportunity act makes it easier for businesses to sell their goods in the united states. that helps grow africa's middle-class, who in turn by uy high-quality american products. oil both africa's nonoil exports and to the united states and american exports to africa have more than tripled. president obama strongly supports the bipartisan or legislation introduced last week in the house and the senate

to update and renew for the next 10 years. [applause] with more than half the world population under the age of 30 we are investing in job training, entrepreneurship and educational opportunities for young people. through her education initiatives in europe, southeast asia, and most recently in the americas, we are empowering the next generation with skills and experience to help them succeed. with the spark global offered

-- entrepreneurship initiative we will help young people expand new enterprise. and this summer, president obama will participate in the 2015 global entrepreneurship summit in kenya. by spurring trade, setting 21st-century standards, and building with our partners, we strengthen our ability to take on global challenges like climate change. the united states is leading the charge to achieving a strong international climate agreement this december in paris. we have set an ambitious climate target for ourselves, and announced joint actions with other major emitters, including china, india, and mexico. at the same time, we are developing clean energy solutions that will fuel our continued economic growth. working with partners to set emissions targets that will mitigate the worst effects of

climate change, and help vulnerable countries improve their resistance to climate change. our economic tools also defend america's national security interests. consider, for example, our engagement with iran. our p5 plus one partners, we have successfully reached an initial framework agreement. for a long-term deal to prevent iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. that deal would not have been in the realm of the possible without the strong and rigorous enforced sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table. when we employ sanctions, we target those who flout international norms. while minimizing the impact to the broader global economy. we rely on sanctions and other financial tools to cut off terrorist financing and disrupt transnational criminal organizations. coordinated sanctions with our european partners are imposing

costs on russia for its aggression against ukraine. and as online commerce continues to grow, we are developing dynamic approaches to enhancing cyber security, including the recently issued executive order authorizing sanctions to deter a authorizing sanctions to deter the worst cyber actors. and this brings me to my final point. we rely on the private sector to a advance america's values and i economic leadership. as a government, we are open to accessing foreign markets. we protect our sea lanes and are -- our skyways. since 2010 our commercial i advocacy has helped american firms to sign contracts totaling more than $200 billion in new exports. at the same time, american

a an businesses are the foundation of our economic strength. which is so much of our security and prosperity depends. so both the government, and the private sector have responsibilities to fulfill. for example, corruption costs the global economy about $2.6 trillion each year. we have made anticorruption efforts a centerpiece of our foreign assistance strategy. if countries want development compacts from the millennium challenge corporation, they must embrace good governance. through the open government partnership, we are working with more than 65 nations to improve economic transparency. and the department of justice

has been dogged in prosecuting those who pay or seek bribes in international commerce. we also count on american companies to meet the highest standards of responsible business practices. we hold an advantage in the global marketplace because our companies are known as accountable, transparent partners. we are developing in partnership with industry a national action plan to promote responsible business conduct and to ensure the american brand in business reflects american values. leading in the 21st century isn't just about the might of our military, it is about every element of american power, including economic power, to promote universal values and expand opportunity for all people. it means using diplomacy to rally partners to meet global challenges. it means influencing development

policies that do not just put a band-aid on poverty. they help to eradicate it. and it means fostering a vibrant domestic economy and policies and that expand our shared prosperity. when president obama spoke at this conference five years ago, he issued a call to make this century another american century. as a nation we have come a long way since then. it has taken hard work and in a was characteristic american grit to climb out of a deep hole, and we are not done yet. you are researching -- with our researching economy, are on that network of partners and allies and our firm commitment to expand prosperity, we will continue to pursue a future of shared prosperity that benefits all people.

we will ensure that americans continue to lead the global economy throughout this century, just as we did in the last. thank you all very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] on tonight's newsmakers senator sherrod brown talks about the future of the dodd frank law. watch the interview sunday here in c-span. >> here are a few of the book festivals we will be covering tv. this week we will be in maryland for the analyst book festival.

we will hear from the former attorney general over to gonzales -- alberto gonzález. we will close out may at book expo america, in new york city. republishing industry showcases their upcoming books. then in the first week of june we are lipoprotein chicago tribune printers row lit fest. that is the spring on tv. >> she was considered modern time, called mrs. president by her detractors and was outspoken overviews of slavery and women's rights. as one of the most prolific writers of any first lady, shapeless prolific on her views of colonial life. abigail adams.

examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and her influence on the presidency. from martha washington to michelle obama sundays on c-span3. as a complement to the series the new book is now available. first lady presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women. providing likely strength of these fascinating women. it is available as a hardcover or e-book through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. announcer: the white house correspondents dinner is tonight. ahead of that, the correspondents association hosted a discussion today with reporters about their experiences covering the

presidency. christi: everybody else is going back to work. this is a great group, thank you all for coming to be part of this conversation. this is our annual scholarship panel. we have our scholarship winners sitting in front. they will have a chance to ask questions as we go along. i hope this will be valuable for everybody you if you've been covering the white house for 10-20 years, there is always something to learn from your colleagues who do it well. these are the four white house correspondents among the winners of our whca's excellence in performance of journalism award this year. i will introduce them to you by name.

and then they will tell some stories. i'm cohosting this with carol lee. she is a white house correspondent for the wall street journal. she breaks a lot of news at the white house. she does foreign, she does domestic. we chase her all the time. it is great to have her perspective on this panel. to my left is josh lederman. jim avila works for abc news. he now covers the white house for abc news. scott horthly is a member of the whca board. peter baker is a correspondent for the new york times. let's give them a hand. [applause] i really love the range of winners that we have this year

because when you put these people together and look at the way they cover the beat, they really show a diverse approach to covering the white house. each has a diverse way of doing their job. i want to start with josh who did a classic report on the secret service. has anybody heard of a fence jumper? do you know what a fence jumper is? that's a person that climbs over the wall of the white house, and physically gets attacked before they make it across the lawn. one day, that was not the case, and josh letterman was standing in his post at the booth.

why don't you pick up from there? josh: most of the correspondents had already left for the evening. the news was basically over. there were a handful of us from the television networks that were still in the building. we started to hear a commotion outside of the press briefing room, and a few of us ran outside to see what was going on. we could see that there was something going on. those of us that spent any amount of time at the white house know that lockdowns at the white house are relatively routine. even fence jumpers happens three or four times a year. it's an event, but not a particularly remarkable one. there seemed to be something -- a level of alarm that the secret service was displaying the suggested that this may have been a little bit something out of the ordinary. i headed into the press area of the white house, which is at the entrance to the west wing, for

those of you who haven't spent a lot of time there, to figure out what was going on. they said everything was fine. at that moment, secret service agents stormed in from the west wing with these really large like, semiautomatic weapons. they are tactical teams on the grounds of the white house, but it was the first time i had ever seen one of those in shooting position inside the actual west wing. they immediately pulled those of us in the press offices down into the west wing and into the basement. it ended up that i was down in the basement with most of the white house officials -- obama's senior advisers were also being

evacuated to the basement, and shortly thereafter outside into this middle ground between the entrance to the west wing and the eisenhower executive office building. this is another indication that something was happening that might have been a little bit different than the usual fence jumpers that hop over and the dogs nab him, and it's kind of game over. the fact that they had evacuated most of the white house. in my years, i had not remembered any time that there had been an evacuation of the white house. you could tell from the way they were making sure that any foreign nationals have been in the building were escorted out to the street, just from the general behavior, that there was something more to this story

than the usual fence jumper. >> you posted something just before midnight. how did you start "the wire" reporting? josh: it came from a uniformed secret service agent that was not supposed to talk to press, but was in the fray of people running around and basically told us that there was somebody who hopped the fence and that's what we were dealing with. so, from my phone i filed a quick story that hit the wire around 8:00 or 8:30. but the secret service really went on lockdown, they would not talk to anybody. they were scrambling people to come down to the headquarters to deal with this. they were getting their ducks in a row before they were talking to anybody. around 10:00, they kicked us out of the white house, as they do in the evenings, i relocated to

my apartment and we continue to just hammer all of our sources to figure out what exactly had gone on. around midnight, we found out that there had been a fence jumper. not only that, but he had actually made it inside the white house, which was an unprecedented security breach that raised all kinds of questions about whether the security protocols they have to respond to fence jumpers is really adequate. we knew this is going to be a big story, so we popped out an alert around midnight. from there, we started building a breaking story, trying to wrap in both the details of what happened in this incident, and the broader implications from the secret service. cristi: you did some reporting by twitter that night, right? josh: this was late on friday evening, and there was nobody around. the flurry of reaction you would start getting unsolicited on a

thursday afternoon or something from members of congress and interest groups that want quotes for stories, for all of us asleep or drunk or at parties or doing something else. but i happened to notice a tweet from someone who was the incoming chairman of the house oversight panel with jurisdiction over these issues. saying something about how alarming it was. i made contact with him through twitter, only to find out that he was on a plane flying home to his district and that he was not landing until 3:00 or 4:00 washington dc time. i was able to get him to agree to do an e-mail interview over his -- using his in-flight wireless while he was on the flight. through that process, we learned that there had been a series of other security breaches that he

had been investigating for more than one year to be able to get that reaction. >> reporting in the digital age. [laughter] christi: i want to pause on that story right now, and i want to make this comment for the younger journalists in the room. this speaks volumes about the importance of beat reporting. if the reporters had not been there, the secret service would have said there was nothing to worry about. if josh had not been there at a regular basis and understood the rhythm of the white house and realized that something important was happening and sort of be able to pinpoint where it was happening, that's all part of the beat reporters' tool kit. let's talk to somebody who had

done something totally different. when the story broke about the warming of relations between the white house and cuba, he reported at the white house and then he got on a plane. tell us that story. >> this is about the release of allen gross, who was in prison in cuba for five years. it was a combination of sources. sources in cuba. i have been covering cuba since 1976. so i had sources there. i had sources there that i worked. i worked them as well as working the white house sources as well as some sources in town that represented allen gross. i first started getting interested in the story because i wanted to interview allen gross. that was the impetus of it. he was in prison. i thought i wanted to go back to cuba and it would be a good way to do it by going back to cuba to try to get an interview with him. i started making inquiries to the cuban government. they said -- we don't think this is going to happen.

allen says he is going to die at the end of the year. by starving himself to death. we are not going to give him any interviews. that was the start. i found out who his attorney was, and we started working with him, wondering if we could get in there to see him or get video. we started getting hints from sources that something was in the works. neither cuba nor the united states wanted this man to die in prison. there was the issue that -- there were 5 cubans in the united states, imprisoned. two of them had been released. three of them were still in prison. the cubans wanted a prisoner exchange. the united states did not want to do an exchange. they were debating about it. they were talking about it. i started working the white house, my white house sources. and trying to find out what

stage they were in. at first, i remember a very high up source in the national security council telling me that something was percolating. and that was about two months before the release. it is interesting where this happened. i will say that one of the things that we are getting away from -- the networks, some magazines and newspapers -- we are getting away from traveling with the president all of the time. we keep pushing back to our bosses about, at least at the network level, that there may not be a huge story that we are breaking when we are with the president, but we have unusual access to the people who normally do not return your calls when you're in washington.

when you are in china, or in burma, or in hawaii for two weeks with the president, there is a lot of time to talk informally with people who are your sources. it was on one of these trips that a very high up person told me -- before the end of the year. we focused on that. all of this time, we were not doing any stories about it. this was all groundwork. only an occasional piece about how allen gross was and what his physical condition was. generally, we were not doing a story about it every day. we actually nailed down the week it was going to happen. i nailed it down from a source not at the white house. i went to the white house and i said -- i am about to report this.

is that going to -- and this is an interesting question for you guys to talk about as students. we went to the white house and i said, this is what i have, i know it is going to happen this week before he goes on vacation. if i report this, is that going to jeopardize allen gross's life, because he had threatened to kill himself if he did not get released. they said -- we will get back to you. to their credit, they did. they said ok, you have it. it will happen on that day. here's the deal. if you wait, you can report it first, and then we will verify it with everyone else immediately afterwards. as soon as he is wheels up and out of cuban airspace and therefore safe. my producer and i flew to miami and waited for a call from josh earnest. i was in front of a live camera

i got the call from josh earnest, and we went with the story, and broke it on good morning america. part of the deal also was that our anchor david muir would get an interview with president obama about -- not just about prisoner exchange, but about the new era of relations between our two countries. david muir was able to sit down with president obama and talk to him about that. and i went on from miami to cuba and reported on the evening news about the reaction in cuba. carol lee: i would highlight one point that he made in all of that. that was an incredible story. he did not get his very solid information from inside the white house. that is most often the case. the best stuff comes, so often, not from them. so often, you get good things from somewhere else and then you go to them. if they want to play ball, which they clearly did with you, then they will.

if not, you have a choice to make -- to do your own story, either way. my question for you is -- did they make his life a threatened case to you? or, did they say -- no, but it you wait, we will do this. jim avila: the case they made was that if we were to -- in general, what the white house was concerned about was inflaming miami before it happened. and in some way, that would cause some kind of incident that would stop the negotiations and therefore indirectly put allen gross's life in jeopardy. because he had threatened his own life at the end of the year. this was december 17. we were getting close to the end of the year. they did not make that case that strongly.

they said -- this could foul up the negotiations. they made it clear that there was no one right now who is anywhere as close to the story as you are. it will not break somewhere else. if you are patient, you will have a much better story, we will not jeopardize the man's life. we decided that we had a pretty good, clean kill and we might as well stay with that. christi parsons: how do you develop a source like that who will tell you at the critical moment that things are percolating? and have enough knowledge about that person's workings that you can trust them and read them correctly? jim avila: part of it is who they are. this person was involved with the negotiations. he would know that. if you know that someone had this kind of direct access -- he was not a third-party or someone in the press office. this was an individual who was

directly involved. and how do we get to know them? just like i said. by being there, and going on these trips. i have to say also, each one of us works for distinguished organizations. it is not necessarily the reporter, in general, it is also because of our audience and our readership. we work for an organization that has some influence itself. everyone on this panel has influential viewers, we have massive viewers as opposed to less influential folks that listen to npr. we have 10 million viewers. when they want to talk, they want to talk to us.

that is one of the ways. christi parsons: i want to go now to scott horsley. everyone here listens to npr, right? i love his reports because i know when i hear his voice, i tune in, because he has chosen something complicated and he will explain it to me in a way that makes sense. his concept of pension smoothing by comparing it to pension smoothie? he puts it in a blender with the audience. anyway. scott, could you talk about how you approach the story, how you choose your stories? scott: you try to get good sources. what we do in radio is that we do not have the advantage of pictures. we try to bring sound into the

story. either it be a blender of the smoothie or something else. sound is the one thing that the white house thinks, not at all about. i don't know how many times we have been on the road with the president, and they will have choreographed a beautiful picture of the golden hour. he is standing in front of a colonial building in cartagena, and the sun is sinking at the right angle. it is gorgeous. just then, the children's choir comes out as we are walking away. [laughter] well, that would've been nice. or on the campaign trail, the president loved to visit factories and they would always shut the factory down, the assembly line, or whatever it was, so he could go through and take a tour. there would be no sound. just an industrial hum. i told someone that it would be nice to hear what the factory sounded like. they took us to a spaghetti

sauce bottling plant. i learned a lesson about why they shut down the assembly line. they were crowded around to get their picture taken with the president. it reminded me of a lucille ball moment. [laughter] part of the trick is to get a sound that makes the story come alive. the first thing the president did was go to the bob marley museum. they didn't let the full press pool into the museum, only still photographers. there were some great pictures of the president looking at the old albums. it was especially frustrating to me, because we could hear

faintly, strains of "one love" playing, which would've been a nice sound for our radio story. on arrival in kingston, but we didn't get it. christi parsons: scott e-mailed me -- whenever there is a problem with access, the members of the pool start e-mailing to each other. he told me that the soundtrack of this huge conflagration in kingston was, "one love" by bob marley. what mix are you looking for at the white house? are you looking for a particular mix in your beat reporting? scott: we try to report the news of the day. there was a time when npr saw itself as sort of a supplementary news source. we thought all of our listeners were getting the breaking news

in their papers and we would be something different, next day analysis. the old joke in our business is, did the news a day late and call it analysis. for better or worse, for many people, we are not a secondary resource anymore. we are a primary resource. we feel compelled to keep up with the same day news. oftentimes, what differentiates us is our explanatory journalism or our context. you mentioned josh's experience after two and a half years, you can say, ok, this is unusual. peter can say, with greater perspective, this is unprecedented. or this is not at all unprecedented. one of the things that we try to bring is some sense of context and history. some sense, when the president is being pressed to respond to

ferguson, that this has been something that has dogged the president since skip gates. to bring some of that history to bear. christi: that's a good transition to peter baker from the new york times who has covered three presidents in three different eras. in fact, in the last year, he has written about the obama white house, the clinton candidacy, and the bush family's effort to build a dynasty. talk to us a little bit about the changes you have seen. how does covering this administration compare to the others you have covered. peter baker: scott is right, in some ways, there is nothing new under the sun. every white house comes into office thinking, we have reinvented the wheel, and we will do it differently than everyone else before. we are hot stuff because we won a national campaign. and they are, they have done something extraordinary. which is convince the majority,

or at least enough people to give them their votes to send them into power. so they come in, and they are really, really certain they will do something that has never been done before. particularly in the first year or two. you hear a lot of -- "first times," or "never befores." and mark knows and a lot of the guys, scully, dave jackson very few things have never been done before. the modalities are different, we are doing twitter and meerkat. all these things. i don't know what a meerkat is. [laughter] christi: it is a little animal. >> some aspects of it are different. there are differences in modalities and tactics but not in broader themes. as you watch the obama white house's struggle with its second term, it feels pretty familiar to anyone that watched bill

clinton struggle with his second term or george bush. obviously katrina is not the same thing as a broken web site, and syria is not the same thing as impeachment. so each of these are different, but a lot of the broad strokes, a lot of the currents of politics and governance are familiar. as scott said, it is great to keep that in mind when we do our reporting and help our readers and viewers and listeners understand that perspective of what is going on. that is what makes the job fun in a lot of ways. >> you have the perspective that many of us have, which is, how do you maintain, what other people

envy, which is fresh eyes and a new take. how do you work that into your reporting? peter baker: i do struggle. we have done this before. someone else manages to take whatever it is and find a fresh aspect of it. and bring new eyes to it. and i kick myself for being too fuddy-duddy. we all have partners. i have two great partners. they are seasoned and veterans and they also bring a freshness to it. that helps to have perspective and to bring different strengths to a team like that. and then, i read about it in the wall street journal. and i feel like an idiot for not recognizing the great potential of the story. scott: one thing i was thinking about when i knew i was going to do this panel, we get the benefit of the print pool reports. one print reporter is assigned

each day. when christie or peter or carol do pool duty all of these folks that have these experiences, they could easily phone it in. they never phone it in. their reports are so detailed, even on a completely throw away trip. you never know what is going to be throw away, six weeks later. you never know when some seemingly meaningless detail on a nothing venture to cleveland, to give a speech that no one will care about two days later will take on new meaning later. because they pay attention every day and don't phone it in they six months down the road when it is meaningful, they have that. christi parson: that is the concept of the pool. we spend a lot of our time fighting for the access of the pool.

when we can't get the whole press corps into something, we send in 20 or 30 people to theto -- gather information, and their white house first responsibility is to share with the rest of us. they share our reporting with everyone else in america. before we write our own story. that is because it is a big responsibility, and we feel like the public has a right to know, and that is a public service that we perform. i want to ask the panel, peter, i cannot help but notice the documentation you have over there. what are the biggest challenges for you in covering the white house and how do you overcome them? peter: i have a study that is actually pretty useful.

for anyone that has not read it or taken a look at it, there were 70 of us that responded this year. they asked a lot of questions. they asked some of us who have covered multiple administrations, to name the friendliest administration. 3% named barack obama as the most friendly. 65% the least friendly. that's probably because we are in the middle of it. we are currently frustrated with them and we have glossed over the frustrations that we had with bush and clinton. part of the adversarial relationship that goes with that. another finding, was -- how many times have you questioned the president? 63% of our colleagues said -- never. to me, that is a shame.

to me, the most telling one is -- how often have you interviewed someone from the white house who isn't paid to talk to you? -- 58% of our colleagues said -- never. in the last week. ok, we're not all going to get a chance to interview him as often as we would like, but we ought to be able to speak with someone that was beyond the press conference. most of us have not been able to get past that and that tells us something about the nature of the white house. if you talk to your colleagues here who have done it longer than i have, you will see that you will hear that bush and other administrations had a lot more contact with a lot of senior people beyond the press office. i have seen that through many administrations how that has shrunk slowly but surely. with each passing one. so what you do as a white house correspondent, have you to be what josh is, you have to be there all the time to recognize

opportunities, to take that knowledge and translate it into stories at the right moment. you have to use sources outside of the white house's, and then come back to the white house, as we did with cuba. and push them to answer our questions if they will not volunteer it. you have to be listening for sound. literally. you have to take all of those experiences and not count on our white house handing things over. carol lee: i wanted to ask a different question. one of the things that has come up a lot is with the ability for the white house to now go to twitter and facebook and interview others with youtube stars and local news anchors at the white house. and a host of folks. if you look at the president's interviews, he largely does them mostly with people who are not

in the white house covering him on a day to day basis. they are not as familiar with his policies and where he is going. they are parachuted in to do the interview and then parachuted out. it raises the question of -- does being a white house correspondent matter? why does it matter? if people can get information from elsewhere, what is the difference? jim avila: i think you need it all. i don't think it hurts to have outside people come in and ask questions. we are in a bubble. we have to recognize that. this is where we live. where we work. i know you do and most of us do, we try to get out of that. i am lucky in that i have a partner as well. who does most of the day to day.

carl does most of the day-to-day. i go in and i try to work outside of the box. i can't blame the white house for wanting to get out of that room because when i do, when i go to denver or seattle, they are not talking about the same things that we are talking about. they are not focused on that. they are not focused on the intricacies that we are. where we see that most, is at the white house briefing. too often the quest, in my opinion, has been to get an argument going. to get some kind of conflict. there are very few questions or not enough questions that are actually asked to elicit information. the follow-ups have to often be more combative because the information is not coming, but

the original question is frequently designed to pick a fight rather than seek information. i think people outside the beltway, when i visit there, are tired of that. they are tired of the noise. they want the kinds of questions that sometimes we hear in local news, people come from out of town and they ask questions that we chuckle at. the viewers back in denver care about it. i think we need both, and we need the inside stuff on occasion. i think that they are wise to go outside of us. i do. scott horsley: you are right about some of the combativeness. that struck me during the v.a. hospital scandal, for example. the v.a. has been a mess for years. the american public generally would like to see the system work better than it does.

there is no reason that it has to be a political scandal. the white house briefing room kind of lost interest in the story. to that extent, maybe the administration lost a little focus on it also. i do think there is something to what you say about the combative tone of washington media. i also think, when you talk about the challenges of the beat. my colleague used to say, if you get to a story and there are a bunch of other reporters there, go find a different story. it is very good advice generally, but not always applicable to what we do. it is rare that you will really be in a whole different playing field then the dozens of your talented colleagues. josh lederman: when you do,

those are some of the most important moments. we are all intimately and painfully aware that we are no longer the only game in town. there is no one up here from medium or tumblr or other ways that people are getting their information. that has also created some issues with outside media coming in or the white house completely bypassing the media and going to the people to their own social media channels. the access that we maintain as beat reporters at the white house is the accountability function. that is one that people who parachute in for a story are not in a good position to really do. one phrase that they have been using for a month, and suddenly it disappeared. you notice it because you have

been hearing it every day. it turns out that there is a policy change underneath that. the issue that you pressed deeper, and like jim, you break a major important story, or uncover some type of shenanigans that are not likely to be uncovered by someone who is coming in because the white house is trying to reach a different segment of the population. christi parson: i don't personally object to the white house running an offense. i think, it is up to them to craft their message and try to explain their policies and beliefs in a way that is persuasive. if they want to speak directly to the american public by whatever medium is available to them, i actually do not object to that at all. my concern is that they not go

around the independent and adversarial press corps which is at the white house every day and has a situational awareness that you are talking about. i like the diversity of voices. i like them all. more voices is better. we need information to work with. i feel like the beat reporters are at a critical part of that mix. we have about 20 minutes left to take some questions. i am looking out at the scholarship winners and i will start with you. >> you mentioned "medium." that comes up a lot. do you think, it has been a tipping point to the obama administration as far as getting information out. is that a president we will see going forward, or is that something specific to the administration? >> i cannot imagine the next administration will do anything

less. it will have even more tools to sidestep this. christi parsons: that's part of the challenge of fighting, fighting something i haven't heard of yet. >> when we challenged him about this, he said every administration would do this if they had the tools we had. it's hard to argue with that. scott horsley: it's fine for them to find all of these other things. if they were doing that and not answering questions at a briefing, or not making the president available, which he has recently been very available for as far as press conferences are concerned. there has been a unique rash of press conferences lately. that would be an issue, i

think. if they want to put an unfiltered message. first of all, audiences are smart enough to know that that is an unfiltered message. they really are. that's fine. if they did that and then the president didn't come out or josh didn't come out and sit in front of us, to me that would be an issue. i don't find it is issue as long as we continue to do that. there is an issue that they do not make people outside the press office available. that could be a problem. i would doubt that you have that problem. and i don't really have that problem. but i understand, smaller organizations or maybe smaller and fox news -- one they would deem as combative might have an issue.

i don't. peter baker: we don't do that today. with the former chief of staff, at the end of his day, he called reporters. he tries from time to time to engage, i'm saying that the culture has changed. in the culture is that people are involved in a lot of these decision makings are less available, more separated from us by a paid staff that is paid -- >> i remember reading a piece in "the new yorker," he said he

wandered down to the nsc offices -- just wandering around the west wing -- he said, "i wandered down to the nsc offices." just wandering around the west wing. >> unlike congress, right? you can walk around congress and find sources will you talk to you for the most part. the white house, physically, you are not able to go very far. you are restricted to a very tiny space, basically. which is why -- >> vestibule -- peter: that's right. that's why the ones that spend the day there are heroes because it is incredibly cramped claustrophobic. you cannot walk the halls, you cannot say, hey guys, what is going on? it's so much more -- >> [indiscernible] >> it's a shame, because fewer non-scripted spontaneous conversations that would lead to understanding and clarity. christi: do you have a question? >> yes.

earlier in the discussion, you talk about the leverage that free reign journalists had over the white house where they can possibly produce a story through social media, but their twitter handle says, hey, what happened? what leverage where you speaking of that we have two tell our stories to the viewers so that we can reach tens of millions of viewers, but why not come to us? >> great question. >> i think historically, we had more and leverage because any administration which ultimately was going to have to be responsible to voters -- even if they didn't like the press, they had to deal with us to get the message out. that is still true. i think the public still does distinguish what they read in the new york times from one comes out in the west wing's website. i hope they do. it is less than they used to

be. they have more avenues to distribute their message without us. in the old days, like or not, they kind of had to deal with us. christi parsons: i think what scott was saying is that the leverage is that it's hard to turn away. >> they don't like having it described as state-run media. scott horsley: when we went public with our complaints, occasionally when they really tick us off, they do, that tends to get the president's attention and that trickles down -- christi parsons: when we are not doing a publicly, we are there every day pushing and increasing anxiety, as we do. and that is often effective because of the leverage that we do have.

>> there is now an army of paid staffers that, you know, they are there to get between you as a correspondent and those actually making policy. i read somewhere in the last 30 years, there has been a 300% increase in the number of pr people as number of journalists has gone down. i'm wondering, they create pseudo-events and try to set the agenda for the day, and that's their job. i'm wondering, how do you find something else unique there? jim: we pretty much ignore -- we ignore the staged event. he wants to announce something on trade, so he goes to a port. i can't remember the last time we did a story about whatever their agenda for the day is. all of the news doesn't really

work that way. we go in case something unusual happens at that event. but we don't cover that event. what i try to do -- i can only speak for myself -- is focus on things that i'm interested in, that our viewers are interested in, and not worry about their agenda. about the white house agenda. and come from the outside in, come with information that they cannot ignore, because they know that my 10 million viewers at 6:30 are going to see this information, they need to get their spin on it, they need to get the information out about that particular issue. that's -- i read a report,

what they're doing is no different. >> what they are doing is no different. the guy with the gyro copter at the capital, that would not have led the abc news that night. everybody does stunts. scott horsley: one thing that is interesting is committee occasions and staffing in congress. it's either lee francis or francis lee, i can't remember. she has tracked the change and how many congressional staffers is messaging and communications as opposed to legislating or -- it's remarkable. but track the change in primary messaging as opposed to legislating. it is remarkable. >> i guess i don't have as big of a problem dealing with the press, if they are empowered. it really depends, particularly in the white house, how the top staff, the senior advisers, the communications director, the press secretary,

depending on who it is, decides to have people on the staff. and there is instances in which those folks are given a tremendous amount of leeway to share information, they are in the meetings, they understand what's going on. and it is worth talking to them. and there are times when it is not worth talking to them at all. they know nothing. if they do, they are not going to tell you because they are afraid of their own shadow, they are not empowered in any meaningful way, and so they are not useful in that sense. and the same goes for the hill. in fact, i can give you an example in the white house. his official title is strategic something communications director for the nsa. well, he is probably the closest foreign-policy advisor and longest standing foreign-policy advisor to the president has. there is something to be known, he probably knows it. oh no, yeah, --

>> they are knowledgeable and in the meetings. carol lee: not at all. increasingly, there is a sense that they are just there to block people from talking to us, as opposed to then having information and being facilitators or -- you know -- a lot of times, you will call a senior official that is not in the press staff they get a call back from the press staff, which is always, like -- that is a designed system, and i'm sure there are stars handed out. carol lee: the agencies in general. >> there were some chuckles this week when the president burned a whole lot of jet fuel to fly to the everglades to celebrate earth day . [laughter]

the backdrop of the everglades got that story in every newspaper with a photograph of him on the walkway. over the swamp. that's how you get your message out. christi: also, you can go to the event that they put on, but you don't have to see what they want you to see. i think josh mentioned, when they are changing the lexicon within the white house, it is reflective of the change of policy or viewpoints, and those are things that are hard to hide if you're paying attention. >> to your question about the tension between setting your own agenda, there is a story they want us to write every single day, but we all will get e-mails 6:00-8:00 and we are all supposed to get super excited and pop out these stories at 6:00 about a progress report on nothing, basically. and, you know, we are in a

unique position that we have to cover everything. because even if their progress report on the auto industry is really not that interesting to most of our readers, people in michigan do wondering about that stuff.

we have conversations throughout the day, you know, every signal day about how much does this merit? this thing they are trying to make a big deal out of. and vice versa, what about the little thing that they kind of mentioned in try to brush under the rug? no, that's actually the news today. we are going to make a big deal out of that and we are going to kind of briefly dispense with this thing that they are try to focus on. so, we have to do both and set of making a choice between one or the other. >> i googled the word embargo yesterday and it came back, no news. [laughter] >> if it was big news, they would not get anything on embargo. certainly not to a wide audience that they are e-mailing it to. that's not generally secret stuff. life there was a story yesterday about the growing use of fact sheets by the white house. i saw a summary of the story, so i'm not entirely sure if the whole story -- the suggestion seemed to be that they are using fact sheets for executive action. our rule of thumb is that the longer the fact sheet, the less they are actually doing. the cuba fact she does a couple of paragraphs. progress report on fuel

efficiency and not a mobile sector might be 14 pages. >> is usually a section called building on progress we have already done. it's a long summary of things and we have already done and you are supposed to get excited about it. >> we have time for one more question. >> i think most of you have expressed support of the increasing ever city of voices in the news world. i guess my question is, with that diversity, for those people who may be don't have the clout of "the new york times" or vigor known organizations, how do you navigate reporting of the white house reporting on washington, d.c.? many sources come to your not a still it because the quality of the reporting, because of the audience and the viewership? >> i started on the beat with "politico." it's not small, but it's not "the new york times" or "the wall street journal."

i was also very -- i was low on a level of like, 10. and i made it my job to be there every single day. and do every little scrap of a trip that nobody wanted to do and trying to stick my head over the pack and just get in the mix as much as i could and talk to as many people as i could and i didn't have a family or anything, so i spent a lot of time not at home and out and meeting people, and just getting that step. then you develop relationships in that way. when you are 3-4 years into it or a few months, somebody is willing to talk to you not