>> host: and finally, peter cleveland, if you could, describe the importance of china and india in the tech world. >> guest: they are crucial. they are the breald basket for us -- bread basket for us going forward. our revenues are churning forward at a 13, 14, 15% rate, and china in particular we have invested this our people -- there our people, our energy, our time. a gigantic marketplace. there are problems there in terms of our ability to protect our ip, to deter the forced or compulsory certifications and licensing that the chinese require. but make no mistake, it's an incredible marketplace, and we need toxdñi buildhñ positive economic bilateral relationship contentious debates toqófó overe what is clearly theñiñ$sjutxdñió important relationship in the world. >> host: what about india?

>> guest: india is a growingñi marketplace,t( enormous number f people. not as lucrative or notñrçó as h of a buying marketplace as china, but developing into a powerhouse. and we have substantial numbers of people there and sell successfully into india. and so it's different than china, but quite promising as well. >> host: peter cleveland is vice president of intel, gautham nagesh with "the hill" newspaper, thank you both. >> you've been watching "the communicators," c-span's weekly look at the issues and people affecting telecommunications policy. if if you missed any of this program with intel corporation vice president peter cleveland, watch "the communicators" again tonight and each monday night at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> next on c-span2, two panels

from a recent aviation conference. first, airline ceos talk about the challenges facing their industry. and then a discussion on the industry's move toward alternative fuels and the reduction of carbon emissions. later, the senate returns from its two-week recess at 2 p.m. eastern for general speeches followed at 4:30 with debate on two judicial nominations. >> this morning house financial services committee chairman spencer bachus talks about the impact of the dodd-frank financial regulations law. it overhauled the regulation of the financial sector following the 2008 financial downturn. chairman bachus is among the speakers at a conference of independent community bankers. you can see this event live at 10 p.m. eastern over on c-span. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. inside new and returning house and senate members with contact

information including twitter addresses, district maps and committee assignments and information on the white house, supreme court justices and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> the u.s. chamber of commerce recently held its annual conference on the aviation industry. one of the sessions included a panel of airline executives who talked about some of the challenges facing their industry in terms of government regulation, infrastructure needs and global competition. speakers include the see yees of jetblue -- ceos of jetbluew3 and us airways. this is about an hour. >> excuse me.!qu i want toçó continue with the format that we started, and that is brief introductions.." but at the sameñvóñrñrñixdw3w3 u the program because this is just a fantastic panel.

>> we had to have the right moderator, someone who has a great sense of humor, someone who really knows this business, and someone who has the respect of everyone. and we came up with, let's see, what was his name? [laughter] oh, it was allan mcartor. and there just could not be a better person for this than allan. and while i've said that i'm going to do brief introductions, this is brief. allan is, i think most all of you know, the chairman of airbus america, and he is responsible spr airbus for airbus activity in the u.s., canada and latin america. but there's so much more to his resumé. while that is a full-time job, in the past he was the founder, chairman and ceo of legend airlines. he's done a lot of other things,

both faa administrator -- he wants me to shut up before i get him into trouble. but i will tell you, the most exciting thing i have to share in his bio is the fact that he is, in fact, not only a highly-decorated pilot from the vietnam war, but he also was up with of the air force thunderbirds, and i think that that aerial demonstration team is the best. [applause] so, allan, i turn this whole program with the ceos over to you, and we really are excited about what you're going to do, and you have one full hour which is pretty good. >> thank you, carol. my revenge will be swift and merciless. [laughter] this, this has always been, i think, one of the neater forums for discussion of aviation issues, and i only wish we could broaden the audience to include more people from the white house

and administration other than just those of us that are in the rodeo. first, i want to complement jimmal ball for what i thought was a terrific lunch speech, up with of the more -- one of the more informative and well thought out commentary, i think, on our industry and our future and need for education. i think boeing's very fortunate, quite frankly, to have someone like jim with his experience, his energy and his leadership. carol mentioned that he'd been there for 36 years. i'm kind of thinking he might want to be thinking more about retirement. [laughter] never mind. [laughter] he's a good friend and very effective. carol -- carol hallett,

congratulations on your being recognized. you'll notice the theme is not sustaining aviation, it's advancing aviation. and jim albaugh mentioned what a rapidly changed environment we have particularly in the next ten years. i think we adapt and innovate, or we certainly fall behind and lose our leadership position. will rogers said even if you're on the right track f if you just sit there, you're going to get run over. so even if we think that our formula for success is right on the button right now, over the next ten years it's surely not going to be that way. jim mentioned that we were facing a $30 billion investment by china in this next ten-year horizon. so i guess if i were to give a speech today, which i'm not, but i would find it hard not to just read the editorial that was in the aviation week space technology magazine april 18th.

don't take aviation for granted. i think it's one of the better pieces that has showed up in that magazine, and if you haven't read it, i'd encourage you to do so. it echoes, i think, all of our thoughts. over this next ten years, i do have to say it's not all dire stuff. several of you wereçó fortunate enough to be out at the new faa command center facility a couple weeks ago when it was dedicated, and i can tell you that it is something about which you can justifiably be proud. it's a really first class center. the faa's done a great job there, and it is where -- it used to be, we used to call it float control. now it's expanded its mission, but it's something that i think you could really be proud of and will equip us as a nation for the next ten years. we've got a panel here that everybody recognizes, so i won't introduce them individually because you all know exactly who they are. and i'm going to let each one say a little something, and then

we'll come back with some questions from both myself and from the floor. and don't hold back. you can ask them anything you want. jack pelton was a little concerned, he's surrounded by big iron guys up here, and we didn't get a chance to talk that much, so, jack, why don't we just start with you, and you can tell us what you're thinking, where we can go for the next ten years. >> well, certainly, we look at growth. being up here representing general aviation, one of the keys is the recognition that we all have to work together in today's air space and make sure our modernization plans really accounts for not only the major hubs in the united states, but also those over 4,000 airports that general aviation needs and that the other services that it provides when you look at medevac, humanitarian relief and the necessary needs to get to small communities. it's important that the general aviation voices is part of that equation. growth when we look in the future, in the next ten years, there is going to be tremendous

growth in ga. we've seen the growth in the '07 time frame and the despair that we saw in '08 and '09, but it is coming back. and the need and the fundamental business case for business in general aviation is still there. so it needs to be a part of the equation, needs to be a seat at the table discussing what's necessary for that, that growth as we go forward. and not only here domestically, but when we talk about the president's mandate on exports, that's another piece of the discussion we should have today on the importance of if you look at 2010 close to six billion, five billion in ga exports just in airplanes alone occurred which was about 60% of our total industry business. so it is a global market, it is growing, and it does have a bright future, but we've all got to make sure we understand how we integrate together in that. >> i want to come back to a couple of those themes you just mentioned, but let's give dave

baron sec a chance -- bronc sec a chance to say something. >> it's great to be here. i agree with what jim said, and we were talking about it at our table today. it's really an inflection point that the aviation industry is at. we talk about it at fedex, and i meet with all the airline ceos here in the united states and, of course, all around the world, asia, europe, and the middle east and so forth. and we talk about these issues all the time. and i'll get through the infrastructure in a minute here, but when you start thinking about all the issues facing the aviation industry and where we are today and to advance to the future, the inflection point is right now. and it's on infrastructureñiñóoç above all s thewujthjátçó mantra at fedex and, ofñrñr course, it is for every airline in the world. iata statistics said we had the

safest year ever in aviation and that's, quite frankly, not good) then you have all the security issues we all face on the cargo side, the passenger side. you have all of those mounting pressures, the mounting issues, and then, of course, the service for our customers, and at the end of the day, that's what this is all about. it's the service for our customers and how it pertains to, of course, the industry issue at heart here is3@%sustai. satisfied, they're not pleased, they're not coming back, it's not easy, the access isn't easy, you've got all the security issues and so forth, sustainability for the aviation industry is really at peril, potentially. and all of it comes back around to speed into the marketplace. the access, the speed of 4 next generation issues, the euro control issues and all the european control centers and how efficient that is and how easy that is, andxdñi you heard jim

albaugh, and we lived in europe for a lot of years. if a lot of people find that aviation is difficult and it's high-speed trains over there, that's a real issue facing the of course, next general here and, of course, the customers we sometimes take it for granted either they're shipping their packages or they're flying with the aviation, the passenger people. at the end of the day, this needs to :eb faster, more seamless, it has to take care of all the security issues, you have to access the globe more efficiently. so we have a big, we have big issues facing the aviationçó issues facing the aviationçó industry.ñ representing ia, a, there's a lot of initiatives moving forward. but they're small. they need to be big. they need to be greater, and they need to be more sustained around the globe with more harmization than currently is so i know we're going to get back around to theseñ%3 issues,t from fedex's pointxd of view

and fromñi my chairmanship at iata, we're at an inflection point right now. >> want to come back to some regulatory questions here shortly, but doug parker, as all of you know, is, i think, one of the more thoughtful and candid ceos in the our industry. doug, do you want to share a couple of thoughts with us? >> sure. now that you said i was candid, i've got to say something candid to say, allan. [laughter] look, i've been coming here for a number of years now for añi couple of reasons. one, i have great respect for carol hallett, so i do this as carol asks. two, because i care a lot about our industry, and i like talking about our industry and commerce in the same sentence with few people like to do. so often we talk -- it still feels so often, particularly in this town, as though our industry is a public utility, and we're treated as such and not as a business. and we -- and that does us all a

ourñr shareholders. we've made great progress. frustrating, but in reality if you look back over the last few years particularly as it relates to consolidation, i think the industry's made huge progress by getting from, you know, before the us airways/america west merger there were 13 carriers in the united states which had at least 1% market share in the u.s. alone, i'm talking about globally, just in the united states. we're down to seven carriers which is still probably too many, but it's huge progress. and yesterday's announcement from the department of justice that they've approved southwest/air tran is good news and nice to see. so we're making great progress in that regard. probably the best way i can evidence that is noting that fuel is well over $100 a barrel, and while the industry just announced about a billion dollars of loss in the first quarter, no one's running around

with their hair on fire and saying we have a big crisis on our hands. you should be able to try to pass costs along like mr. bronczek seems to be able to do. [laughter]çóñiçót(çó [laughter] now we're into the candid stuff. [laughter] anyway, to sum it up, we've made good progress. we have a long way to go. and, you know, particularly to this group i just want to point out the biggest concerns i think we have as an industry mostly revolve around government intervention, continued government intervention, high taxes and fees. again, i do talk about every time i'm here, but i'll say it again. we're up to 20% of a $300 ticket, 20% of what you're payrg in your $300 is taxes and

fees.ñ> that's higher than cigarettes or alcohol. it doesn't feel like we're treated like a business. and so we've got a lot of work to do. i'm happy to talk more about what we go through what we need to do. >> thank you, doug. and i'm interested some more on your thoughts on how the government's helping our industry advance here over the next ten years. we'll get some of that candid conversation in. dave barger is, i think, one of the key administrators in our industry and has done a good job differentiating his jetblue product. dave? >> sure. well, first of all, allan, delighted to be on your panel and part of the rodeo, right? that we're out there day in and day out, and like doug -- it's always not fun to follow doug on the candidness, but delighted to be invited as well by with carol out of respect for her work here in the industry and at the chamber. i think my comments, i'm going to take a one-topic approach,

and that's going to be on a second day job i'm honored to have, and that is the chair of the nextgen advisory committee. and i've had this for two years, and this happened at the end of the 2010 time frame. when just in the audience today in participating in the full day, when you marinate the discussion from tom donohue's opening comments through the panels to the administrator, jim picked up on atm and the future, i'm sure infrastructure on this panel will come up as well, and i'm certainly of the mindset that this, this group representing the industry, airline from all sorts as well as the oems, as well as the regulators, labor, i mean, coming at it from all regards that there's plenty of science. now, how do we start to move to implementation? and maybe it's not going to be something that's a home run overnight, but there's a lot of low-hanging fruit. so how do we move to

implementation? and i think that the structure that's been put into place with the advisory complete building off the work of whether it's gpdo, task force five, rtca and all of your great work and working with the faa, i'm really excited, allan, about the potential to start to at least kick some field goals. maybe not spiking the ball in the end zone just yet, but it seems despite the recent challenges that we're potentially the arguments right across the board are we have to from the standpoint of competition, the global -- whether, you know, we can certainly play on the global marketplace and keep that lead into the decades, into the future. so i'm really excited and honored about that. i'm sure there might be some questions along those lines, but that was the theme over the course of the day so far. so excited there. >> well, hold that thought. it would appear that either through chance or design we're

incrementally progressing with our nextgen technologies. you really think we can incrementally attack this and achieve goals, or do we have to be more bold? and if so, how? >> well, we do have to be more bold, but i also believe that we're in the process of making these incremental improvements. and not just with specific brand decisions such as alaska or southwest or whatever the case might be, but i think that the structure that's been put into place, the timing first of all, but the structure around the commission that's been put into place, now it's advisory which is always a challenge, right? because the faa doesn't have to move forward on the recommendations which is frustrating, but that's the rules of the road. and i think even in the may when we're together in new york for our third commission setting that we've been tasked by the faa regarding equipage and some very specific asks on equipage

by the end of the may time frame and then further embellishing on that in the september time frame. by the way, i know that dan can bollen is here -- dan bollen is here, and so i think, allan, it's more of the process now. and around the table, again, whether it's mvaa, whether it's aoqa, the airlines, i think people and the organizations that they represent taking their logos off as they enter the room, and we have to get this done. it's so obvious when you look at the economic impact, you look at the energy savings and, certainly, when we start to see just this overall environmental upside as well, i think timing's really, really good. >> i know you're going to get some questions probably from the folks on the floor -- >> sure. >> -- both about jetblue and your role in planning for nextgen. jack, i wanted to come back to you here. you talked about the importance

of export markets to general aviation. and, clearly, i think there is a pent-up demand. and i was just reading this morning about the potential for general aviation in china. how do you think you can penetrate that market? can you, can you be effective in that market? as you are in other, in other countries? or how do you see the export thing unfolding for yousome. >> china's a pretty interesting market. i spent about two weeks over there recently visiting various clusters of aviation. i think the concern we ought to have domestically is they are either going to replicate what we do and put us out of business to exporting to that country, or we have the opportunity if we really get over there aggressively and start working with some of the impediments whether it be the duties, the taxes associated with it and then the fundamental air infrastructure that goes on over there to be able to sell into that market and get our brands. we have to take that approach

that right now to lead that effort we can, with government support, break down some of those barriers. and then as the manufacturers here in the u.s. go in and penetrate that country and getting products sold. if you look at what they're doing over there, over time -- which they have, i would say today as jim mentioned, haven't been very successful in necessarily replicating our products, but they will. it's just a matter of when. and our leading opportunity is to get there first, get our brands on the ground, be a part of helping getting the general aviation infrastructure set up. military today owns the air space. that's certainly an impediment. but, you know, we have a model, an economic model here that we can share with them that shows that part of the economic development of our country with airport infrastructure, jobs and manufacturing can certainly be replicated over there. i, i think we can't go fast enough in really trying to knock down some of those trade barriers so that we can get in there. >> and another export -- other

export markets that you see over -- >> india's very similar. it has a lot of the same impediments. infrastructure's not very robust, and also it has some pretty large taxation issues around importing into that country. you know, the president's probably one of the few things i agree with him on is the need for increasing our exports, and this is certainly an area that if he could get his arms around in helping to break down those barriers, we could make strong inroads very, very quickly. >> after having been somewhat, how shall i say this, critical of corporate jet usage, what could the president do to help you in wichita recover and to help stimulate these exports you're looking for? >> you know, some of the first steps have been taken. i commend secretary lahood who formulated what was referred to as the fact which dave participated on which brought the aviation industry to the table to address the environment, to address jobs, to address financing of next

generation air traffic control system, the implementation of nextgen. and as a result, secretary lahood came out to wichita recently, we had about 3,000 raving aviation fanatics to show him how important our industry is. but that's just the secretary. what we really need is the president. the president has embraced high-speed trains and environmental causes, and he has yet to once talk about the aviation industry. and we need to get him to be our advocate and to get out and visit the companies that deal with the aviation industry and start to recognize that when you look at the overall economy in this country, where we are in the food chain. i mean, the number of high-paying jobs, the positive balance of trade that we create. and he needs to embrace that and be our biggest cheerleader, if you will, around our industry. and we need that now. we don't need him spending his time on issues that really are going to be slow in coming and not have that economic impact that we need as a nation today. >> i think you'll get a lot of

support for that at least within this room anyway. >> i would hope so. >> on our collective do list. dave, on an operations basis we just, we just mentioned china and general aviation. operationally for fedex you guys are probably the best bellwether of the economy, and although, you know, gdp oftentimes follows what you see in the marketplace globally. >> yeah. >> share with us a little bit about what you see over the next few years on an operational basis. >> well, you're right. we have a pretty good picture of the globe being that we're in 220 countries and we have the commerce and the trade going on at the same time. and we were actually looking at this inside fedex the other day, and we passed our 35th year as a company. thirty years ago from 1975jfñr ó 2005 2005 gdp grew 150%, local trade

grew 350% andçzo air cargo grei 1400%. so it's a leading indicator of a lot of things, and it keeps driving the global economy. and we see that, actually, going forward the same kind of dynamic growth. china, without question, is leading the charge. india is catching up rapidly. brazil and really around the world. and one of the things that, you know, again, from fedex's point of view and iata, we will sit with the u.s. air transport association, and several of us have met on, you know, the urgency of the infrastructure, and, you know, the fuel crisis and the energy, the carbon footprint and so forth. we said, collectively, we don't have a loud enough voice which was really ridiculous because we should have a loud voice. and we left that meeting, and we went to kuala lumpur about a year ago, and we actually

colessed around the issues that we're -- coalessed around the issues we're talking about now. the carbon foot print, the oil issue, the infrastructure, the nextgen here in the united states. we had just come out of the white house and the administration, you know, showing support for that. the europeans with their european control center. when you stop and think about all the airlines around the world which we've got an agreement on to go with the iata, ita, iko position pushing the governments around the world in the same direction, that would be very, very helpful and very necessary. and we have a long way to go, but i think people actually understand the energy savings that we could make. i mean, we're vectoring into new york, and it takes 38 minutes to go in. we could be in continuous dissent in eight minutes, and you'd save the carbon footprint, and you'd save the energy and the efficiency, the flight delays, the customers win. there's so many wins behind all this that it's hard to argue. and now around the world, even

the european governments with the european carriers, are in support of this global position. so we have to do more, we have to keep pressing this agenda here in the united states and all around the world. i think the good news is we have a collective voice now for maybe the first time ever in the airline industry globally on all these issues. so it should bode well for the future. >> well, we've got -- okay. so we need the president to speak out more forcefully on trying to recover on the exports, and you're talking about some changes to u.s. policy. doug, do you -- would you rather see the u.s. government simply withdraw from the battlefield of civil aviation or change their policies, or you talked about the 20% tax burden here. can we afford their help? [laughter] >> that's a loaded question, allan. some of this, again, i think a couple things. first off, we, our view of -- at

least for a while -- has just been, you know, do no harm which is not the most energizing, rallying cry. but just leave us alone. just stop, please. and that means, that meant two things. one, stop putting new tax and fees on us. we've been reasonably successful in having done that over the last few years simply because we didn't have anymore money. and, two, let us compete. just let us do things like other businesses do like form alliances and mergers so that we can go out and do things to self-help ourselves. and we've been relatively successful on that point. some issues harder to get done than others, but we're getting there. so i think we've made some progress in those points. you'd like to get to a point where you don't have, where your goal isn't just leave us alone, but rather let's work together to make this better and actually create the kind of commercial aviation system that is best for

the country and best for all the people that work in it and use it. .. >> you'll hear later from nick is doing a nice job of bringing together the ada, and it's something we're all excited about. i think we will do better going forward. we have a lot of work to do steal to get past this, you know, last few years of just leave us alone. we still need that by the way.

but to move it forward yet again to a level where we're working together, to move forward. >> before we go to some questions from the floor, dave, you were talking about on the cost side, fuel, labor, fuel is a major component of cost. where's the fracture point in our industry for fuel costs? are we there already? >> is interesting, i think my thought on fuel may be a little bit country about what used to be an everyone cost of a labor perspective, fuel, 40% of our cost, 35, 40%, to pen him what kind of fleet you are flying. i think when we look back a couple of years ago you're really trying to, why is it hundred $47 plus spread. then you get into the whole issue of speculation. to reverse its bike down to the '30s, over $100 a barrel less, shortly thereafter.

and so what role does the cftc have, position like oversight at senator biggert because i don't care what business you're in. if are one cost is moving that hard and you're selling tickets out into the future or shipping boxes or whatever the case might be, that's incredibly difficult. more recently when you start to look at world events, whether it's the middle east or northern africa, to some extent in terms of japan, 112, a crack spread that it is now dealing to such about wti, what are you taking a look at from the standpoint of a hedging strategy if you have a hedging strategy? because some companies have decided not to do that. i don't think that this is only the high cost of oil is a bad thing, as long as it is kind of like a governor that discipline of what kind of capacity should be in the marketplace. because we have had an awful lot of capacity in the marketplace.

talk about consolidation and that is the number one issue that drives ability to sell a ticket, at what price. [inaudible] >> new airplanes, next-generation engine. of course, i have to bring up the winglet as well. i'm looking out at the audience right now, mr. chairman, but we're really excited about all that kind of stuff, and more. >> that's the second shot i've taken today. [laughter] >> went right through. let's go to the audience here, and kill i may need help to see some hands. because we got some bright lights. all the way in the back. yes. that's you. >> we will get a microphone to you. >> for the commercial guys, can

i get your thoughts on the aircraft to develop a. you just touch on winglets, new engine. with a major swing in fuel limiting volatility in the industry and keeping overall business ability seems to be a top priority. how do you view incremental changes in aircraft technology versus introducing on the aircraft? you've got your new triple sevens operate with fedex, solo 747s with u.s. airways, a fleet of aircraft with jetblue, and deciding what they would do. so can you guys talk about how you see that volatility in terms of introducing these incremental changes and the risk and benefits their in comparison to actually bring on the aircraft? >> sure. right. thanks for the question. i'm sure others will have an opinion. from a jetblue perspective we have a young three, five and

half years old, and we're having meetings today about how do we modernize the flea. many from the standpoint of what's happening with the power plan. i think doug's comment also about just the work of the ata and next leadership and dave now working with a change within iata. by the way, the oem, they've done a great job in terms of really driving fuel savings and efficiencies into airlines already. it's mainly the power plants but also the air france, a lot of great work. qaeda look at the next generation, specific to as you mention, it's hard not to be interested in something that looks like 50% fuel burn improvement efficiency. i mean, something that could be out there 2016 or so. especially nobody will try to predict where the cost of oil is going to go, but i know within jetblue we certainly don't think it's going to be a lot lower as we look at the future.

so we are excited about it. there's meaningful meetings taking place with the manufacturers today to even drive a younger fleet from what we're doing today. i'm away from it a question because you hate to give it all back. will have the technology to drive the savings today. >> i'll jump in and talk about our triple sevens at fedex. obviously, two engines and much more, we tried to buy another -- you want me to go there, allan? [laughter] okay, back to the -- i already took a shot. all right, back to our triple sevens. we did try to buy the fighters but nonetheless. they are better fuel efficiency, 18 to 20% of it that a better payload. you can leave now out of any point out of asia, shenzhen, hong kong, guangzhou, you name

it. singapore. you can pick up to, to a half later so don't have fuel tech stuff anywhere in the world and you can fly into any of our hubs all around the world like charles ago. you can fly out of guangzhou or shenzhen, two and half hours later the customers are sitting there manufacturing and not fuel tech stop and not have the payload constraint. these planes are fantastic for us. better fuel efficiency, they are placing the 777s, the md-11s, triple motors and high-cost. so you can see how that all helps. the other thing that helps, and i want to get this point india, we met with the administration several times and they passed it last year, accelerated depreciation on these new assets, 100% accelerated depreciation, help your cash flow, reinvested new technology, keep the jobs going. we are trying to push that

agenda some more because it's best for the government and quite frankly, and so i think you see new technology, more technology and keep pushing into the new areas that would help the customers at the end of the day and helps the company's. so there's a win-win here. it is a win for the administration. >> just one comment from the business aviation standpoint, all of the member companies of the general aviation manufacturers association have signed up to the same icao carbon footprint reductions as the airlines have over the next five to 10 years. in order to do that that means we have to design airplanes from an airframe are far more efficient than what we are today, and choirs the engine manufacturers to support the. when you look at the science behind it also requires the operational environment changes to meet those goals which gets back into why the importance of the nextgen air transportation system is so important to be able to get those kinds of games. all that said, as jim albaugh

mentioned at lunch is we have to have the r&d tax credits permit put in place to encourage our investment on an ongoing basis to be able to allow that innovation to happen. we are sorting that spending like boeing and airbus but $253 million a year on our and the alone, we can sustain that unless we have those kind of tax credits in place. >> you need to get some subsidies. >> he asked about -- asked about -- just the incremental r&d developments and new programs, but we've got an oversight agency now that's basically declared that because of budget pressures they can travel and they can't accept any new certification programs. how does that impact you? >> you know, that rightness by one of the biggest issues that i think is getting thrown up in the debate around budgets as we go forward and the next presidential budget.

and the unfortunate thing is there's many solutions out there today that can solve that problem with the f.a.a. have a process called oda which puts delegation into the manufacturers who have that approval, which most of us do, and airbus and boeing and cessna, along with going to what the european model which is really certified designer initiatives. if we get that in place and we get the f.a.a. into more of an audit function as opposed to signing off every drawing, making sure every stressed equation is correct, we can help relieve that requirement. we can get innovation significantly faster. and at the end of the day, for us, the argument is safety. there is no one who's more concerned about safety and the manufacture. we get sued, the f.a.a. does not. we are going to make sure that our standard is held high to the requirements are. >> one point i want to make which i think is relevant to a lot of the infrastructure comments i've heard earlier in the day, as relates to new

aircraft, my view at least, i think -- anyone, is that the u.s. domestic industry is mature. and the reality is with some exceptions, as you talk to people that are planning and buying airplanes and looking to grow, we don't see a lot of growth domestically. and as a result when you ask about airplanes, you know, as an industry i think the answer to the manufacturers is we've got enough airplanes, guys. we don't need more airplanes flying around the united states, i'm talking something about the united states, the wide-body fleet is a different issue. but for the narrowbody fleets there's enough of them. we don't need more. give us a better one. give us one that can do better than the one who have and we are all in. we don't need anymore of them. i can come at the point i think is really important is we talk about airports, infrastructure and things like that as well. there's a lot of i think those

of us who are looking to the future from our perspective, from the business side have a much different you what the industry will look like in terms of its infrastructure needs over the next 10 years than the f.a.a., for example, and that's causing a lot of anxiety, a lot of attention. i'm struggling for the right word, but debate probably a better word between what we will need over the next 10 years between those of us who are out there flying airplanes versus those who are in charge of building some of the infrastructure. >> we have a question over here. >> here comes your nextgen question. you guys have been sorted on different sides of the fans. you're clearly a big fan, dave, of nextgen. and don't come yet been as enthusiastic about it i think he said in the past partly because the majority of the domestic system. i don't know if you are all here for the earlier presentation about the public-private partnership and some of the

innovative ways of financing, just anybody's opinion, and obvious including jack sent you headed up the finance side of the fac, what are your views about that proposal if that's not the way to do it, i know airlines have lost a ton of money, what is the right way to incentivize equippage were nextgen? >> let me start. because you characterize me as not being a big fan of nextgen which is not true. i am indeed a huge fan of nextgen. not a huge fan, i'm paying for it. [laughter] so, and look, i'm not trying to get something free. i'm also, i think all of us are, happy and willing to pay for the benefits we receive. and would like to do so. nextgen has huge ramifications for the industry has huge cost

savings for the industry, it saves a lot of time for our customers, allows us to save fuel, all those things obviously greatly in favor. it's just the price tag, and looks awfully i -- looks awfully high. i'm with david and david can do this better than i can but i believe there are ways we can do this where you can get the benefits from certainly, most of the benefits for much less than the total price tag and start getting them into the i like to see a face in a way where we start seeing benefits before the cash goes out. but the wrong answer to this is put more taxes and fees on the airlines. to pay for nextgen pic that just doesn't make any sense. it's going to cripple us. i heard randi this morning make the point that its $8 billion when it's all done it will pay for itself in two years but i'd like to see those numbers, but take him on his word that's what it will save when you get down.

i think the problem with that statement is when it's all up then it will -- i don't know how long it takes that we are 10% of the industry at u.s. airways but i don't have $800 million to go give toward this project. so we can get paid off sometime even over a two-year period if it's five years from now. that's not a priority. there's all sorts of benefits to others. that should be paying. so that's my only exception to the program. it has nothing to do with a program that i think it's a fantastic program. we can't afford it. certainly we can't afford to burden even with, through debt, burn the balance sheets of this industry for the more by paying for it with the debt. we've got to find a better way to do this, and we will gladly pay i wait for the benefits we get. but we can't pay in advance. >> would you guys agree, is equippage sort of a long pole in

a tent for both airlines in general aviation? is that the problem we need to solve? on the other things manageable, technologies and implementation? >> yeah, i'll start on the. idly, i was at the presentation, the debate with russ and dave and mary in leading the panel over the course of the day. i think it is the long pole in the tent. it's the first task in the committee, i think i called it a commission early. will have a commission if the committee is not successful i think. because this is been around for so long, but the first task we have is really equippage. that's like who. and then what are some of the ways to maybe incentivize the equippage. and you start to get into whether it is airlines and aopa and the aa and corporate business, department of defense. it's been interesting debate. i think it is a long pull. i think there's good work that is taking place within the committee, subcommittee and the

workgroups that have been put in place, with experts in each of those aipac i think there'll be some real solid recommendations that michael and the f.a.a. are going to have to wrestle with because i think they will be very, very thoughtful about moving this forward. the other task is geography, some metroplex in terms of the winner, and also when you start to take a look at my think this is important, performance metrics. that's at the end of the day, what we are investing in a take to whatever board what i going to get 40. that's what's really important in terms of the benefits, if you will. again, i'm incredibly optimist optimistic. >> yes, you are. [laughter] >> yes, mr. administrator. >> let's get another question here.

>> doug, what's the next merger, airline merger? and then, i'll ask you and dave and the others, showed the limits on foreign ownership be eliminated speak with the second one is for david. all, they are both for me? i don't know. david apparently doesn't want to merge with me las. [laughter] so you can strike that one off the list. i don't know. we've made a lot of progress on that point. there's probably still more to come. but it doesn't have to happen. as someone who has been a large proponent of consolidation were longtime i'm happy with where we have gotten. we are now to the point where we have four large hub and spoke airlines, and to nationwide low-cost airlines between southwest and jetblue.

that's a relatively rational industry, much more rational than it was before. could it be three in one? sure. going from four to two, to three and one is nothing like going from where we were which was something like seven and five, or seven and six down to four into. at any rate had we done most of what needs to be done. will there be others? maybe. it becomes a lot more tactical from a large strategic issue. you raise a good point, however. globalization. we talk about these numbers, the u.s. industry. for a business that connects the globe better than most other businesses, we still have these large barriers to globalization. and those i think over time we're going to have to come down. and will come down. but i think we are a ways away. our focus right now is getting the u.s. industry where we work and what our people work,

rationalize. i think we made a lot of progress, but that's the next phase and the next wave. it will happen one day. i don't think it will happen soon. for whatever reason, there's concerns amongst labor about what might happen if those foreign ownership laws are taken away. and i think that will stop anything from happening, certainly for a while. but i think it will happen one day. right now we're doing it through alliances. and we are doing at the antitrust immunity across a lie to get as those get stronger and stronger you will see things start to look a lot more like a global business. and i think eventually you will see just like happened in other businesses, this fear factor that if we break down these laws to commerce, you see the fear factor go away as we get more comfortable. >> that's what's driving it now. these concerns of the unknown. is the unknown. that are still out there and we

will deal with for a while. >> i would echo what doug, i figured big issue sitting in front of those issues. you have trade barriers, the open skies issues, brazil, saudi arabia. you have these markets around the world, these markets that all connect, and it is a global industry like doug said. you have all these forces pushing so i think there's a lot of work yet to be done and a lot of priorities that are ahead of that issue, quite frankly, in my opinion. >> i'd love to jump in on the. by the way, with consolidation that's one of the reasons we believe there is a need for more airplanes. and for different models, and i mean, although even in our network today where 25% of miles an international market. we are moving our footprint differently but we think this is provided some interesting

opportunities for growth and industry is also consolidated in terms of brands. i think it's an international or globalization and foreign investment. i'd like to think that there's a reason why kill had the lufthansa and jetblue placed together in the center of the movie i really, really appreciate that. that has been so good for our company. when we take a look at foreign investment and knocking down these barriers, i'm of the opinion it will come down sooner rather than later because it will have to. but we'll see what happens into the future. last thought, i grew up in detroit, watch the auto industry, take a look at the steel industry. you grew up in the detroit area, these mature industries, i mean, there's an awful lot that is holding us back because of the regulations that we have in terms of investment that is taking place. i think this would be very good for the companies, the employees, the crew members, and sort of the customers and shareholders long-term. >> ed, i think you know my

feeling is any government issue that was developed over 50 years ago needs to either be we examined our abolished on its face. >> allan, i'm from atlas air. you talked about the inflection point that we're at today, some of the panel, many of us are members of the civil reserve air fleet. you talked about the need for presidential policy. allan, you know in three of the inflection point in our history, 50, harry truman, 62 john kennedy, and the last one was 87 with ronald reagan. we create what we called the national average policy and it was an nsd 280, just a number, but for fedex and u.s. air you guys are all participants in the craft. but for allan, might we not be at that inflection point again where power of the ceos on the stage could get together and convinced the president, like we talked about today, to go reaffirmed not just a national

aero policy but maybe national aviation policy we can all get behind? your comments. >> gentlemen, do you want to comment? >> he asked you. a question to the moderator. >> i would do anything to have a national aviation policy, well-thought-out, and adopted if we could engage our policymakers in the government to think about that. it was mentioned earlier, jim albaugh had mentioned it, some of us have mentioned, the percentage of gdp depends upon the aviation system is just staggering, and we should protect that as a national resource. not only protect it but develop it. and we are not doing that yet. just not doing that. >> let me jump in. you're a wonderful ceo, and a number of us went over to the administration and secretary lahood a month or two ago, we

are a member of craft, civil reserve air fleet, so are you and so many others, of course we have so many military pilots, thankfully, and that doing their civil reserve duty and where members of craft. we have a lot at stake as a country and as a company and collectively. so yes, you are right we need to probably form more of a cohesive understanding of what that means. i mean, when i going to get into the clinical debater but the flight duty time issue is a big problem for you at alice. it's a problem for me. when we have at the moment no jet to fly these military flights. we've been making our points and people have been listening, but they need to understand the full complexities of what we're talking about here. so it's a very good point. >> i would also add, when you talk about policy i'm not sure what the element of that policy would be, but certainly this is probably where doug and i are in

violent agreement. they can't be one that add more regulation. it needs to get back to the faa's original credo, it was in there that there to promote aviation. we need government, maybe not our policy to promote aviation more so than regulates it, and certain getting promotion back to faa's would be a big piece of that. >> next question please. how are we doing, carol? are we okay on time? yes, ma'am. >> i am bob with huckabee crap. the theme of the conference community is centered around nextgen and we heard -- huckabee craft. we her thoughts about how that's going to decrease the carbon footprint and be more economic

for us. and yet, today, we are subject to a little thing called dts. for those of you don't know the acronym it is environmental trading scheme in your. so for the panels are impacted by that i'm interested in hearing your view on ets and whether or not the federal government, our federal government has been helpful in that regard. >> i'll jump in from iata. that was one of the big issues that we address in the whole issue of the environment of issues where europe was jumping out ahead of the rest of the world. and very harmfully so. women have european carriers all there, along with the asians anybody in the rest of the world, we have collectively banded together and we've been meeting with the governments in europe and icao as well, to try and have it become more thoughtful and more logical rather than just tax imposing

and destroy the aviation industry, quite frankly, financially. so there's a lot of work. we met with the us government your yes, they understand. nancy will be on next to nancy young picture the leading that effort over in denmark in copenhagen. so it's a big issue. you have to watch it all the time. it was a big victory for us to give the european carriers collectively with all the rest of us in one common voice. >> i did like to just put a little rap on this before carroll gets the hook on us. i thank you for all your comments and your attention over the next 10 years, our industry will be shaped by leaders such as the four guys appear on the podium in front of you. i don't think there's anybody i have more respect than the forgive and what you do for our industry. and it's your creativity and innovation that will get us going to advance aviation over

the next 10 years. i thank you for your participation today. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] spent coming up on c-span2 we will return to the aviation conference for a discussion on the industry's efforts to use alternative fuels.

>> now more from u.s. chamber of commerce aviation conference. this next panel will explore the industry's efforts to use more alternative fuels. you hear about the challenges of producing biofuel in the u.s. and industries growing desire to reduce carbon emissions. this runs about an hour. >> arai. while everyone is getting hooked up i will try to keep your attention because i'm going to introduce darrell jenkins, our moderator. this is really a very important panel that we have coming up.

for all of you who are leaving, don't forget coming you can't, you can't win any of the tickets if you don't come back. so, with that admonition, i am very pleased to be able to introduce a longtime friend and a fellow farmer come and that is something very important that darrell jenkins and i have in common. but darrell has been an independent consultant to the aviation industry for about 30 years i think. more or less. and he has worked with a majority of the world's top 50 airlines, in addition to having been the former director of the ohio state university and online operations center, and he also has a handbook on airline economics. his background is seat with

aviation, and i know you'll enjoy reading his bio in today's program. but i'd like now to turn the panel over the darrell, and i think a lot of what our last panel said is going to come to fruition here in this bill. so, darrell, it is all yours. >> what a pleasure to be here today. i always appreciate the opportunity to come to the city once a year. [laughter] i really enjoy the last panel. i'm looking forward to this one in our conversation. i'm happy to announce that for the fight people out there right now act we know what are talking about. i'm going to spend -- okay, i don't. you all know that. we have billy, joe. thank you for coming, showing how to pronounce your name. nancy and the young man on the end is an undersecretary of the department of agriculture. all of the bios are included in

there. i think we'll start with some opening statements. we have a slide that is out there that i want you to start perusing right now. and i think we'll start with our undersecretary and then we will go with nancy. >> make you very much. appreciate the chance to spend a few minutes with you all today. the department of agriculture, we are very excited about potential of biofuels of course and what it means for rural america, particularly excited about the challenges presented to us try to me that opportunity. i want to thank particularly the ata and boeing for their join in with an agreement with us, and worked closely with him and the rest of the industry i'm trying to develop the basic feedstocks and the processes of creating a biofuel source for you all for your airlines. so look for to the rest of the panel. >> thanks. nancy? >> i think there's no question that aviation is a green engine of the economy. and i think jim albaugh really

captured that. he painted a picture without may be saying it quite that way. in his remarks. he noted 2% of the world's co2 but we drive four to five times that amount of the global gdp, depending on whether you include all direct and indirect, that's a pretty remarkable record. 110% fuel efficiency from the u.s., improvements from u.s. airlines since 1978. so, what, that's like taking 99 cars off the road each year since 1978. so, that, plus others with a great record. but what we're looking at now is not just the past. it's the future. we see aviation alternative fuels as a big part of our future. you heard the last panel, mr. bronczek in particular talking about a worldwide aviation commitment to fuel efficiency and carbon neutral growth from 2020, and the need

to push measures, technology, operations and infrastructure together, and alternative fuels as the slideshows you've is one of the pieces of that package. i think carol really hit the right thing overall for the conference. aviation alternative fuels really is a global partnership, and i think we'll get a chance to talk about today. but we wouldn't be where we are with our partners at the usda, for example. isn't it cool to have undersecretary from usda at an aviation conference? and the military, the manufacturers, the air force, we are all in this together. so i'm looking forward to further dialogue about all the things that we're doing to make this a reality. >> job? >> first of all i have to thank the u.s. chamber of commerce for inviting german representative to this conference. and i think we cannot talk about biofuel without talking about boeing because boeing is being

so active for many, many years, moving the subject of biofuels forward, that we, lufthansa, celebrating 50 years of corporation last year, and now 51 years already. we are very much impressed by the leadership said that boeing has taken on the worldwide base. not talk about domestic u.s.a. only but on a worldwide basis to really attract, to step into the country and as a follower of this track, i can say we in europe, we are operating that is basically operated by boeing manager who is dealing and talking to us every day. so i must say to a certain extent, and i love it to say, europe is being run from seatt seattle. >> thank you for the kind words. let me put this in your head,

with us on this panel, about five years ago the wisdom and aviation, me included, was biofuels will not work in jet airplanes. it will not meet technical standards, it can't make enough, et cetera, et cetera. by three years ago we had proven it was possible, but probably unlikely. you know, you could do it technically but too many open questions. today, we are really on the verge of commercial availabili availability. it's the beginning of a long road but we have made such tremendous progress in this area, and i, like the slideshow, is one of the tools that is essential to address not only our carbon footprint in the future, but as i'm sure darryl will remind us, our economic future. >> let me just say in line with

that, i think that the issue of jet fuel is the biggest issue facing us today. that an nextgen pretty much sums up everything that we're worried about in the business right now. i think all of the decisions that we will make in the next 10 to 20 years in the airline industry, which city we fly to, what type of an airplane we fly them in, what we're able to pay our labor and so on are going to be driven by the price of jet fuel. so with that as my introduction let's go back to the usda and ask the nice question of why isn't the usda here on an aviation panel today? >> well, my mission of courses rural development. i come from rural america. i spent four years as a farmer myself. the opportunities of this is enormous. rural america like many of us go through its ups and downs. in the 1980s we had a real farm crisis that many collapsed. there was tremendous bankruptcy. so we find ourselves constantly looking for the next opportunity. trade has been very good to us

in recent times, the exchange rate has been very positive for our sails, but that can change. and so we tend to constantly look for the next opportunity. agriculture is an extremely mature industry in the united states. we have an enormous capacity we are the best agricultural production in the world. so we think systematically we can go our capacity and grow into the biofuels world as well as continue to do exports as well as continue to provide food. so we have to build the basics, look at the basics, and had to look at our market growth. we have to look at the capital necessary for production of this, and systems necessary for production. so we are anxious to be part of this process. we are closely with this industry as well as the other industries we are working with. >> you might want to explain to anybody your association. >> we have been having meetings with the airline industry, including ata, boeing, and many of the other airlines.

and developed -- not a contract servant, an agreement you are speaking, to try to move the ball forward across the board. so we've been having regular meetings, been a stunning the regular -- several proposals for facilities that we could potentially finance. and so we are trying to look through this strategic initiatives of the various kinds that might be most useful. so we are in those stages of exploration, and i think much of the biofuels world is in the same place, what's going to be the best technology, what's going to be the next -- best opportunity of what makes sense. it's been nice to work with many are on the processes. >> nancy? >> if i could add to that, i think what we see is as billy said, we know how to do alternative fuel for aviation. we have a jet fuel. >> allows for alternative fuels. we know how to fly them. boeing has led a lot of the

flight demonstrations, et cetera. what our real challenge is now is commercial scale up. a partnership that we have with usda i think is this tremendous opportunity. it's about 85% of the cost of alternative fuel is the seed stock, then how do we drive that cost down? how do we make that cost effective? how do we do in a way that is homegrown, addressing really the need for more energy independence in this country? we started with some of the environmental goals that we have, but the airline skewered, dave barger's and others taken with with a very volatile fuel supply and fuel costs. so if we can have a competitor to petroleum-based fuels, home-grown, maybe deal with some of that volatility, that would be great. the folks of a lot of those keys are at usda. they know how to work with the community that can deliver the feedstock to us, and it's really

this farm to flight initiative that we have forged i think is great. because it serves rural america. it serves the farmers but it serves the economy, energy independence, and it serves the airlines and the aviation community. >> i'm going to suppress, i have 100 acres next to me and i want to know what to do with it but i'm not going to ask you that. let's go away from the united states for a minute, the european viewpoint, and bring jo in on this. >> compared to the u.s., europe is a little bit more complicated that you may imagine. firstly, you have one government that has a roadmap for biofuels. in europe it starts that we have more than 40 countries with more than 40 different governments speaking 20 different languages. and i would guess that all of

the roughly 400 million europeans, more or less 200 million among speaking the english language. so, finding a compromise that leads to a roadmap for biofuels is much more complicated than here in the u.s. and, therefore, we, of course, appreciate the leadership that the u.s. have taken so far, and many models just indicated by nancy and the undersecretary will be copied further or later in europe as well, maybe with some differentiation, that the basic model can be seen here. and i think as you mentioned, i've learned in my business that the u.s. wheat production from 1952 now and grew by more than 400%. this is impressive and this is showing that it really starts with agriculture. if we don't get agriculture sector which is totally away

from our aviation business, if we don't get agriculture integrated into this supply chain, we won't do it. and again, i think the basic model can be seen here in the u.s., and hopefully we can copy it to some extent in europe. >> tell us about the technologies that are being used on biofuels right now, which ones are commercially available and how long -- which are timeframe on this? >> we have one kind of process technology that is fully approved. we have another process approach which relies on plant oils, oil seeds or algae oil. and they'll be approved this year. and then we have a third pathway that is just starting approval process, which will take all types of alcohol, which are derived from so you lost the things, things like corn stover for instance, and turn those

into full drop ins, hydrocarbon jet fuel. so, lots of different pathways coming along. very quickly. and we need a variety of feedstocks. we need a variety of assessing methods. and scales, small, medium, large scale type processing arrangements. to get a portfolio that really can be stable and provide a good support. [inaudible] spent portfolio is different by geographic differences. is also going to be driven by policy decisions. what works in the u.s. policy will probably be a little different than what works on european policy, or policy in china. so, and we need all of those things to address this. >> do we have the ability to distribute this and to take it to a plane on the runway?

>> yes. >> tell us about that. let's get down to practical things. just say no, the next thing i am going to ask is pricing. >> we'll start with the easier question, which is do we know how to get it. really, i think division of the aviation industry, and it goes back to the commercial aviation alternatives, fuels initiatives that ata and boeing and faa and airports and manufacturers started in 2006, our vision has been we had to drop in fuel. that's the term that bill used. to make that more vivid, the fuel needs to look the same as petroleum-based fuels. so you need a process so that you can intermingle it with today's storage capacity and put it in today's jet and the like. because you heard the infrastructure challenges, right clicks were not going to great a whole new pipeline system. were not going to create jets that fly on other do. drop into is the way to go, and we can use through the jet fuel specification approvals the

common carrier pipeline, the storage at airports and the like. and really, the image that billy gave you the different options around the world, think about this. we are not 30,000 gas stations around the country. take 30 airports, 40 airports and get 80, to 90% of our supply. you can imagine a regional distribution in the airports using infrastructure already have spent what are the technical problems? to 100% biofuels? will we mix it like 10% ethanol and 90% real gas? what are -- how we actually physically handle the? do we loaded on at the same time? >> jet fuel is made of parabens and other stuff we don't want. so we will not make the other stuff. we don't need that. make parabens, their fans can be made from just through modern

chemistry. to use the term. today. several methods. they are at lab scale and can be done shortly. so we'll be able to make the whole thing. l. think of him when he. in the meantime though, you can take their fans that are produced from plants and mix that with petroleum-based fuels. and get the aromatics that you need are the essential part of the equation. so today, we can go up to with the ft process we can go up to almost 1% with the aeromatics. with plants were starting at 50% with the plant oil, oil see processing. we are starting at 50% just to kind of these our way into this. we know there's not enough supply to go 100% anyway.

so we will step through it. technical barriers are the easiest part of this. >> jo go are the problems going from united states to europe going to play in a? >> actually there will not be any problems in future as we have the sense, and, therefore, as are working perfectly with jet a, for over six years right now. there's when a problem. nancy didn't answer the question with regard to the price. i would take a chance after that subject, because it's the first question. very carefully, i mean, finally the passenger has to pay. and the are two sides of the coin, and i think we have to somehow communicate. on the one hand, aside, we cannot pay in mostly for fuel, losing the attractiveness of our business model and having a

negative response from our passengers. i think this is practicing suicide, and nobody is going to do that. on the other hand, we know that we have to do something to mitigate climate change. and the longer we are waiting to do this, the higher the cost will be to really get rid of the co2. so, therefore, it's a story where no easy answers can be given. and, therefore, i think we are still on the way to search what is the right solution. and the right solution it as are indicated by billy, is really to look into the regional opportunities to see what is the best solution, frankly spoken for each airport. and, therefore, it depends the solution for chicago located next to the midwest may be totally different to a solution in singapore. but therefore, finally the passenger has to accept that

what we are doing makes sense, is affordable for us and is affordable for him. >> nancy? >> i would add, really when you think about sustainability, okay, back to the indictment, sustainability isn't just about the environment. it's really a balancing of environmental goods, economic good and social good. and so you have to have alternative aviation fuels have to be cost competitive. and so what we have to do then is drive the costs down it and i think really the undersecretary called some of those keys because we are doing business case analysis right now with the military, and we're getting close to being able to get these fueled commercially viable. but we need to get a few large-scale jet fuel processing facilities up and running to demonstrate that to the market. you have users who want to buy

it. jo wants to buy. our airlines want to buy it but we've got to show it can be done. so i think some of the programs that usda has whether its biofuel refinery programs, or programs to help make feedstocks oil feedstocks more attractive to the farmer them crop insurance for the types of energy crops that are relevant to us, those are the types of things that will really help with that challenge. >> what do we do? what do we plan next year a? >> what do we plan next year? the thing that will make the most money i suppose. well, there's a little humor to that. >> but we are getting into a good point out of this. >> i'd like to suggest one of things we have to learn when we created the ethanol industry was how to align the interests of the parties involved. what we did at the time is we allow the producers to become investors in corn ethanol plants. because with so many variables here that i think people

anxious, crop prices go up and down, capital intensive nature of these plants, the variables of exchange rates that caused this dramatic effect on the market. what i'm suggesting is as we look at this, we look at it as a complete set of circumstances, and we have to look for every interest to make sure they are aligned. that's a we did to create the ethanol industry to start with. the producers owned a part of the industry so they always had supply. there was as much in need to go out and compete for the product because the producers look at it as an opportunity to market their products. so what i'm suggesting is we built the system as we work together. we look for those needs, those interests that have to be met in order to accomplish. the next part will be capital, find enough capital. right now the credit industry is so anxious. they just are not taking risks, especially related to rural areas to any degree at this point. so finding ways to mitigate that

risk, bring confidence is critical. the next year is probably corn, soybeans. but i may want you to start planning something more in the future. >> less talk about price mechanism of this and where it comes from. how well the pricing of this be done? >> it's going to be ultimately it will be priced competitively with the alternative fuel, the feel we know today, traditional fuels. so petroleum prices will drive the price of the alternative fuels as well. >> so the fuels will be in fact priced tie in accordance with what petroleum is? >> i think we have to be realistic. we are as seeking cost competitiveness. i think to expect him to be cheaper it would be too much, but perhaps if you have a competitor to petroleum-based fuels, you have something else

with a volatility. and ultimately a competitor, we would hope, would make fuel prices more stable and potentially come down over time. >> one other thing. we kind of passed over jo's comment about the productivity of weed over the past 30 years. nearly all of the feedstocks were talking about your our undeveloped at this point. there at the very beginning of an improvement or. as well as the processing. at the being of improvement curve. so if any logic applies here, costs are going to come down dramatically. they already have in the last five years. and as prices come as costs come down, that doesn't necessary mean the price is going to come down. at least at first. somebody will make money on the difference, and there might be some people in this room who want to be part of that. you can't do that today with an

integrated oil company. they are too big, too powerful and too fully invested. this is a new start. it's a new opportunity, potentially. >> this is an issue i'm struggling with. we make it a little bang for our buck but not much? have i said this correctly, in terms of economics? >> i think that's the wrong question actually. i mean, what the airlines are seeking an alternative fuel is a competitive put to petroleum-based fuels. why? because we think with environment benefits that can add to the package of measures that we are pursuing, and we think we can bring some stability to the commodities market essentially, the petroleum market. and that will help. if we can even deal with taking down some of those peaks, that would be helpful. i think overall, over time, we're going to get more cost effective fuels through

alternative fuels. but in the early days it's going to be essentially the same prices, petroleum, oil, on the commodities market. >> there's a clear clear indicator once we've done a good job, when the american farmer starts to become a shareholder in an airline, then we know that we have risen to the right level. [laughter] but nevertheless, very good point is investments, and so far i think our experience as of today is that the major oil companies have not invested money to that extent necessary to really get the market for. they have done a lot of investment in research, of course. and we've estimated just for lufthansa will be the necessary investment if we were to change 6% of our present fuel demand into biofuels, and the pre-investment would be 6 billion u.s. dollars.

and almost the same amount would have to be spent for biorefineries. that altogether leads to roughly 13 billion u.s. dollars, and this is exactly the figure we as an airline have presently on the books of boeing and others. so, therefore, we cannot simply afford, these kinds of investment. and so, therefore, we need certain parties to jump in, whether it is on the oil companies are whether it's from the investment sector. regardless, we need these kinds of investments in order to really get these things running. >> you had a comment i believe. >> i do. there should be and needs to be return on investment, and that's exactly how we approached ethanol. our investment in ethanol were very successful, and as a former they also became a natural hedge for us. if the price was cornered and we made more money out of beth noveck as the price of corn goes up we still make money. so i think the recognition at least from the, it was an

opportunity i think that opportunity can exist here as well. and a lot of dimensions. people shouldn't look at it as social investing. it's economic investing that happens to be good for all the parties because it keeps and creates an opportunity. .. >> which will formulate the price? can they be the price setter in this somehow? >> as an attorney, i'm always careful of antitrust and price

fixing and all of those things, but we are, what we're doing is bringing the airlines together with the fuel providers. and through the commercial aviation alternative fuels initiative, we have a business team, and that's co-led by american airlines right mow and the ata -- right now and the ata, and we have brought groups of airlines together with suppliers because one of the ways we're going to address some of these price issues is to share risk. and getting into joint buying contracts is one way to do that. looking at long-term buying contracts, another thing we're supporting for the military is o to extend their contracting authority to be longer term so we can do joint purchasing with them. >> how far can you push that in terms of long term? >> well, it fends on the deal -- fends on the deal, absolutely, and the fuel buyers are directly involved in this. but we're looking at fife and ten-year off take contracts. there's got to be some sharing

of risk, some upside and downside to both parties if you're going to walk in for that amount of time. i know that lufthansa has been in these discussions with our guys, and we've entered in already to a couple of prepurchase contracts with a couple of suppliers, and really turning those into commercial offtake agreements is the next step. and that relates a lot to driving these commercial terms. >> okay. this is washington. let's talk policy on this, billy. you're a washington pro. what are the policy issues here in terms of alternative fuels in the aviation industry? >> there's policy issue relative to agricultural treatments. there are a lot of things can be addressed to make it more palatable for a producer or farmer to decide on an energy crop as part of their farming portfolio. things like crop insurance,

aforementioned. there's probably a bigger policy that's come up in a couple of ways earlier today around energy, and that is how important is aviation to our economy. and is it okay if fuel goes to uses that tend to make aviation fuel harder and harder to get, ie, more and more expensive. because that's what's happening today already. mentioned as the premium put on jet fuel as opposed to kind of the base price of oil. and i think that our industry, particularly, needs to drive some energy policy decisions around, you know, for cars there are lots of other ways to produce that energy. for, for electricity there are other ways to produce that energy. for airplanes, for big jet airplanes this is it.

we need, essentially, jet a, jet a-1 fuel in order to operate airplanes. so we need some energy policies that recognize that and balance that out. right now a refiner can get more for a gallon of diesel than for a gallon of jet fuel. but it's cheaper to produce the jet fuel. and so there's something wrong. [laughter] so, so i think we immediate to put some priority on getting these initial projects in place to let this technology mature to where we can bring down the cost structure, bring up the availability. those kinds of things. are what i'm talking about to help stimulate the investment. >> now, in our prediscussion we were talking about that and, i think, nancy, or you -- somebody

brought it up that the price of alternatives are becoming almost economic. but that's because of the price of jet fuel being so high right now. are we making advances in terms of our technology for doing this? that is bringing the cost of the alternatives down, or is it just the fact that the cost of the primary product is so blasted high that the other ones are becoming more economic now? >> it's both. >> both? >> it's both. the price of petroleum is going up, but problem is you can't invest, you know, in a, in a new biorefinery based on the price of oil in the last month. or the last quarter. you need a long-term track record. and as long as it's volatile like that, there'll be no new investment in alternative capital. >> well, the volatility is the issue. nancy? >> but great technology

breakthroughs have always had a higher cost at the beginning, and billy mentioned this, but it holds true in energy if you look at solar, if you look at nuclear and watch the cost curve. you start very high, but over the years of development it really comes down. and i think that's what we've seen in the last three to five years where we've been working in earnest on aviation alternative fuels is the technology is coming along, but really i think what we're talking about is, really, the supply chain. which is how do you get the farmer to grow it, how do you connect it with transportation to a processer, how do you refine it, and how do you get it to the airport? this and some of the case study projects that we're doing under the farm to fly initiative are aimed at just that, from the beginning to the end. and bill and boeing have helped work with alaska airlines and others in the pacific northwest to lead one of those initial studies showing great promise for how you have to connect all

those logistics to make 'em price competitive. >> well, the opportunity costs for growing it's simple. in northern virginia the opportunity cost is the cost of what we get for hay. all right? so if you offer me a price higher than the cost of what i can get for planting hay or straw, we're in good shape. long term. >> i love your example. >> give me ten years, nancy, that's all i want. >> our contracts are looking a lot more sophisticated than that, and i think, you know, we're not -- the undersecretary mentioned camalina. what is that? it's an oil seed crop that can be grown inrotation with wheat. we are working on a few projects that would be based on that, but what happens if market fails that year? there has to be another commodity that can tack its place. so while i'd like to focus on what you can do in your county, what we're really doing is kind

of a broad-based commodities deal. it's not all that different than just buying petroleum jets today. our buyers are out there taking risks in the commodities market with that. so it's sort of the new generation of that. i have to add one more thing while i have the mic. we're talking about aviation fuel alternatives today, that's our panel. but we're not expecting alternative fuel to solve all of our energy issues. and i think that's important. we're talking about additional fuels, essentially, for the next several years and many years. so things like speculation, undue oil speculation and appropriation of that, the air transport association has really promoted. things like having a broad-based energy policy that goes to all kinds of accessible and environmentally-friendly sources in the u.s. this is just one of a basket of options to make energy policy better for aviation, getting really to billy's fundamental point. you have to have energy policy

that supports an industry like this that is the backbone of the economy. >> jo, what's more important right now in this discussion, is it the environmental issues or the economic issues? in europe what's driving the discussion? >> i think in europe for the time being it's, clearly, the environmental discussion. but it has to be proven that once the prices are in the market, that those who are claiming to be environmentally friendly are going to pay the price. and we will see to what extent the airlines will to -- will do that. on the other hand, i think it's fair to say that we are always comparing the petroleum industry that has a chance to develop over 60 years to have a perfectly running, integrated logistics chain with a brand new industry that is just moving the first steps forward. and, again, i think we should have the chance and, of course, the support from the government

not only from the u.s., but also worldwide that we need a certain space where we just see what are the best ways to do it. and as nancy has said, we need now the first money in order to show practical things to go for industrial scale to see what the real market price in comparison to petroleum-based jet fuel really is. nobody knows it as of today. and, therefore, we have to jump into the cold water and let's see whether we can swim or not. >> i'd like to get everybody primed right now for some questions. we're running on time right now. i do want to have some questions from the audience coming up. billy, you've got $100 million. where are you going to invest it, young man? in. [laughter] >> well, in this sector i think there are a number of opportunities in agriculture, in some of the processing steps along the way, certainly in the refinery space, in distribution.

it's probably an integration role is probably the biggest opportunity right now i see is somebody that can put pieces together with other parties that are experts in be each of those. so that would be my pick if i was going to invest some money. >> we haven't talked about this yet, what are the distribution issues? >> distribution issues coming in a couple different forms. for example, how do i aggregate enough agricultural product in one place that it can be processed in enough volume to make it worth your while to do the processing? so you've got to distribute the raw product into the processer. the other piece is, now, where am i going to locate that biorefinery relative to access to pipelines or railways or other ways to get it to an airport, and which airports do i want to target, first, second and third in order to take the

volumes that i'm planning to produce? >> who does this? >> who does that? well -- >> is this what you're going to be doing? [laughter] >> entrepreneurs are kind of leading the way here. small, medium-sized businesses, people with unique niche, even, even an oil company maybe that sells jet fuel but is maybe one of the smaller players less well known. those kind of things. i won't name names. sor ri, darrell -- sorry, darrell. you tried. [laughter] but i think probably the first entrance that connects up supply chains will not be the big names. now, that doesn't mean that in a few years the big names will be the big players. they're in a natural position to be able to do that. but i think some of the smaller players and the emergent folks are going to be there first. >> now, what differences do we

have in europe doing this, jo? is are you going to have the same problems billy just discussed? >> generally, yes. i mean, the difference is that the farming industry in europe is already supplying ethanol to the road transport sector. so, therefore, we as aviation are a little bit late in just saying, well, hey, we have also demand for biofuels. and the problem is that we cannot afford and we're not going to do that a price war against road transport fuels because this is a pride competition. nobody really has a winner. however, the point is that we have to find a way how to get in europe biomass feedstock, and this seems to be a problem as with a dense population just consider in germany more or less 82 million people living in an area a little bit bigger than the state of florida.

there's nothing left in order to produce biomass on a large scale which is not already being used. so we as an airline, we are looking into the southern part of africa, we're looking into brazil, we're looking into southeast asia as our future suppliers for biomass because there is hardly nothing to get from our domestic market. so that seems to be the difference between europe and the u.s. >> big differences. nancy? >> i, we're really looking at a very home-grown industry from the air transport association of america approach. that said, when we go to other parts of the world, we want to be able to fuel up on alternative fuels there as well. and so through our work with the international civil aviation organization, through calf my which i've mentioned a few times, we're really trying to derive compatible specify

cases -- specifications. things like environmental criteria, dealing with the logistics issues that bill has raised. we are working those through these networks of groups around the world. >> do we have any questions right now? please. >> i'd like to point out the difficulty of the financing issue. so i'm going to be the, i'm going to violate the hooker rule and be the first one to mention money. if in the context of using nonfood crop biomass as a feedstock, generally logistically, about 100,000 tons a year throughput our studies indicate that that's about the optimal level of production. that'll give you about 36

million liters a year of product. the problem is, as mr. glover said previously, if i'm using a wreath fermentation process and -- a yeast fermentation process and i'm producing c5 and c of sugars into jet fuel, i'm going to sell it for, maybe, $2.50 a gallon. okay? now, that's o going to cost me $70 million to build, and it's going to run me around $5 million a year to operate. the problem is even if i'm lucky enough to get venture capitalists to look at a deal that's a $70 million deal, they're going to tell me why are you not going to make butte knoll which you can sell for the equivalent of $6 a gallon as opposed to jet fuel for $2 a gallon? so the importance of offtake agreements and potentially loan guarantees are just absolutely essential. because i personally believe

that much of the opportunity is in production facilities where you're looking at a throughput of about 100,000 tons a year. and i would respectfully disagree with mr. buse. i think we can find you some biomass in europe that we can give you jet fuel with. but it has to be able to get bank financing. and without the offtake agreements and possibly some loan guarantees in exchange for giving you the emissions reduction units, it's not going to happen. >> we welcome you to the panel because those are exactly the types of initiatives we're trying to work with existing programs primarily. in 2008 the air transport association and some of our allies were successful in getting in the farm bill a recognition that aviation alternative fuels should at least be prioritized the same as ground-based alternative fuels. and so the usda, the department

of energy, faa and others have really responded to that challenge to try to take existing tools and help us find ways to get suppliers and oil crop folks and all of those connected into that. but we're really setting our sights now on the 2012 farm bill. and, you know, as an aviation environmental attorney, this has been relatively new ground for me. but it speaks to another one of the issues raised on an early panel today which is these are kind of exciting things that we should be getting our younger engineers and the people in our companies really engaged in. because this is, you know, a great infrastructure challenge and an opportunity. we just need to try to align the public policy to help us get there. >> if i could add to that just a little bit. i'd suggest to you, and i made the case a little earlier, involvement of the producer directly in the process leads to a commitment on their part. so if you're building a biofuel

or an aviation fuels plant and you have producers directly involved in that, they're more than likely going to be committed to that plant and supply you the material you need in order to make that plant keep working. so that was our experience in developing the ethanol industry. i just want to make the case for that kind of a business model, at least inclusion financially of the producers in the product -- producers of the product in that process. >> other questions? let me ask -- oh, please. yes. >> bob poole, reason foundation. i learned a lot from this session because i haven't really been following the aviation biofuels evolution. but i'm also a little surprised at the emphasis on domestic agriculture as the solution. when i look in the technology literature, i see a lot of venture capital going into enzymes and catalysts, but a lot of what many of these people seem to be looking at is algae which is not grown on farms, at least necessarily.

and things like brazilian sugarcane which suggest they may be a lower-cost producer than u.s. farm biomass. so, i mean, i'm wondering, is the tail wagging the dog here? i mean, you start with what's the most cost effective approach to get to a sustainable biofuel, then you ask can farms in the united states be the supplier? >> can i -- >> go ahead, please. >> this goes back to the comment about needing a portfolio. so if we have talked too much about domestic, it's just because of where we're at. because, really, it is about supply chains around the world, and in some cases those supply chains will start in one, you know, one country and lead to another and just all kinds of combinations. if you think about where we get oil, it's certainly not largely domestic, it's transported around. and often people say, well, you know, are you going to grow this

biomass and transport it around the world? well, you reduce it to, essentially, oil. so that's no worse. and we can do a lot better by producing biomass instead of extracting carbon. >> nancy? >> i'd like to amplify what i said because i think my comment might have sparked that. we are very, very focused in what we can do in the united states. those are the programs we can work with most directly. you know, we are, you heard doug parker talk about the desire to keep growing our international markets. we have a fairly mature domestic market, but we have a lot of domestic needs. so that is where we're looking primarily at the air transport association, but not only that. and things like the commercial aviation alternative fuels initiative or the sustainable aviation fuel users group, these coalitions we're in are really global coalitions, and we're kind of -- and i use this term and people laugh, but we're

seeding these things throughout the world. so we are looking at those opportunities, but you really have to get some pilots going here. i think we have an extra commitment as companies based in the u.s., air transport association, airlines to making our economy work as the undersecretary said. so our ability to invest in the u.s. is important to us, but not, we're not askewing the opportunities that we have elsewhere. >> see if i can make this work. here look and tell me where to stop. >> keep going. >> there we go. >> so these are projects that are going on right now to look at what works in that region and how it might be connected with our other regions. so you can see everything except antarctica. >> other questions? please. back there. >> such a great thing to

discuss. i have a question, and carol and i want to ponder this as well. as part of my preparation for this, i went to the co-op yesterday out in marshall and brought a list of seeds that i wanted to buy and got blank stares. [laughter] okay? i mean, there's -- the amount of energy, no pun intended, that would be required to make this work is enormous. please. >> you guys have talked a lot about price and the feasibility here and the emissions benefits to the airlines, but my question was, what is the carbon footprint to actually grow the various products, refine them and then transport that, and do we see a net carbon benefit not just in emissions reduction? the thank you. >> okay. >> i think -- >> nancy? >> i think we can probably all add to this. so in the 2008 our board committed that what we're seeking is alternative fuels

with a better emissions footprint on a life cycle basis than petroleum-based fuels. and so what-and-a-half that means -- what that means, you have to analyze, obviously, from growing the crop or cultivating whatever it is, i mean, whether it's -- if you're taking coal or whatever, transporting it, processing it all the way to, for us, the wake of the aircraft. and we really have driven the methodologies for life cycle analysis forward. we know how to do it on an apples to apples comparison. it depends on your feedstock, it depends on your process how much benefit you can get, but we're seeing, you know, 10 president, 20% -- 10%, 20%. a study came out very recently, i think it was yesterday, the yale study that you guys were involved in that said with a particular set of ya trope pa as a crop, you could get up to 60%. it is going to vary how much benefit you can get in terms of

co2 or other emissions, again, based on where you are in the world, where you are in the country, what crop you're use, what feedstocks, etc., processing. but we'll take any environmental benefit. >> okay. that was a study that we funded yale to do with a field study in the brazil. i think it's the first study, certainly, of that scale on ya atrophy that and then turning that into what it mean for jet fuel. and 60% was kind of what you could be pretty confident about. it could be a little higher. it could certainly be lower if you do the wrong things. also camalina's been talked about here, life cycle studies on the process that we've used for several of the flight demos that have been done. 83% was what michigan tech university scored that. so the potential here is quite

good. at the same time, we need some standards, some criteria to make sure that you're making the best possible choices and doing this in a way where you can sort of have a good housekeeping seal so other people will recognize how well you're doing and give you credit, whatever credit means. >> please. >> hi. nancy sparks from fedex. nancy, i'm disappointed. you have not railed about crazy environmental taxes. [laughter] the whole time. it's just amazing. but isn't that really part of another part of the economic analysis which is if we keep using petroleum-based fuels, we're going to continue to attract these taxes like in germany, in the u.k., the mall dees -- maldives, all these

people that want our money because of our carbon footprint? so following on with, you know, your last comments about this is a better carbon footprint, don't we save some money potentially if two fuels are priced the same, one's taxed heavily and the other isn't? >> yeah. you should come up on the panel too, nancy. what i would say there, first, is the irony of taxes and charges on aviation and the proliferation of them is that they're siphoning away from us the very funds that we would like to use on technology operations and infrastructure. and that includes on alternative fuels. so they are counterproductive as an environmental type of tool. and we have targets and measures that we're pursuing to continue our good record of environmental improvement. but you're correct as well to the extent we can continue to drive down the carbon content over the life cycle of our fuel

and what we do. carbon-based requirements like the illegal european emissions trading scheme that we're going to defeat in our litigation will no longer be as attractive to regulators to put those types of measures out there. so, but i think first and foremost you've got to think about it's just even the wrong approach to try to achieve an environmental end to put a tax or a charge on us because it take away your money not just for alternative fuels, but for the wing nuts that dave barger mentioned and that they want to sell us and others. 10-4. >> and that's the last word on the subject. i'd like to thank my panelists for being here today. it's been a wonderful experience. thank you all. [applause] >> congress returns today from a

two-week spring recess. the senate gavels in at 2 eastern today beginning the day with general speeches. we will be looking for reaction to the killing of osama bin laden. senators turn to judicial nominations at 4:30 eastern, and we'll have live coverage here on c-span2. the house also meets today at 2 eastern. members will consider two bills naming federal billings, blocking federal funds for abortion. you can see live house coverage on our companion network, c-span. canadians are voting today on a new government. prime minister stephen harper has been in power since 2006 and has won two elections but never with the majority of parliament's 308 seats. if he doesn't get it this time, the opposition parties are expect today try to form a coalition government. we will have live coverage of the election results tonight at 10 eastern here on c-span2. >> the private sector and the

government coming together to push innovation makes all the sense in the world. >> tonight, intel vice president peter cleveland on the obama administration's efforts to improve american innovation by assisting the u.s. technology industry. on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> actor tim daly of abc's "private practice" and rosario dawson of "men in black" recently took part in a discussion on celebrity activism. chief mike isabelle also joined the event to talk about childhood obesity ahead of the white house correspondents' dinner in washington d.c. this is a little over an hour. [applause] >> very kind of you. thank you.

good morning. thank you, early birds, on the white house correspondents' weekend. a lot of you have long weekends ahead. i want to welcome your c-span viewers and our twitter audience at hash tag maybook breakfast. tim daly, creator of the coalition, thank you very much for coming and being with us. what's something the government should do more of or less of? >> oh, start off with an easy one. that's a pretty big question. well, let me narrow that question and sort of focus in on what i do at the creative coalition which we are primarily an organization that protects, defends and advocates for the arts in the united states. and, you know, we're in this climate of cutting budgets on everything, and so one of the things that we try to do is to get the government to support and spend more money on the national endowment for the arts which if you adjust for inflation is now about $100 million behind what it was 20

years ago. and, you know, the thing about cutting is that, well, for instance, if you own five stocks, four of them are losing a lot of money and one was making money, you shouldn't sell all of them. you sell the ones that are losing money. the national endownment for the arts is very good because every dollar generates about seven tax dollars in return. so, you know, it's our mission to convince the government to, you know, not only maintain federal funding, but hopefully increase it which is not going to happen. in this particular climate. we're not, you know, we don't live in a fantasy world. that being said, the other thing that we want to do is to change the narrative and the dialogue about the arts in this country because there's economist perception that people have ha they're not involved in the arts. they think when you say the arts, they think of some opera gala in new york city whereas, you know, what we're trying to

remind people of is that it's your kids' school play, it's the choir that you sing at in church, it's playing guitar in your basement. people are involved in the arts in this country. everywhere you look, the arts are represented. the design of your tie, you know, the architecture in this room, you know, the music that people listen to on their ipods -- >> patrick's shoes. his tie. >> his socks especially. [laughter] so, you know, and people forget that it's a part -- i mean, our national anthem is a song. there's a reason that it's a song. because the arts inspire us. and the other thing about them is that, you know, something that not a lot of politicians even know is entertainment is the second largest export in the united states. so we believe that our government officials and our citizens should talk about the arts with the same kind of respect and gravitas that we talk about general motors or

pharmaceutical companies or the insurance industry. >> well, i mean, how do you feel? you said you're not optimistic you're going to be able to increase funding. are you optimistic you'll be able to maintain it? there has been an interesting debate lately with npr, policy slightly different, but the argument that i think a lot of folks oppose that funding set is that is sort of arts and sort of private enterprise, why should they rely on the government? i'm sure you that from people -- hear that from people who don't agree with you. what do you say to those people and those people who want to cut arts there the federal government? get whatever you want, but not from us? >> nonprofit organizations all over the country don't rely on the government. it's a very small part of arts funding. but what it is is it's like the, you know, the fda stamp of approval on, you know, the meat that you buy at the supermarket. what it says to, you know, communities large and small is that this regional theater or this symphony orchestra, you know, got some seed money from the government. and what that does is that it

allows private enterprise and industry and individuals to pour money into those things because that's largely where the funding comes from. it's not -- the federal government is not supporting, you know, in any major way any of these enterprises. they're just saying we think this is worthy, and that is sort of opening the door to a lot of other funding. did i answer your questionsome. >> you did, thank you. >> okay, good. >> okay, now, in a climate where there is going to be mostly cutting, what are you able to say to republicans? this what can you say to speaker john boehner that's going to resonate with him? >> i can say things like, um, you know, children that study a rigorous curriculum of arts in school are three times more likely to graduate from high school. they're likely to make more money. they're going to do better on their test scores. they're going to do better in math and science. there's a lot of research that supports that, and that, you know, one of the things that, you know, hopefully he believes

about the federal government is that it's a respondent to protect and -- responsibility to defend and protect our culture. our culture's represented by our art. and this city is a great example of that. as you walk around the city, you see all this beautiful architecture which is a perfect kind of meeting of science, technology and artistry. so i would hope that he would think that a good investment. look, if you take 7 to 1 odds to vegas, i mean, i think boehner would take that in a second, and that's what the national endowment returns to this government. >> you know, it's funny, when you and i were chatting yesterday, i sort of joked with you because i think you're such a seasoned veteran of this town. >> little bit. >> this is your fifth white house correspondents' dinner. jason biggs, this is his first. [laughter]

everybody go easy on him. it can be a little difficult for celebrities. would you ever consider a political run, and you absolutely swatted that question out of the air saying you, in fact, think you're more effective in this role. tell me why you think that's the case. >> well, look, i mean, that's a big kind of philosophical discussion about democracy, but it's rough, man. it's like, you know, it's hard to move the needle. and part of, you know, what we do at the creative coalition is try to keep the needle from going down, you know? but it's hard to get things passed. and it's hard to change people's minds. and it's very frustrating. i don't think that i am constitutionally suited to being polite enough to survive in politics. [laughter] plus, you know, you crack open my closet, like, a millimeter and so much crap pours out that my run for political office is pinched. [laughter] >> i promise motto call you sir,

so -- i promised not to call you sir, so i'll call you tim. >> thank you. i've been called that forever. [laughter] >> when president obama was elected, people thought washington would get more of a cool factor. especially on the west coast, people would be more interested in washington. has that happened? how is d.c. perceived in the industry right now? >> um, i think it's perceived the same way it is every place, that it's a complete disastrous mess. i mean, really, it's like, you know -- >> i thought it was supposed to be better with president obama. >> i know. but, you know, what happened was that, i mean, i don't want to point political fingers, especially since i'm here representing the creative coalition, and we're a nonpartisan organization. i think that, you know, it's going to be hard to change a political culture that has, basically, turned into a football game, you know, your team versus my team. and it feels to me like president obama tried to change that culture and, unfortunately,

you know, he wasn't successful. partly because, you know, his treatise to, you know, the other political party were not accepted. um, you know? it's rough out there. when -- especially, you know, i have a great deal of empathy for particularly people in congress who have to start raising money and running for re-election the second that they're elected. and, you know, in order to do that they have to, you know, take these strong positions and do stuff that maybe they wouldn't do if they were, if they knew they were going going to be around for a couple years and really wanted to get stuff done. >> following on that, is there a sense that if barack obama couldn't do it -- and i know you're nonpartisan because he did sort of bring in young, hopeful leader that was personally beloved, i think, by both sides of the aisle -- maybe not politically by some -- is there a end hope that if he

can't fix this town and he hasn't that the chances of somebody else coming in the next generation is perhaps not on the table? >> you know, i don't know, and i can't speak for everybody. i think people are pretty bummed right now, they're pretty cynical about it, and that's not to say that it couldn't change. you know, i saw obama and the other candidates through the convention cycle and the inauguration, and, you know, obama can go like totally jfk, you know, martin luther king. i mean, that guy can be really, really inspirational. and if i were to give him any advice, it would be to, like, go back to that well. because that guy can motivate people. he can really get people thinking about larger things like, you know, other -- like not thinking about yourself. and, you know, if he could do that again, i think that we might have a chance to change this town. >> now, the president was out the other nights, he introduced himself as barack obama, born in hawaii and a candidate for re-election. so 2012 is already engaged, the

republicans are out there scrambling. what do you hope the occasion of this two-year-almost campaign ahead of us would be for conversation, what would you like to see done or hear talked about during this campaign? this. >> well, you know, as i'm here to talk about the arts, i would like to see -- this is the thing. president obama has a fantastic arts platform, but it's hard to find. you've got to search through layers of pulldown, you know, menus on his web site to find what it is. i would like that to be moved onto the plate with the main course, you know? it's our contention that the arts are part of our lives, an integral, vital part of our life's blood and that they shouldn't be treated like a luxury item, they shouldn't be treated like dessert. so i would like him to talk about, you know, the arts as, you know, the important and vital part of our culture that they are.

>> i'm going to bring the audience here in a second, we have a microphone, but i wanted to ask you about how you get your information, public policy in washington. what news do you follow or how do you keep up -- >> oh, i read all of them. all the papers. [laughter] >> sarah palin, right? [laughter] >> more specifically. >> no, i, you know, i read "the new york times", and i browse around the web -- >> after "politico." >> i don't get "politico." do you get it online? >> the worldwide web, tim. it's great. [laughter] >> and, you know, i go to the huffington post and places like that. but i have a healthy amount of skepticism about all of it, you know? is i talk to my friends. what's going on, man? >> i want to ask you one question. again, nonpartisan, and there is this reputation that hollywood is completely liberal and it's the democratic party's atm

machine. then there's guys like andrew bright bart who's sort of a conservative publisher who tries to encourage keys in hollywood because he -- conservatives in hollywood to sort of come out of the closet in that respect. and i wanted you to talk about, you know, you talk to a lot of celebrities, and they say hollywood is not one thing. there are a lot of business executives who would love to see the bush tax cuts extended, for instance, so there are conservatives. talk a little bit about, you know, the republican party in hollywood, the conservatives. who are they? are there a lot of them? or is the reputation that hollywood's liberal somewhat accurate? >> well, there are a lot -- look, it's called show business. you know? some. >> right. >> and people like me and a lot of the people i'm with are the show part, and the other part is the business part. and, you know, i think traditionally businesses have been more conservative, and there's certainly a huge conservative, you know, constituency in los angeles of republicans. and i think that the reputation

that, you know, hollywood is this liberal bastion is because, you know, the entertainers get more press. um, also, you know, it's funny because i think that, you know, when a big movie star or a tv star gets in trouble with, you know, drugs or has a scandal, it's all plastered all over the place. but i think that the ratio of insanity is about the same every place. >> right. >> probably in, you know, places like "politico" you have your crazies. >> oh, yeah. there is. i've got it. [laughter] >> there's crazies every place, and not everybody hits the front page of "people" magazine. and, you know, if certain actors stand up for a political cause and make noise, it gets more press than when, you know, the vice president of a movie studio, you know, hosts a party at their house. >> all right. it's the public's turn. who has a question for tim daly?

while you're finding the microphone, i'll ask you what you hope to do during white house correspondents' weekend. you've -- no prom, here are the nerds. [laughter] >> i just had this, i had this thought. i don't know if this makes sense, but i have this new definition of the white house correspondents' dinner that occurred to me. i don't know if it's apropos, but up with of my -- one of my uncles used to say that a horse show was a bunch of horses showing their asses to a bunch of horses' asses showing their as sex es. i don't know if i'm one of the horses or one of the horses' asses i don't hope to accomplish anything except i hope to see somebody that i respect embarrass themselves horribly. [laughter] ..

>> he's a hard act to follow. he's been funny the past couple of years. >> how do you think he will do? >> i have no idea. >> who's the one you hope to meet this weekend? >> i'm going to go big and say the present. >> have you met him before? >> i have. i was unbelievably impressed by him. he's one of these guys, i was ushered in this room about 300 people at us like the 298 person that he met.

and i said hello, mr. president of my name is tim daly. and he said you're the guy who produced the movie. and he said you know that, you remember that? how does that into your consciousness after 290 other people expect part of it was his campaign. i wonder what you learned from that -- [laughter] >> i wonder what you learned from going behind the scenes with hollywood that might give us a new perspective, new lens on what we will see in 2012. >> in all due respect i learned how really dysfunctional the media is in this country, and how it's become, you know, when it became, when capitalism sort of weaseled its way into the news media, everything changed. when the news became not about

providing public service and public information, and about ratings, things went haywire. that's been happening for a while. so there's this race to put information, whether it is true or not. and it's become really, really difficult to ferret out the truth in this barrage of stuff that comes at us over the radio and television and the internet. >> you talk about show business, there's a news business but there's also a lot of nonprofit news organizations in the digital world. there's all kinds of media. are there more ways to get information that ever? >> more ways to get bad information than ever, that's true. look, you know, when the internet first started to take hold, for me anyway, i would look at it and go look at this story, this is incredible. there was something that looked very official like, you know, like bona fide media outlet, and it was pure garbage. anyone can put up a website and

say pretty much whatever they want. so being the letter read -- i use the word media literacy because it sounds like you're trying to teach reporters how to read, which may be some -- [laughter] but trying to find the truth visually difficult. you have to be very careful. >> as a consumer advocate, what do you recommend to people? there's a young people this, somebody who does want to keep up with what's going on, want to have their voice involved. what do you suggest the? that's a big skeptical question everything. do not take anything for granted. because there's no, you know, one place where the truth is, always can be counted on. >> another question. >> i just think it's great what you're doing, and jason biggs and all these young stars, and

you don't have to spend your time doing this, and i think it does help. and my question is, when you talk to mostly republicans who are mostly opposed funding, over the years do you think that, you know, you make any dent? have you made any dent in the last five years you've been doing it for more? do you see like sort of light in the ice we are talking to them at the stairs and things when you come after? >> without question. you know, in varying degrees, but i think another one of the things that is a disconnect between the perception of artists and the reality is that sometimes when you talk about the arts and entertainment business there's a tendency of people, again, to go to the supermarket tabloid that they saw. somebody melting down or do something, you know, aberrant. and that is not the core of what

artists in the entertainment commute is the most of us are from middle-class families from all over the country. we were not born into a class of entertainment class, and we've worked very hard and been successful. the other thing is that, i think that making a financial argument is very good for republicans because, for instance, the television show that i do now, which is not wings by the way, that was 20 years ago. [laughter] >> its "private practice," on last not, maybe some of you saw it. you know, in any given week about 450 people. it keeps -- .co small businesses. small business seems to be a mantra of all politicians do. dry cleaners, caterers, drivers, construction people, painters. when the states talk with having a tax incentive for having to be shot in their state, i've heard people say why should i give tom

cruise a tax break? it's not tom cruise. it's the age and people will be employed in your committee, your hotels, restaurants, cab philip if you talk to mayors of small cities, don't take away their regional theater. that means their hotels are not filled, the restaurants are not filled. it's the lifeblood of a lot of communities. so if you can make that case to people who are fiscally conservative whether republican or democrat, i think it changes their perspective. they are not thinking about the people they see a "people" magazine. but the people in communities who really benefit from things like a local symphony or a community theater. >> as we say goodbye here in july, you are about to start taping the fifth season of "private practice," on abc, abc seven. and so doctor pete wilder will have a fifth season. what is it about that show that

has this longevity that causes people to relate to the? >> i think it's one of the things about is that makes it particularly successful is that the men on the show are women's fantasies of men, the women should be. [laughter] women love shooting men behave just like they should. the mail following, i'm not so sure about them, but i would say that to them in here, that if your wife want you to watch "private practice," or your girlfriend make you watch "private practice," you are entitled to sex. insist upon its. [laughter] >> thank you very much for joining us. and for coming and watching us in our case. >> thank you. [applause]

>> joining us now is rosario dawson. thank you very much for coming in. >> thank you. and maria, thank you for coming in. appreciate it. >> thank you very much for making time for us. you both have a bunch of stops this weekend. i appreciate it. we have teresa could as she tweets at -- if you want to follow her. she's the founding executive director, and rosario dawson is the head of it. you're both in town. among the topics you're interested in is voter registration. you talk about registering more voters than ever for 2012. i wonder how you will do that? >> we're giving up with a lot of

-- one of the things that's been so incredible about having cofounded the organization 2004 is that we been able to build up a momentum with the organization for many years. to be in a position right now with so may different organizations are having to shut down their funding, programs are being obliterated, we're at a point right now where we're expanding. we just opened our first office in l.a. we have grown our staff the 16th of a lot of people on the ground in very critical states. and so we're just been able to get to the point now where we are not just using technology and leveraging celebrate how but we have just expanded our grassroots kind of organization where we're much more people on the ground volunteering and community organizing around these issues. it's going to give that much more surface area to get that kind of work with other people. also the people that we worked with over the years that we have collaborated with has just expand our reach is that much for the we have 87 djs work with

across the nation as well. so it's only different ways in which were able to reach our audience it's only different ways. with census numbers anything coming out -- >> about three weeks ago another schema and people like there's latin among you? we might have some of them. that facilitate a lot of the growth. that's what we been doing for the last six years. all of a sudden the country discovered it three weeks ago. >> let me speak about that. i think a lot of us to know what the demographics, but tell us about sort of how the latino community is represented in the united states and accordingly, and also how those demographics will play out going for. and accordingly, what do politicians need to do to listen to and pay attention to their needs, desires, not that they're homogenous but -- >> that's the thing that's kind of incredible about the latino vote is that it is not a monolithic voting box.

so it is very issue oriented voting bloc. talk about the arts earlier. if you want to be progressive on some the issues you care about, you have to very much consider the latin vote in war, he was just doing apsa yesterday and he was shooting, talking about how every single day, 18 servicemen was killed themselves. that's really insane. when you think about how much over latinos over indexers showing something very critical here with a population that is going we would have reform in this area as well. education reform, 90% of parents want their kids go to college, 92% of the college -- kids want to go to college. we want all of these things. so i think that's about what kind of communicating to americans is that the latino vote is the american vote. it's important to start of not think of him as a separate voting bloc all the time. that's one of the things that's been so wonderful, we're directly talking to them but a lot of what our conversation is

an something we do with tim daly was our last campaign. we do up a lot more than voter registration. we worked on the senses. our response in arizona was too great a campaign called united we win which was an old world war ii slogan. talking about we are the united states of america and we are not so united. and leisure a native indian person you have come to your family has come from someplace uzbek the immigrant population in ways that come over has been the thing that is revitalized america. that population right now is latinos. >> and it particularly start looking about the 2008 world map, it's not the same time in 2012. because of the demographic shift. that's what's exciting. the only northern state as a joke is utah and that's the latino vote. the influx of latinos. when we start talking about how

politicians should be talking to us, i was a number one they need to be talking to them in english. 80% of latino voters can speak english, number one pick and number two they need to start teaching the tone of immigration. there's a lot of people right now on the ground that are hurting. we have third, fourth generations of latinos from colorado all of a sudden, -- [inaudible] that's what the whole idea of united we win, we need to have this conversation because there's more people on our side than are on the other side. >> do you feel the rhetoric on immigration issues -- i feel like it has gotten -- it goes off. perhaps we're in a cool off period no. >> it has cooled off in d.c. but not in the state. arizona is still taken off. unfortunate georgia is about to take legislation very similar to what's happening in arizona. florida is as well. texas is as well.

>> and 2 22 states. it's running rampant across the rest of the state. >> when you say it has cooled off in d.c., perhaps that is a suggestion that is not doing enough on or in fact you'd like would be "cq" press talk about it more class in healthy tones, but is that press what you're trying to say? >> yeah, i think what's happening right now with the rhetoric, we've had conversations but with the rhetoric what's happening at the state and local level is you are creating a marginalized america. we're all of a sudden a latinos into the room and people question whether no or not that person is american. the fact is that here, the politician should have basically felt immune to it, talk about the bigger issue of there's the leadership, there's no leadership saying that we're big problems that we have to solve as a country. we can't marginalize or scapegoat a group that has historically been foreign to us.

>> rosario, i know the most exciting thing you're doing while you're here in d.c. is the breakfast. but maybe number two was your visit to the white house yesterday. i wonder if you could tell us what happened? >> we were invited by the president to come and speak about immigration and certain other things. we had an informal conversation. around the latin vote, and what we are doing and what they are doing. it was very fascinating and great. i got an opportunity to meet president barack obama when he was still senator when he was president-elect, and a couple times since he's been president. it's been an interesting journey. all along the way see what we're doing and working on. you were talking earlier about what's the difference in people's perception of them. we were talking about it yesterday because republicans were talking about law, are you worried about latinos are such a huge supporter of the another numbers are dropping. and he's like, you know, i'm working on the issues. those things kind of come and

go. gas prices, people's possessions kind of comes up and down. but he was much more concerned about some of what we're doing. that kind of felt really exciting because it's been a lot of years of trying to get people to listen to these different issues that we've been talking about. we been going, latin vote is important have to pay attention to the. it's not just happening in hollywood with actors but happening in a huge way in america and we have to address it because it is our largest growing population. they don't have insurance, they're dropping, the dropout rate is really, really stupid if these are the people are going to adopt a country we're not going to be in a place where we'll be globally competitive. these are american issues. we're happy to hear his concert on those issues, not just on immigration but look at what the demographic of what america's potential can be 10 years and 20 from now when the population grows into it. if they will be educated,

politically savvy, if they will be prepared to run this country. this is the issue, the big sleeping giant in this country is that latinos in this country represent a trillion dollars worth of revenue. this is our largest emerging market come and when you talk about other countries and they're coming up impossibly take over america, kind of outsiders, that's because we are not the only, we are people right here who are excited about the american dream whose median age is 27, 29. they have to get jobs. they have to be getting an education for their kids. they really want to be here and want to make this country great. we can tap that potential and wonderful things for this country if we don't ignore it. >> what was the president like? how did he look, how did he just because he just kind of walked in. we thought it would be like an announcement which did not happen. he qaeda just like game. it was fun. dory bunch of latinos in the room, all talking and having,

going off into her thing, and it somewhat by the end of it he was like -- >> i think was an unusual conversation. i think that allowed for an honest dialogue because i think everyone was like you want to talk, okay. but i think what was most impressive was he fundament understands what's happening at the larger, and the larger picture. and he also realizes that everybody will like him and he's okay with that. i have to make our decisions. very rarely do you walk into the room where politician is that straightforward with you. >> and we kept talking so much so that he literally was like, okay, you can speak one more time and didn't you, and i to announce the next secretary of defense. so we have to go. [laughter] >> did you get a sense they would be action on immigration legislation, or what sort of vibe did you get from in? >> absolutely. is a critical issue, and we're

seeing, even karl rove understand the latino -- the issue that people vote on and really drive them in the polls is education, job reform, education. the things that motivate them to go to the poll tends to be immigration. and so it was very fascinating to see just sort of on their side what they are doing about registering, the summers are real and they're big and important. they'll be the deciding vote. so be ridiculous not to. >> actually karl rove is acutely aware, congressional republicans that were not willing to act on immigration. how badly do you think that will set back the republican party? >> a couple of weeks ago i was talking to pat buchanan and he is not just a different list -- >> let that go by. >> he stopped and you could see, i'm writing a book, and i'm writing a book that if

republicans can't figure out the latino vote, they're not going to be a majority party for the next two, three election cycles. that's powerful. >> i would be interested to find on the heels of the white house visit, celebrities coming to town, is a stretch but every journalist gets to come. we get to ask whatever stupid questions we asked and i'm curious though how effective it is sort of behind closed doors with lawmakers. barack obama meets celebrities all the time. so, sort of selflessness and sort of the influence having a celebrity, and actor coming in. >> what we discovered is, rosario is intimate and salt -- intimately involved. risotto goes in and knocks on doors and talks to people and motivates them to register. so she understands the mechanics of the but then she can translate that to politicians.

they are not used to having -- always coming to ask the understand issue. and you're holding me accountable and you talk to people in colorado have lost their home, or you talked to people in l.a. that can't find a job. that i think changes the equation. she's incredible. >> i think also part of it is i'm not too showing up as an actor going how can i just talk about this. how can a tweet about it. it is a desolate images yesterday that was one of the things that we were remarking about act was that we were the only ones i in the that represented an organization. i was just coming in as a celebrity is coming in as a cofounder of our voting foundation. that makes a difference. i've been an activist and advocate for a long time. i was trying to use plastic -- and because the plastic bags in california. we've got to get rid of those plastic bags. i got into use recyclable bags are always getting members,

department of justice is real thing and you i be making legislation move forward on the planet without it included people of color. that's a day goes. i grew up on the lower side, i'm a new yorker. so for me, this is like i'm a total nerd political junkie that i love coming to these. this is my favorite thing. it's really violate important to my person picks i think what i show up at these different meanings sometimes they do get the opportunity to coming to milwaukee because i'm a celebrity. but i think i can to walk out of people, she's an activist. >> if anyone has questions we love to bring event. a mic will come to you eric so i have to ask you, you met patrick gavin, that president obama. who else would you like to meet? [laughter] >> you know, i've not met joe biden, vice president joe biden. >> that can be arranged.

>> i'm kind of curious. i've met michelle, a couple of people but i would be interested to meet him, especially because i'm on the board for an antivirus organization. and having just come back from the congo and i will be very carries to talk to him because he's been very forward on women's rights and antivirus issues. they just passed another recent legislation to go into schools and antidiscrimination. i would be very carries to talk to him. >> is there anyone you want to meet? >> i would love to meet with the first lady, michelle obama. i think she's fantastic. i think she's incredible graceful, smart, short. and president obama wasn't the president, i could see her being president herself a. >> we an interview with seth meyers was headlining and he said, i asked him what his impression was being from new york, and he said one thing that he thought that average americans felt about this

weekend was uncomfortably incestuous between politicians and journalists, they're supposed to be a heavy wall between the two and all come together and schmooze. he said that sometimes americans find that a little disconcerting. i want to see if you agreed or disagreed with the. >> maybe they should. that's the reality. this is my fourth white house correspondents dinner, and that's what are the things that i think is the most remarkable is that when you have met so, talk about that earlier, president barack obama said, will he bring more celebrities, and a people, you know, what's happening, did he change the things that were expected to soar to change the figurehead, and it's like that's not how it works. it's d.c., very interconnected. when you change a couple of people, the trickle-down effect will take much longer than you're going to see apparently in two or three years. that's the thing i'm always sort of confronted by and i think is

very fascinating. i think it's great that people are paying attention to that fact. is that just there's a lot of incestuous mess that comes out here in d.c. and you're not changing everyone. when you have a new president coming. there's a tone that changes, absolutely. especially people from democrat to republican or republican to democrat. but in general it's a lot of the same players. they been working together for a long time. the same way hollywood is and i think i see a lot of similarities, is it's going to take a lot more than just one election. that's a lot of what we do, what you that you don't like him it would be awesome if we could solve all the problems with one vote every four years. that's not how it works. all of the different people, when we'll see a real lasting change over the next couple of years as luis we see more and more people taking seats in congress and the senate and having our local collectives, elections and our governors and everyone, that starting to

represent more of what the face of america looks like. when we start to see that happen after we left legislation behind. that's what we'll start to see the key critical changes we're looking for. >> i think there's a microphone running around or if you have a question. [inaudible] >> don't be shy. if you have a question jumping. while we're waiting for that, you tweet at rosario dawson, and i wonder what your view is a of how social media is increasing opportunity for people to either participate or make your job, how does it make your job easier, where do you see it going? >> absolutely at mexican incredibly easier. that was one of the things we did in 2006. we did go to registrations. we have an ability, especially, to be national and able to reach that many more people. we are able to immediate response to what's going on on the ground. >> what's incredible about twitter is it's been able to

expand the conversation to full. it's not just latino issues. we also have someone, something by another artist and a call to volunteer. i think that's the translation. what's the impact. we had a young lady do a tweet and try to do a tweet, found out about the can the census. contacted office. i can do the census. she basically went to her church, set up, three laptops and that her church fill out these. she was 17 years old. she was able to see the impact of slavers were doing and translated it to herself locally. >> do you also concerned -- share tim daly's concern, anybody can write anything on a blog, how does that play into a lot of issues and a lot of what

they do, one person spreading a very bad rumor or so it of poising the conversations because it just distracts the conversation and then it becomes high school and he said she said. you can go down a route or people twittering each other, facebooking each other or blogging are making their comments. you can spend all day doing that rather than may be following up on issue properly. not just looking at blogs. that's great. i just wrote a blog and it was great. that's not just were the only way to committee with each other. i think you have to diversify that. it's important to debate and it's important sometimes to disagree. that's okay. and right now we're losing that ability to disagree with each other to educate each other instead of just arguing. >> when you look at it again, there's been first it started with the anti-immigrant rhetoric, or didn't matter with what he was recording was true or not. and how unfortunate its extended through talks. i think that's one of the

reasons why that was done. that's irresponsible journalism. that's not just them but also the executives making decisions saying it's okay for him to say that and not follow up with facts. you have testers conversations about media and responsibilities. >> i think we have a question right here. >> you go first and then you. >> thank you ladies for coming today, and if you don't have a date for tomorrow, i'm available. [laughter] >> i've been asked. spent enough about maria. anyway, is being realistic, really tough to see immigration, legislation being pushed forward in the next two years. and two out of the republicans do you worry the most to match up against president obama that would push back more and more in regards to pushing it forward, you know, if they were elected?

who worries you the most? >> i personally say that will be real interesting because i think over the next two years whatever position a lot of people have on it right now might change. because the numbers aren't really in and anyone who will be trying to ostracize the latin vote would be shooting themselves in the foot. >> and what you're saying to is it's not just the republicans. we have the possibility of passing the dream act in the senate and there was five, four democrats that were not with us. and you start looking at examples and opportunities, i would look at the agm utah. he's a republican, and attorney general and we have undocumented people in our community, we need them to work, what i'm going to do? we will provide them working permits. if one, they pass a background check and two, they pledge to learn english. these individuals a sudden are free to say, you know, there's a

case example of a dream act with a young girl who is 17 years old and she came here when she was too. there was domestic violence at her mom called the cops. now all of a sudden she's getting fast-track importation. that doesn't make sense. >> this is a lightning round. >> here in d.c. after republicans made really large gains in the election last year, the debates are shifting towards getting more tax breaks to large corporations, more tax cuts to the rich. bank of america for example, paid nothing corporate income tax last year and now we are debating the paul ryan budget plan that gives large tax cuts to upper income earners. do you think celebrities are people in the creative coalition need another tax cut? >> okay, i'm not part of the coalition but no. [laughter] >> that's a lightning round, how is that? >> immigrants need more taxes and exxon.

>> if you think about it, something request that you recommend to young people, their first job, summer job, how do you see, how does someone become you? >> you just have to follow your passions. you have to stay curious costs stay excited, ask questions of yourself and try things. for me it's not like you're always going to win, you're not always going to find exact right path. you can't be afraid to get your hands dirty, like if you fail, fail ethically. go out there and put yourself out there. that's what i've been doing. i'm a very earnest person. and sometimes, why do smile so much? weird sort of gruesome for but i am happier for it. go for it. >> maria teresa kumar, rosario dawson, thank you very much. [applause] >> hope you had fun. >> thank you. >> mike, thank you for coming in.

appreciate. mike isabella. patrick gavin county recognize him from top chef. and your new restaurant is hiring. you are just about done building it. it will be open your early summer? >> a very early. right around the corner. we were hoping a couple situation with a liquor license and we should be fun. >> seasonal and pizza, what is that? >> it's my artwork on top of it. not really the classics. we really work with a product that we have, and kind of keep changing and evolving every day. so something unc at a at a regular pizzeria like tomato, mozzarella. more unique than the. >> do you do like the papa john's pizza, is that considered -- >> not in my book. we are not making the classic beach. that's what i consider, papa

john's more like a classical pizza ever is way with. different types of trust, different flower, sauces, different garnishes. >> censure here in d.c., just blocks in the white house, fighting childhood obesity is a big cause of the first lady and you talked about that as well. tell me a little bit about your take on what the white house is doing and that what you want to do on a. soda with the applications are of not doing anything. for me i think this has been, obama's have had a huge push on working with the schools, working with the chefs, trying to work with the farmers markets to try promoting all those type of things to help educate kids in school systems and parents and teachers about what the right things are to eat. and me myself, growing up in a broken family, my mom working and me being around, it wasn't the easiest to go to the garden

and pick food and cook. we would have a mcdonald's as a young kid that was nice and quick and easy and cost no money. it's more about the education and really teaching everyone what's going on out there and getting involved with the. for me, working with the farmers and trying to buy from them as much as possible because the more we buy from the farmers, the better the price will become because when you look at the big picture is a lot cheaper to buy a premade burger or sandwich that is to go buy something that is far from local or fresh and these are the things that work with. >> why is that? is that the result of subsidies and policy decisions or simply a big scale small-scale types because it's a big scale small scale 100%. when you're buying a cheap package of bacon at the store, always takes them in the crowd and they're making a lot more money off of it, smaller space, and go with organic type of animal which is running around locally, and they're feeding them, growing them a lot longer, even different types of feed, it

becomes more expensive for the farmers so they have to charge it to make their money back. working with a green product and local product, it cost more money. the more that we work with the farmers, the more we work with schools and able to get onboard with us, the cheaper the prices will come to our focal point is to get all the prices to be the same so that you can eat healthy every day, can get decent at the grocery stores because a lot of the stuff isn't the best for you. it's very hard to shop. >> mike tweets at mike isabella d.c. and you're not dissolving a restaurant, you lived there as well. you move to d.c. in 2007. how is the culinary scene changed since then? >> dramatically. meeting a part of the growth was when something came to d.c. for, and speak you lived in philly, right? >> atlantic i've lived all over the east coast and tele- that my home. when i came to d.c. i took over a couple years ago and it's been like all these great people, you

know, it's been a growing city. when i moved out here it was a little intimidated because it is a tough sell. everyone lived outside the city and i moved to arlington. so as you lived there for a while you kind of realize that i don't like people to live in the city, more condos, more markets coming up, a lot more restless, a lot more trades are coming in from around the country. for me this scene has been growing huge, and more and more places to go every day. i'm excited to be a part of the growth. >> how much of the changing scene, the obama's go out for, the bushes were not very big on going out to local restaurants. that there is a narrative that the obama's have boosted the scene because they will occasionally go out. is that true that they're sort of a definitive cause and effect that when they go to, you know, ray's pizza, have they had a positive effect? >> you still can't get in. >> i think it has begun really do. i know michelle dasher i took her for her multiple times.

she's been to many restaurants. to know that, the president and first lady are going to get restaurants to eat on a consistent basis, a show something positive. i think it does help sales and they do think it keeps them more of a family oriented type of place. just like this is what we do, this is who we are. to me it's getting involved in getting involved is the biggest thing and that's part of everything, getting involved with the kids come and talk with schools and the president getting involved with the city. to me that's been a huge part of everything. i'm one of the biggest fans. >> i thought i had kind of a big dinner last night at raise health burger, but you hold 21 course is? >> i was out of bold and -- he is pretty much booked year-round on the tasting table, but it's phenomenal. its course after course after course.

different textures and flavors and colors. so it was an amazing meal. an amazing meal. a great thing out there for fred burke -- frederick. >> i really, i like how he started off with a cocktail come he made fun of you, liquid nitrogen is all smoke and frozen and had flavors of one of his cocktails, and if you got this new pasta where he put all these vegetables and he makes a pasta out of the vegetables. we had a fresh pasta which taste like is right out of the garden. pretty sweet. >> if any body has questions we bring in. >> countries to get your thought on vegetarianism and the reason is that i think speeds are you a vegetarian and your cell? >> i try very hard. but there is a thought that

there is a policy site to the common meaning hud to, if animals require a lot more resources in gas and fossil fuels, there's a series policy applications. if you go to meet, greenhouse gas will become by 20%, reliance on foreign oil, et cetera centric what is your take on that? do you think that is a strategy would endorse anybody significant -- or by a little bit reduce their meet and take? >> yes, i do. i grew up with my mother being a vegetarian for half of my life. as she got older she had to start eating certain proteins and things like that to keep her health up. but i do. at the restaurant, a vegetative actively endorse it. i don't eat red meat much but i eat it once a meet.

-- once a week. i try to stay away from me as much as possible but i love it. i love me so i'm always going to have a. my focus is it's not even just hang away from once a week. it's getting the best product you can, something that is raised locally or organically or sustainably. and that's a big part of it because feeding them crackly, not injecting them, no chemicals. those are the types of things that help also once you start working with more of a new part. you don't need to eat everyday. i do think everyone does. i really don't. unit, that would be a lot of me to eat every day. that's my take on it. watch the type of meat you eat this. we have a question. maybe introduce yourself. >> hi. i am alec and i was really rooting for you on all-stars. >> thank you spent i was just wondering if you've lived in such major u.s. cities like new york and atlanta, how do you

think washington compares to the availability of the fresh local organic ingredients in restaurants? >> to me, i think they kind of compete with pre-much am going out the. new york is its own entity. they have a ton of stuff ready but i don't have farms in virginia, build and virginia tech come out here, saturday, sunday to thursday, friday, their bring at the same product that is going to new york city. atlanta has a lot longer season than we do, so it's a little bit different. i definitely think we push it. if you go to philadelphia i do think the markets are as abundant as here, and the same with a lot of parts of new jersey but i think we have a great thing. it's great to go, like the aids treatment or the white house marker or dupont, i guarantee like whenever i go there, that's a great part. everyone is getting involved with it. i think we have a great, you know, a lot of great sources. spent a question right here.

>> it's me again. are you worried about the safety of the food supply with, you know, our oceans being so polluted, high levels of mercury in the big fish? you know, pesticides and an about us in all the meets? i know organic and locally grown substance is super fabulous cuppa but most people can't, a., for that, and b., they are not aware of it. do you do worry about that? >> of course. >> and are you active in other chefs, active in fda safety and all of that? ..

>> the power spots as they are called here in d.c. like the palm or the cafe milano. i feel like i know the answer but i want to hear you say it. what is sort of your vow from a simply food perspective? do, you know, serious foodies respect those places for the quality of their food or is it simply just a place to be seen and to use your expense account? >> not your expense account? >> no. >> just checking. >> there's the different types of power houses i don't think that are in the chef world are highly anticipated. i mean, the palms you will go and get a steak. it's a chain, you know, what type of meat they're using and what type of products are they local probably not because of

the chain. and cafe milano, you know, i've never eaten there before to tell you the truth so i don't have the answer for them to say good or bad. when i think more of the power houses, i would think of, you know, places like, you know, working with michelle richarred or wolfgang puck and all of these people are working with the games. tom coleekio who's a excellent chef -- for me those are the power house types of chefs working with the local organic places, places like the palm, no, they're really not and that's the way i feel about it. >> now, my friends are here. where do you go for nonpower places? where do you go to like have a quiet meal low key? >> a quiet meal? dc grill and it keeps getting busier and busier. usually if you go to a good restaurant it's not quiet. it depends on the time of the week. i love to go to proof a lot, you

know, sitting in the dining room in proof. it might not be the cheapest but it is great product. post is a good place to go. i think it's kind of like a little bit of a hidden gem they do in house. they make their own vinegars and everything. i think it doesn't get too busy in there. and then 14th street has nice small places, st. x it will get a little bit busier. there are great restaurants all over here. all over the place. it just keeps moving on forward and forward. it's tough to find little quiet places. >> to pull the curtain a little bit. what's it like to work with top chef. >> there's not a lot of times when the cameras are off. it's usually when you're sleeping. it's very time-consuming day number 1 you. wake up early in the morning between all the -- they want you very, very early so you're not late and this and that. you're kind of controlled a lot. you can't talk.

you can't listen to music, you can't read books. >> no email? >> no email. all the stars was a little bit different. they gave us a little bit more leniencies and small businesses so we got 15 minutes a day and that was big help. honestly off-time we chill out and have beer and talk a little bit, you know, joke around to keep your spirits up because it's tough mentally. >> i'm going to get in the hook. we talked about how you're staffing for gaffiano. what are you look for people you hire. >> one of the big things i look for is experience in wherever they worked. you know, if they come from a place that, you know, a recognized restaurant or two, i know they have the right training behind them. if they come from outside of city or out of state, where i'm not familiar with the restaurant and i do a little information on it, you know, if it's more a mom and pop there's a lot more work to do. they don't have all the right

answers or techniques on staffing. and that's the types of things i look for is experience levels. i'm fortunate to be in dc for four and a half years so half of my staff in the kitchen is coming back to me. they know my recipes and my mentality on how i run a kitchen. that's definitely -- i always look where they worked in good restaurants, you know, i'm going to hire then, you know. >> i want to thank my political colleagues who put on this event. i want to thank the c-span audience, the live stream audience, those of you on twitter, i thank you all for coming out early this morning. great questions and mike isabella, thank you for coming here and good luck on the restaurant. >> thank you. >> you were great this evening. >> cheers. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

canadians are voting today on a new government. steven harper has been in power since 2006 and he's won two elections but never with the parliament of parliament's 308 seats. if he doesn't get it this time, the opposition parties are expected to try to form a coalition government. we'll have live coverage from the election results from the cbc tonight starting at 10:00 eastern here on c-span2. >> the private sector and the government coming together to push innovation makes all the sense in the world. >> tonight, intel vice president peter cleveland on the obama administration's efforts to improve american innovation by assisting the u.s. technology industry on the communicators on c-span2. >> and now the american jewish committee hosts a discussion on the global view of israel. panelists include a former member of the british parliament

and a former peace process negotiator. this was here in washington. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this morning's subject legitimatization of israel. we have give gidi grinstein, lorna fitzsimons, rafael bardaji and allan reich. >> ladies and gentlemen, i would like to welcome you, those of

you in the audience as well as those on our global webcast and those that will be viewing us on c-span to this session this morning. our session this morning is entitled delegitimatization, the global assault on israel. i am allan reich, i chair ajc's international relations commission. and as i told the panelists, the less i say and the more they say, the more i think we'll get out of this program. joining me for this panel today are gidi grinstein who is the director of the reinstitute of israel. rafael bardaji who is the executive director of the friends of israel initiative. and from spain. and from the u.k., lorna fitzsimons, chief executive of bicom, the britain israel communications research center. before we begin this discussion we have a video to help frame

our discussion. ♪ >> delegitimatization, an awkward that has come to signify the political media and ideological assault on israel's very right to exist. it's a campaign that predates the creation through a u.n. resolution of the jewish state. many of the tactics we see today, boycotts, denial of the jewish connection to the land of israel, the portrayal of zionism as a form of colognism were adopted by leaders before israel declared their independence. >> the relinquishing of the british mandates palestine brought by full scale war as a new jewish state is born. >> as israel struggled to survive in its early years it's adversaries called for its elimination. following the 1967 arab-israeli war, the soviet union led the

propaganda campaign against israel culminating in the notorious u.n. general assembly resolution in 1975 later rescinding damning zionism as racism. today, it's a complex network of ngos, media outlets and extremist activists that's leading the charge against israel. but the message is the same. israel's existence is the original sin. in hubs across the world, like seattle, london, matry, and cape town and throughout the muslim and israel world, there's boycotts and violent demonstrations and the ultimate lie that israel is the reincarnation of apartheid south africa. our panel today asks, how can we turn the tide against the delegitimaters?

>> the format this morning will be questions and answers in discussion with the panel. for the first half hour or so, i'll be asking the questions. but then it will be you, both people in the audience as well as on the webcast. so let us begin. gidi, i would like to ask you the first question, which is the general question of, what are the roots of this whole delegitimatization campaign that's occurring, you know, now in the western world? >> well, first of all, thank you. and it's a great pleasure to be here this morning. with agc, which is uniquely situated to play a critical role in this campaign against the assault on israel's legitimacy. and i'm very honored to be here with you. you know, it was mentioned in the most of that the basic arguments against israel and zionism have existed for a century. and biased focus, overfocus on the land of israel of the holy

land has existed for a century as well. it has to do with religious focus, you know, christians, muslims, jews we all view this as our holy land and it has to do with our colonial guilt with our former colonial friends from lorna, our friend. with a royal wedding. >> i got my pearls ready. [laughter] >> so all of these basic elements existed and the question i believe you're asking is, what has made all of this sort of explode over the last years. and i would like to point to a few of the trends the confluence of these trends that have allowed to assault of israel and legitimacy to take a volume and to have such an impact on israel. first and foremost i would say that new technologies is at play, social media that allows people to come together in new

ways. we're seeing arab and muslim communities in europe much bigger, much more assertive and aggressive. and we're seeing the radical left following the collapse of white south africa, looking for a new cause. we're seeing a wave of very strong anti-american feelings over the last decade especially around the second iraq war and israel is sort of -- there's collateral damage towards israel. the results of the element of the weaknesses of these israeli response we have been very late to the game. we've been late in understanding this phenomenon. organizing ourselves and responding to it. there's also the crisis in some of the leading jewish institutions. we're seeing a decline in the leading jewish institutions of their ability to create a collective jewish response as weakened. and last but not least, i will

say that the results, i believe, a crisis of the level of israel education within our community. for too long forsaken the communities of jews for granted. we've not undertaken education within the communities in israel so many of these people when they go to colleges when they have a direct assault of israel that's frank and fact based our alliance crumble and they have a very hard time offering a robust response to these support and the support for israel erodes accordingly so we're seeing all these things, all these trends sort of converge over the last few years to what probably this room and many others that belong to the pro-israel community could view as an assault that already has its strategic implications for the state of israel. which could be existial and this

is the time as we've said here in the movie to turn the tides in sort of a systemic manner. >> thank you, lorna, rafael, you live in cities that are at the hub of the delegitimatization movement. what have you perceived? >> it's very interesting. i'm not jewish. i come from a little hill village that is very unfriendly to any newcomer, whatsoever. and i never knowingly knew a jewish person until i went to college. and so why am i a gentile atheist zionist and i say atheist advisedly in american circles? because when i was starting out on my political journey when i

first went to college, i met a group of young jewish students and non-jewish students who understood the secular root of zionism and the history rooted in the european left. and it may be permissible for me to somebody who wasn't too sure of her own relationship with organized religion although i'm a woman of faith to actually understand the jewish people are that, a people, a nationhood. and if i believed in my right as a national group of people for self-determination, i should, therefore, confer on the jews exactly the same rights. and the problem is that there's nothing that people understand that very, very simple book of crucial and political point and, therefore, it allows for

confusion and perception on behalf of israel's true enemy. and i think we should all be clear, israel's true enemy, the people that are both antisemet where i can and anti-zionist are both locked together are actually small in number. but there's a smoke and mirrors game that has conflated, issues are being conflated. there is a perception that the tide is moving away from israel. and, therefore, it makes people question their previous judgments so when a situation happens like the flotilla or the operation they become more prey to the narrative of our enemies. the other issue is an issue not about issue, but about the west which is a crisis of confidence. for britain it's wrapped up with post colonial guilt. it's to do with post-iraq crisis

of moral authority. and so a lot of what is being projected in the arena of britain onto the debate on israel has actually got nothing to do with israel. and everything to do with our crisis and our own identity. and we will be playing our enemy's game if we conflate all these people and all these issues into one big delegitimatization camp. there are delegitimatizers but we do them more service if we paint them bigger than they are. there's the hardcore and as gidi has rightly pointed out in the brilliant report that was done on the delegitimatization then there's a soft fellow travelers and we need to get better at actually understanding the core constituencies that are the soft vote. and peeling them off because we have the arguments. we know they work. we know what works.

because in the '70s in britain, we were fighting emotions of zionism and racism at our campuses and we brought back the student movement to be friends of israel. so we have been here before to some degree. and, therefore, we have to have confidence and courage, both in our own argument and our ability and good sense of ordinary other people that they will be receptive to a wealth of arguments. >> thank you. rafael, your -- >> i agree entirely with gid and lorna. i think what we are facing is a war of a different nature of a different kind. it's not the war of '48, the '50s. it's not the war against idea it's the wore of idea against israel. as lorna also mentioned, the

delegitimatization of israel also means legitimatizing what we are in the west because we share the same root values. we have the same goals and ambitions, political system, opportunities, dignity, human right. so when israel is put on the spot ultimately western civilization is put in danger as well. gidi mentioned that there are increasing muslim authorities in europe and that's true. and unless we realize in europe and europeans particularly that israel is an intergrel part of the western world we will be having a difficult task of explaining why it's impossible to trade off the security of israel in order to warrant our own security.

we must defend ourselves defending israel because israel is our guard on the front line of the struggle. so it's so important for non-jewish like lorna and myself to stand up and say israel has the right to exist. >> the universal nature of the challenge that you're talking about, i think, resonates with a great many of us. i want to go back to a point that you made, lorna, which was specifically that the actual core delegitimatization movement is relatively small. the people that you would characterize as truly anti-semitic and anti-zionist. is there any conscious coordination going on? and if so, who is it that is coordinating it? >> i think gidi's report outlines a lot of the activities. they are better organized over the last 20 years. they've learned dramatically and

ironically they've learned from the self-organization within britain and elsewhere. and they revere how the community organizes. i was a member of parliament in britain for eight years, represented my hometown which has a very significant south asian population from pakistan, kashmir, bangladesh. and i still live in my hometown. and they are -- and conversations often happen which is a great irony for my jewish community friends where they revered -- but they say why can't we be organized? why are we so pathetic at putting our case? it doesn't feel like it from our side. but they think that they couldn't -- we have a phrase in the north of england, you know,

it's very difficult to plat fog and they don't they are very effective but the truth is what they've done they've been very, very good, just like the nonstate actors. they are opportunist. and. and our architecture both in america and in europe is established. it's like super tankers, like governments and that's why israel finds it hard to apply and, you know, the state versus the nonstate actor. and it's very similar to the organized jewish community versus basically the young upstart organizations that are capitalizing on events. and so when in britain, for example, there was a huge stop the war and in spain movements around the iraq war, they realized that there was the ability to recruit from that

space for their reasons and their causes. and so like as always with these organizations they are brilliant infiltrators. they are absolute taskmasters at making friends. when i was -- and the problem is that we're actually not as good as we think we are at making friends because we say how high is that? am i truly a friend of the state of israel? you know, can i really be trusted? it's taken me 20 years to get to the stage of being truly absolutely trusted and i have to lose my parliamentary seat to do it on the issue of supporting israel. and my jewish friend said to me we know you're a friend. do what you need to do. you know, so in terms of where it comes from, it is -- it is a long time of actual studying of what we do, applying and adapting and using world events and our uncertainty about our

position as in the electorates within britain and within europe and actually preying on that uncertainty. >> you lead to me next question, but before i do so, i'd like to remember -- remind the audience that we've distributed cards and if you have questions to ask, please fill in the cards at this point in time, and they will be collected. and likewise, with regard to our webcast audience, hit the submit question button if you'd like to submit a question. my follow-up question is, each of you is a director of an organization that direct -- that speaks to this issue. that is -- you know, tries to address this the issue and counter lelegitimatization efforts. i would appreciate it if you could spend briefly, a couple moments each describing your organization and what you're doing and maybe, gidi, i could

start with you. >> strategy and impact group based in tel-aviv and our role in this system, in the system of the state of israel is to identify areas where israel faces a strategic gap. understand the reason for the gap, offer new vision or new path for progress and then work to create basic momentum to see change, to see transformative change. so in the context of this issue of delegitimatization, our story, our involvement in this started following the second lebanon war in the summer of '06. i'm sure you all remember this summer and the very big frustrations that many of us had with the performance of the state of israel and this confrontation with hezbollah. so when you listened to the israeli governments you could have concluded that the frustration of summer of 2006 were some of the confluence of technical problems, command and control, logistics, technology, the training of officers and so.

we looked at this and we concluded that the war exposed that the national security -- that the security and foreign policy approach of israel has been exposed as failing in relevance which means the other side of hezbollah, iran, have developed an approach that allows them to frustrate israeli military superiority through a use of military tactics and diplomatic -- and the media and diplomatic approach. and outcome of the war was a sort of, you know, undecided. so from that moment we understood that there is a problem here that is much bigger than anything we've known before. israel came with the mentality of p.r. and hezbollah and they came with this whole campaign of delegitimatecy and it was to

understand the logic of their operation and then to devise some principles and ideas for their response. and after we've done that -- and by the way a lot of this work was done in london because very quickly we understood that london is the hub of hubs of the delegitimatization campaign so we were out there meeting dozens and dozens of people to try to understand what was going on. and once all of these ideas were out -- that was around january of 2010, we've been working to create a coalition that could transform the response with many other great organizations and groups. and one of them is ajc and this coming weekend with axis 2020. so our role here is to do the diagnostics and analysis and to give the direction and to be the capitalists for the response. >> very good, rafael, friends of israel initiative. tell us about it. >> well, it's a project that was launched less than a year ago actually the day the flotilla was stopped.