who want to have more structure in the debate but it's a bargaining process, and every four years there is negotiation between candidates from the two parties, and i want to be sensitive to the point it's not too and we never assumed, we assumed a format in which anyone in the threshold can be included but there's a debate about the debate that happens as part of the process, and what i think the commission has successfully done is reduced less theatrical side of that during the course of the campaigns of there's a growing expectation by the voters that major candidates will participate in the date the commission has developed, and i think that's a very, very important thing. so, radical change in format, radical change in questions of

access might tend to disrupt the institutional position which i think is the primary achievement of the commission. >> one of the things we've been trying to do all week is to develop context, and because you've covered some campaigns and involved with candidates in '88, if you can start with campaigns to just think of the campaigns you have covered in part of some interest points or high points were turning points during those campaigns we could help our students understand and if you could do that with the dates if you think of things that happened since 88 during the debates that might be of interest to the students sister of the campaigns. >> well, i mean, the campaigns that have been a part of have been in primary campaigns because i worked for candidates and unfortunately didn't get very far in the process and president john glenn, bruce

babbitt, vice president benson, president mondale, president dukakis, bob kerry, john kerry. [laughter] >> and for the national democratic institute i went to poland. [laughter] you ask a question of an international world class loser. [laughter] but the significant moments for me, i mentioned in that moment in the debate was a juncture in which people salles benson in a different way and saw his opponent for vice president dan quayle in a different way, and it developed out of that moment which is of the complaint about the sound bite aspect is not the fault of the candidate is the fault of the media and how the media presents and covers these

debates but there was a moment to tell because the was a powerful moment, but it frames something people understood about the difference between the two candidates. and what their respective capacities were. and we leverage that and the dukakis-bentsen campaign has senator bentsen was seen as someone who had a legacy and history and capacity beyond a much more junior colleague in the senate who was running against him within put in front of the voters and instantly turned senator bentsen into a more formidable running mate because he was kind of a rock star we put him out campaigning in different places we otherwise wouldn't have gone so it was a moment where which one of these debates impacted the way in which the campaign developed strategy afterwards, and i think that's interesting.

but then there are other moments like in the '96 campaign when president clinton was running for reelection, i felt very much like we were just kind of plotting our way through the campaign and which we were obviously running significantly ahead in the polls and run an error free campaign with that creating these views we didn't want to create every day. and i think it is again something that as part of the process you have to say how do you hold the candidates accountable, how do you kind of pushed them out of their comfort zone and get them into a place that they are engaged in real dialogue and create situations in which the voters actually does get a glimpse what would be like to have that person serving in the oval office. that is what the challenge is and that is obviously what we have been talking about commission, too, but it's rare that campaigns themselves plan

for that kind of spontaneity because spontaneity and campaign strategy are kind of diametrically opposed sometimes. >> the debate history please. >> this is an indirect answer to the question which i probably wouldn't be allowed to get by with in your classroom but hopefully you will let me do here. it is less individual moments because everyone takes their own moment away from the date than it is watching what happens when people who have dedicated this much of their career to political life and service and campaigns come to this particular forum. one of the great sidebars of the commission's work has been to do an oral history of debate. you see a lot written by smart people but not so much by the participants and years ago we start with jim lehrer doing interviews in the actual debate

participant saying talk to us about what this was all about. welcome if you get first hand statements from the individuals that were on the stage of a sudden those of us who are your viewers and listeners understand this is a completely different zip code, and two of the more poignant comments remain both by president carter one of which was if you don't think a presidential candidate is and going to be able correctly to anticipate 98% of the questions asked by a serious moderator, then that person hasn't been doing their homework or paying attention while they've been running for office. if we are not first in the whole portfolio, there's something wrong. and the second observation equally interesting was he said you have no idea when i went on stage at the first debate i am a

relatively unknown governor from the state of georgia, and i and on the stage with the man who dealt with the watergate legacy, a surly respected and liked congressman from michigan who has been asked to step in at a terrible time in the nation's history. and he said the sheer admiration he felt for president ford not to mention this historical junction the united states was confronting. he said the was difficult to than simply engage in a combative way when he felt the meeting, the significance of what this man had done. they are both respected senior public officials that dynamic was a part of how he went into this exchange. you can't take that away from this. it's very easy when you come to the political debate to apply

lots of ought to and to use others that seem logical or even desirable or a good idea. but at the end of the you can't take the politics of the political debate and you can't do by the individuals who are participating are going to care very much about how this happens those are to be honest and they never listen insignificance from our perspective. they are very powerful and strong reminders of the luxury that we have in the american space system. >> the following? >> i was just going to remind you about advising [inaudible] >> i can't imagine who asked you to ask me that. [laughter]

i have no props and you will have to forgive me because of this incredibly wonderful story i have to go to the state department to do a video conference call with another one of our international constituents, and i beg your pardon and i hope that if there are other comments, questions, suggestions you have come in your students have, then you will get them to us. john can get you our contact information. we welcome this kind of input. it's very important to us and we would like to hear from you on an ongoing basis and have your students involvement. that's the only way the we can get better. once upon a time, a little commission on presidential debates was formed in 1987, and we quickly found out that the summer olympics in '88 were going to actually be in september, not in the summer because of a lot of different considerations, and that the hosting a network had basically

blocked off wall-to-wall coverage for two and a half weeks in september, which when you add that to other contractual obligations on network schedules and there was one free television might between labor day and election day and was a friday, which is not the optimum height but so be it. so, in our optimistic naivety, we contacted the said network and said excuse me, do you think maybe you could find one free night during this two and half weeks of coverage where we could schedule a debate and perhaps we could do that in a way that is convenient for you and the answer came back faster than the inquiry could be made. so we persisted and six disney do you think maybe there's one night on which under water kayaking could be taped and a third time and the importance

and the understanding that the world is keen on this sport that they will have to forgive last crux answer, no. our third contact, i don't know what it was, stupidity, hard-heartedness, okay we are going to be talking to some of your friends on the hill. all of a sudden the answer came back from new york all right. a delegation of 12 suits was sent to me, and i would have liked to have some suits or anything with me but there were non-so kuran was at a table just like this except a whole lot longer and the suits were at that in the and i was here, and i got a lecture for an hour on the economics of the olympics, and what that meant, and why it was and valuable, and at the end of the lecture, the lawyer

delivering the lecture looked over. he was not only in a suit, she had gone more bedle than i could count. there were tie bars and cufflinks and really large swatches and he was weighed down by all of this. and then there were the half glasses so when you weigh them all down he's trying to look over his half a glass is at me and his best long island lock jaw and i don't think you understand. the olympics only happen once every four years. [laughter] it is a great moment. [laughter] estimate that is one of the great stories of all times. >> you mentioned all week we have had speakers and historians look at 2012, 2008 and compare

it to previous times in history. you mentioned 1996 how critical that election was. can you to think alike and janet, a time in history that is comparable so we can share with our students? can you think of the time in history where the problems the country is facing. what we've been wrestling with we have had people talk about social media and things being so different today and i am trying to figure not as there is a time comparable to this one that we all remember, and or before. we are talking about the period 1840 to 1863 years problems that built up and of course eventuated in the 1860 election

with abraham lincoln and the civil war. >> i am so ill-equipped to answer that in a thoughtful way, john, and it's a good question. the only top of my head thought that comes to mind is that you will remember in the gaps when the dates did not occur, 1960 to 19761 of the excuses used was national security and the fact that there was a war going on that they did not want to or did not choose to discuss, and very clearly there are a lot of issues that will be coming up in this campaign, and one of them is this incredible engagement the united states has on depending on how you counted one network said last night you're opening a fourth front, and so i think that is comparable in a sense to some of the years and

affect particularly in the 70's there were not the dates for reasons of conflict that were incredibly controversial and once again we are facing foreign policy it difference engagement is of a very serious level. >> when i was a student to chris king to washington 1976 and of a profound issues on the national agenda where the lack of a coherent national energy policy and the dependence we have on the foreign petroleum and education system that didn't prepare kids adequately for the challenges of a global economy and the health care system that didn't provide insurance arrangements so people could get access to doctors and medicines concern about our entitlement programs and their solvency and whether they would be around to meet the promises that have been

extended to people retiring it starts to sound familiar if you think about the issues that are going to be on the agenda in 2012 because by and large the baby boom generation through a series of elections has not confronted the question one of my bosses daniel patrick moynihan post which is in reality, to government is the american people in terms of the government benefits and services and how much of the american public willing to pay for that in the form of taxes because we tried to have it both ways and the quantity of the government we want and then we say we are willing to pay in the form of taxes, and all of those very important questions i think have now cascaded into the real dilemma that we face and we face the prospect that there won't be an honest vetting of those

issues short of the candidates being challenged to address those issues in an honest way in the course of the coming campaign in 2012, and the debates play on that, the role of the media is important, too, but the sense that this will and should be a defining election because of the profound nature of the challenges israel. the worry that it might not be that kind of campaign because there's a temptation to kind of provide ec and answers is something that you ask teachers and we asked voters have a responsibility to deal with because we have got to try to make some choices as a country how we are going to resolve these questions and elect people with a capacity to come together to solve these problems.

how do you compare to other times in history where we face enormous challenges coming out of great depressions or great war have we bring a country back together and kind of improve the functioning of our government, how do we break down the bitterness and polarization and hyper partisanship that exists in the system now, i can't think is a time in which that challenge has been greater and it's made greater in part because of the technologies that accelerate the public attention to these issues that allow the conversation to become incoherent sometimes and to go off on wild tangents because of something that seems momentarily zesty and interesting and if things go to the heart of to we have a capacity for self-government of which the debates are at peace and the whole process is at peace so my answer would be i don't think there has been a time in which

the american experiment has been as fragile as it is at this moment which is to bring it back full circle why these debates are so critical because they are a moment we face those same questions. >> thank you for helping us learn and our students. [applause] >> the center has this briefcase for you, and again, thank you very much. it's a pleasure having you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

that allows the food businesses to begin applying for permits for fish farms in the gulf of mexico. the administrator talked about the new rules in light of the oil spill. she is joined by actor and environmentalist ted danson a member of the commission on the deepwater horizon oil spill and the louisiana seafood business owners from the smithsonian in washington, this is an award and 20 minutes.

>> good evening. i am the director of the national history and would like to welcome all of you to this evening's event, both of the panel. they will be looking at the gulf and the seafood one year later and abroad even to demystify and the ocean and its bounty. tonight should be an interesting mix. on the one hand interesting, hopefully fund, at times depressing, and after this event, a delicious. in september, 2008, we opened the ocean hall with the museum of national history which is a wonderful project we collaborated with many of the leading organizations here in the country. since more than 10 million people have been through to see it and that is our way of

sharing our knowledge about the ocean and this plan met with millions of people and can hopefully raise awareness about this two-thirds of the planet and the intimate connection with it. the hall was part of a broader ocean science initiative that we have been working on for a number of years using our collections, using our science and partnerships. and tonight is an opportunity to come together here at the national museum to address some of the really important topics with society in this panel. let me start by acknowledging a lot of the institutions that have reported the tonight. starting with noah which is in our collaborative partner with the museum actually more than 100 years. food market which was the sponsor of this event last year as well, the aquarium's of the watch food program is back with us again and was the leader in the seafood sustainably in the

nation, and this year we have a new sponsor of the gulf states marine fisheries commission who support to bring six chefs from the gulf states that would join some of d.c.'s best chefs tonight after the panel. now i mentioned before that the museum has had a very close collaboration with noah for many years. as a matter of fact, going back almost 100 years and taking into a whole new level with our collaboration and education outreach. we are delighted to have with us tonight to give opening remarks the administrator of noah, dr. jane is a marine biologist at oregon for many years, has been a member of our advisory board at the museum for a number of years and then was appointed the administrator of noah a few years ago. it's a great pleasure to have you here, jane come and you'd like to get a few welcome

remarks please join us. [applause] >> good evening, everyone. it's great to see you here. welcome to the smithsonian associate program event here in baird auditorium. tonight's program as christian indicated is designed to tantalize your mind as well as to the late your taste buds, so i hope he will have good things but that the program and afterwards. this intellectual appetizer we are beginning with will offer you a look at a golf one year later, and i am anxious to hear the views of the members of the panel. by way of opening remarks and a keynote address to get us going let me begin by sharing what some of the christian mentioned some behind-the-scenes information that bares on tonight's venue as well as our program. i refer to the strong

partnership between the smithsonian and noah that goes back over 100 years. noah fisheries was actually created in 1871 as the u.s. commission of fish and fisheries. was a very first allegiance the concerned with natural resource conservation and science. its first commissioner was none other than spencer baird for whom the auditorium was named. the same spencer baird who was also assistant secretary of the smithsonian institution. can you imagine doing both of those jobs today? 140 years later noah's collaboration with the smithsonian remains strong. we share the world's largest collections of fish with noah's systematic laboratory working closely with the smithsonian and partnerships extend to a wide variety of areas in the marine sciences, education and

conservation. the relationship that is evident for a wonderful fabulous question hall. tonight's event reflect the partnership in science and conservation and it's appropriate we do so clear in the baird auditorium. turning to the subject of tonight's event, last april the deepwater horizon exploded onto the scene in the gulf. an unprecedented environmental disaster the deepwater horizon skill baliles over a thousand miles of shoreline and released we'll into the gulf itself. ten days into this bill i met with more than 100 fishermen in the parish who feared losing their way of life and the gulf they know and love. they know better than anyone that oil seeping into the nursery wetlands to development of fish might mean an uncertain

future. their connection, the gulf waters and concern about losing it were possible, and the right to be concerned. many of them suffered deeply. the businesses and communities, many of them have been devastated. fast forward to today. although the vast majority of oil in the gulf is now gone, it flanders close to the short in many coastal areas of louisiana. and in an isolated place on the seafloor bottom. and the effect on the gulf ecosystem and communities will undoubtedly be felt for years. our cooperative natural damage assessment natural resource damage assessment is well under way, but indeed it will be years before we have a clear picture of the full impact of the oil on the gulf ecosystem, and therefore on their communities.

but, while we wait for full information about the damage done and the future implications , we do know the status of seafood today. all of the federal waters in the gulf that were once closed to fishing, and that was represented at its peak 37% of the federal waters in the gulf all of that is now open to fishing, and it's open for the simple reason the seafood they are and has been extensively and thoroughly tested for will contamination and sound to be safe to eat. noah, fda and the states tested seafood extensively prior to reopening these areas, and they continue to ensure the safety of seafood today to additional surveillance and testing. if new oil appears that maybe if pressed to see food safety we will not hesitate to close waters again. our focus on the status of

seafood in the gulf should be about more than simply answering the question as the gulf seafood safe from loyola and contaminants? the larger focused must also include what are we actually doing to ensure healthy fisheries, help the gulf ecosystems and sources of seafood cracks the foundation of the unique culture and special attraction the gulf offers to so many visitors to the region as well as the local inhabitants. indeed, the health of the gulf is inseparable from the health of its coastal communities, economies and their culture. our efforts to support a healthy if goals are multiple from ending overfishing to habitat restoration to making of the gulf coast ecosystems communities and economy is more resilient to devastation from disasters such as hurricanes, floods, oil spills, climate

change and ocean acidification. .. >> rebuilding the wetlands and barrier islands that provide protection. now, restoration is not a silver bullet, but it can help on many levels. past experience shows that restoration yields significant

economic as well as environmental payoff creating jobs and further opening the way for travel and recreation adding an environment for hotels and building economy and provide the ecosystems with hurricane protection that i mentioned, pollution control, and improved consumer confidence in seafood, benefits that stretch far beyond the gulf. as we begin the long road to environmental and economic recovery in the gulf, noaa is pursuing efforts on multiple fronts to help with progress. i've touched on seafood fishes and habitat restoration, all of which are key elements in a vibrant and resilient future for the gulf. i want to touch briefly on one additional component that complements these, and that's aquaculture. the farming of marine plants and animals has huge potential to

provide healthy seafood, create new jobs, and contributing to reducing the trade deficit, however, it's visitly important that aquaculture is done in a fashion that is environment environmentally sound. i'm pleased to announce today noaa and the department of commerce released our new aquaculture policies. these policies establish a framework encouraged to sustain the domestic aquaculture, support coastal communities, and important commercial and recreational fisheries as well as help restore species and habitats. in addition to these policies, we are committing to developing a national shellfish initiative in partnership with the industry to take specific steps to increase commercial production of shellfish and promote innovation in the industry, and to implementing the management plan for aquaculture which includes the regulatory

infrastructure needed for offshore aquaculture development needed in the gulf. we hope both initiatives have profound and lasting effects on the environmental and economic recovery in the gulf and on aquaculture development throughout the nation. with that, i am pleased to turn the program over to our moderator tonight, mr. richard harris of national public radio. thank you, all. [applause] >> thanks for a wonderful introduction. you should come up too, you have a seat up here, and welcome one and all. we have about an hour to talk, and i promise i won't hold you over. we will get off to the food and wine at the end of the hour, but i think there's some thoughts to share here before we go, and we

will proceed at pace, so i will start introducing the panel and peppering them with a few questions, and then there's a couple microphones in the aisles, and after alittle while i'll ask others to join in the conversation. there's seats in front if people want to take a moment and come down here. i see a few. if you are standing and want to sit, there's opportunities to do so. i'll start by introducing the quite impressive lineup of folks to talk to us today. i'll start on your far left, don bosch, professor of marine science and president of environmental science, bilogical oceanographer. i met don more than 20 years ago because he was running a lab down in louisiana called lomcon, also a member of lose state university, so he really knows

the gulf and the bay and was on the president's oil spill commission so he's served in many key positions here and has a wealth of information. to his left -- [laughter] see, i forgot to wear my watch, and i tell right from left with my watch. anyway, it's a familiar face to now, ted, you may have seen him on tv once or twice, and he was on koney island today shooting his hbo thing really early in the morning, but he's amazingingly fresh for having a tough time, but he's here actually because he's become a very passionate ocean activist, and he works for the organization called oceanana and wrote a book about our endangered oceans and what we can do to save them.

ted has hollywood in his blood and ocean in his veins. he's joining us for that reason. to his left is the associate professor and special food scientist at louisiana state university, and she's been running up and down the gulf coast since the oil spill looking at seafood safety issues and has -- will be participating with us on those grounds. to her left is patrick reilly. he is a shrimp fisherman, but more than that. he's also general manager of the western seafood company from sleever port, texas, not louisiana, but that's still gulf coast. he's instrumental in developing the apparatuses to help make shrimp fishing less damaging to sea turtles and other see lions we care about there. he's been quite involved in that, and mike is from sea foods

and home of louisiana which is way down on the sort of big foot that louisiana sticks out into the gulf of mexico, one of the largest oyster farming and harvesting processing companies, and are your oysters being served tonight here? >> [inaudible] >> you will have a chance to taste his oysters in the food hall when we're done here, but i'm delighted he's here, and you already heard from dr. lou, so there rewith. i'll start by turning first to don and saying okay, it's been a year since the oil spill, how do things look? i mean, when we saw the videos that brought back the memories of how horrible everything looked a year ago, what's the state of the gulf now from a position of an ocean ole fer?

>> well, nature is a wonderful thing, and it treated oil as an organic substrait, and it lot of things that grew ate that oil. for the most part, it's no longer there. there are a number of issues that we need to resolve about lingering effects and indicated there's a natural resource of damage assessments through very carefully qualifying the impacts, and there's lots of ongoing studies to see the degree on which the impacts are long term or quickly recover. i think in general, scientists think that the gulf handled this remarkably well. specifically with everyone here tonight to enjoy is gulf seafood. as a scientist, when this spill was happening and all the concern about this contamination problem and potential risk to human health, we studied oil spills. i'm aware that fish, for example, have mechanisms to take these compounds, the ones we are

most concerned about, that could incorporate in the tissue, fish have mechanisms to retox my those and not to incorporate them into their muscle tissue, the part that we eat so from the start, the risk to seafood that could be contaminated seafood is small to begin with. on top of that is small amounts of the seafood that could have been exposed to this, and then i have to say from the standpoint of the ocean commission, we studied not the effects of the spill so much as the governmental response, but what we saw was quite remarkable effort led by noaa to make sure we have a safe process. there are these areas that are closed as a precaution without evidence there was contamination, and then a

program was very detailed that's still going on to look and see whether using the best chemical methods we have we can detect contaminants and there's little indication that there's any contamination. i think we can all feel safe that seafood is safe and enjoy it tonight. >> yeah, and patrick, you go out in the gulf, i assume, catching shrimp and so. what's your perspective from somebody on the water? >> in the areas where we're harvesting from just after the spill -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> hello? >> do a little buddy breather here. this is a scuba trick. [laughter] >> thank you, mike. >> anyway, just after the spill,

and of course the quick response of the state officials and the closing of areas effected by that, you had very wide buffer zones for safety reasons and whatnot, not only the areas directly affected, but the wide perimeter around them. we didn't see effects on our product, and, you know, since the closed areas reopened, we never saw effects of oil on that product, and we, as a fishery operator typically are further offshore. we are, you know, out to 60,000 foot of water up to really the beach of texas, not that close in louisiana, but we never saw anything. >> is the shrimp fishery back in full swing again? >> the shrimp fishery never left. >> did you take a hit last year? >> we took a hit because of

overall volume because we had production units, vessels shut in. they joined the vessel of opportunity program helping with the cleanup or chose not to fish overall because the near shore vessels did not have access to the near shore waters to fish, and, you know, southern louisiana bays and right there on the beach, once that shrimp left the estuaryies in louisiana and left the beach area, the boats don't have the capability of catching the product. it's left up to the larger boats, and we didn't have the larger boats participate in the fishery last year. in our own case in sleever port even though it's the far western reaches of the gulf, after the texas closure, a 60-day cooperative closure between parks and wildlife and noaa fisheries, we generate volume from boats that come from texas to fish in the opening after, you know, typically july 15, and

we would generate one or two, typically to 20-30 day trips out the larger freezer boats generating 60 pounds. we took a hit because the boats could not make it over. >> but the shrimp, as far as you can tell -- >> far from -- from a bilogical stand point, no. >> did you have trouble selling oysters after the spill? >> trouble selling, actually, right after the spill, it was interesting, people were hungry for seafood and thought the oil was coming to the beach and they would not get seafood for a period of time so it was like when johnny carson said there was a shortage of toilet paper, everybody ran out and bought it, and then there was a shortage of toilet paper. [laughter] that's what happened immediately. we sold all of our freezer inventories, and then we were closed because of the impending

oil. the noaa, i want to complement, they did a fabulous job to this and the government's response was above and beyond to other events in the gulf that i've seen in 40 years of being in the business. they did an excellent job being on the ground helping us understand the challenges and acting on resolving the challenges. the oyster took a hit because they opened fresh water diversions. we had floods in nashville two weeks before the event, and that water was coming down the mississippi river similar to this year, and it was to push the oil out of shore and keep it offshore. we have 7500 miles of coastline in louisiana. if you go in age out every bay and around every lake, only lookout 400 miles were oiled. now, you can get to them with a camera, so you saw a lot of it down at grand isle and -- >> but the fresh water was not

welcomed by the oysters? >> no, 50% of the oysters died, three year classes of product that died. this year, with the floods, we're down another 50% or about 25% of the traditional production which is about 250 million in shell oysters a year. we're the big gorilla of oyster production in the gulf as a whole. 500 million pounds a year. >> it will take you a couple years if you have to wait for the oysters to grow up, you have a couple years before you're back to full steam? >> two to four years back to better before. we were knocked down no cay tree that, -- cay katrina and knocked down with the great floods. this year, we're beginning to see, and i know this is not talking abouted flues, but there's straws breaking people's backs this time. it's a challenge.

>> i think that we heard a lot after the spill that people were afraid to eat gulf seafood. why did that happen, and is that persisting? >> people were afraid to eat the seafood because we saw all the pictures in the media of oiled seafood, and it just imparted the filth on the seafood and that meant to them, oil, not good for me, and it might be toxic, and we know that certain fractions within oil can contain carcinogens, and what we had to do have relay the fear of the consumer, and the consumer included, the processer, and the chef. i have to say the national marine fishery service, nmfs, invited people within academics to be trained on the testing that was done to screen the seafood for any sort of oil

contamination, and, excuse me, that would have been indicative by the hydrocarbons that dr. boesch referred to. we can smell those at low levels. we have a threshold for aroma detections in our noses. in fact, this technology dates back to the early 60s in japan where japanese researchers tried to equate if i hold -- if i have an oil spill, and i take what i think is that concentrate and put it in a tank, put fish in there, and allow them to swim, and then take it out at certain periods, how quickly does it pick up that indication of the chemical come popped, and by the same token, put it into water and see how quickly it dispated. it was shown they can detect,

the expert sniffer can tee direct -- detect down to .5 parts per million. it's a drop in a gallon of water. that's how sensitive we are. >> are people eating gulf seafood now, or where does it stand? >> there's still some concern, and we did a lot of training with the harvester open waters earnings that was also -- and that was also working with fda and noaa to indicate to the processers must guarantee the seafood is harvested from open waters, and they can do that with trip tickets where fishermen document the harvest, and we train the processers to see you really can smell it. you really can smell it. people are gradually coming back, but there's still concern, and it was such a very large

national media effort that it created a perception, and we know the perception is one the hardest things to change. >> yeah. although, we have short memories too. did you want to add something? >> yeah, in addition to what she mentioned about the sniff tests, we also did extensive chemical testing on seafood, and we've had chemical tests for the compounds in the hydrocar boons -- hydrocarbons that have been mentioned as a concern because they are cars jenic -- cor sen jenic. we also did the chemical tests as well as the sniff test. that's useful information. when i go back to the gulf still people ask and there's a lot of concern whether it's safe or not. despite testing, there are lingering concerns about the safety, and i think you put your finger on it, and that is the images that we all saw day after

day after day made people suspicious. >> yeah. ted, let me ask you, you're passionate about oceans for many years long before the spill happened. did the spill sort of help you focus a different way of being an ocean advocate? >> i think we have to reassure you that the guy who played sam molone will talk to you about fish. they all have buttons they can push if i say something wrong. [laughter] i started off an as activist in california fighting with a group called no oil. they were trying to stop accidental pretroll yum and digging along the beach. that's kind of how i started in this.

what was hard for me before the spill was the conversation of lets moratorium and open up our coasts, our most sensitive areas, and i know this is a hard conversation to have when so many people in louisiana depend on oil and a lot of people work for it, but nevertheless oil drilling is way too risky for us to be doing and the rewards are way too late so for me it was more of a reminder of that. i also just kind of way -- i'm listening and being surprised by what i hear tonight, and not because i doubt it. i didn't know it, and perception is such a huge part of it. i'm always going, really,

really? seriously? [laughter] you think about oil and fish, and you do not want to go there. i know prince william sound still suffers from perceptions. i would hate to say i'm so happy that this is true, and i will be up there eating, you know, a great deal of -- actors and free food, we eat anything. [laughter] i will be happily eating the seafood, and i'm glad to hear that, but i hate that to be an endorsement of that's okay to go back to business as usual because we can live through the oil and it's okay digging for oil in more and more dangerous places. as an activist, that's my line. sorry. [laughter] [applause] >> jane, how did the contestant do? [laughter] >> i'm not pestering at all.

we would be remiss if we didn't say there are very real concerns about the long term impacts of the oil on the gulf. i think dr. boesch said that and i emphasized it. one, the seafood from the gulf now is not contaminated by oil or dispersants, but at the same time, we still don't know the full impact of the spill on the animals and on the ecosystem of the gulf, and we won't know that for some time, and even those little tiny droplets of oil that were in the water while the oil was flowing, those, even very, very small droplets can be very toxic to a fish egg or fish larva in the juvenile stages, and there's very real concern that there were impacts that we

won't be seeing for a number of years. it's very hard to quantify, document, see a fish egg that was dead, and one of the legacies of the exxon-valdez spill was new knowledge about the impacts of oil on the development of fish larva, and we know they are very sensitive to oil, and so i'm putting a marker down and flagging that there are some very real concerns about long term impacts that we won't know for awhile, and that's part of the natural resource damage assessment process is to evaluate that and to track it, not just say everything's fine now because it looks okay because there's a lot we don't know. >> all right, let's remember in prince p.m. sound, there were fish populations that looked just fine for a couple years and then crashed so you don't want to call the all clear too soon. >> right. there's a difference between fish that you might be catching to eat who can process

hydrocarbons, they ma tab lies it, and so they don't, you know, the hydrocarbons don't build up in their bodies and that fish that was swimming in the gulf if it encountered oil can be safe to eat now, but that's not true at the young vulnerable stages that the larva or the eggs are. it's very much dependent on when in the life cycle the impact was. >> yeah, mike, did you want to add a comment here? >> yeah, thank you, richard. you have to understand how large the gulf is compared to prince william sound. the gulf of mexico has 640 quaddrillion gallons of water in it. there's trillions of gallons ever water every day pouring out of the mississippi from two-thirds of the u.s. and parts of canada and many other rivers that feed the gulf of mexico, so

640 quaddrillion gallons of water. you have to think about how big the spill was. the spill maximum if you believe the maximum would be 200 million gallons. it's proverbally the drop in the bucket in terms of the large ecosystem. i'm not saying this is not a challenge and it was responded to very well. what i'm saying is you have to think of it in a bigger picture presentation. also, what type of oil was it? in exson-valdez, it was a heavy crude oil partially refined in a ship ready to move forward. you're talking about raw coming out of the water bottom, light, sweet, louisiana crude. you have to remember in the gulf of mexico, we have drilled 40,000 offshore wells, and we leak not from oil activity, just natural seepage, 50-100 million

gallons of oil a year into the natural environment. we have bacteria as indicated that eat that up annually. i was raised in southern california, but with the name like voisin, most people doapts know that. i would go to the beach in southern california, and i got tar balls on my feet because there's a lot of leak yag there, and they are in the atlantaic as well. >> yes, absolutely, the numbers mean a lot, but it's also true that the natural seeps are fairly low rate and there's a ecosystem around them that deals with them. they said this was a big hit all at once, and we are trying to understand how that sorts out. >> i agree with you. >> let me turn to don and said, okay, i imagine people here not only care whether the food is safe as we all do, but whether it's sustainable and what is the overall health of seafood from the gulf, and i wonder in answering that question, if you could remind us this is not the only insult that happened to the gulf of mexico. >> that's exactly right,

richard. we talked about the seafood and catch and enjoy last year, and it's safety, you know, its -- that we're now the product we're seeing, but those species, those populations, those fisheries, the men and women who fish them actually have a whole set of long term problems that they are trying to grapple with. first of all, we have like we have everywhere else in the world. we overfish some of those resources so we really are trying to use the best science in understanding to manage that, manage many of those fishery stocks in a more sustainable way. noaa's had to play a large part and role in that in terms of the federal territory. in addition to that, some of the fishery methods were used in fisheries to cause all sorts of unfortunate side effects. there's by catch. for example, when they historically towed shrimp crawls

that captured lots of other small fish, sometimes three times the mass of the fish of the species you targeted were captured and wasted. they also capture things like sea turtles that get trapped in the net, and so we're in the process of trying to find a better way of doing that. there's been a lot of effort and progress made on efforts to avoid captures of sea turtles, so there's work to be done on that regard. beyond that, there's other challenges in terms of the rapid dynamic changes of that environment that have been unleashed by humans. the biggest of all, of course that affected everything is climate change, and that puts us on a path of more rapid sea level rise in the low lying gulf areas. that's a major challenge going forward. >> where you are already losing a great deal of land to erosion. >> in addition to that, we have massive -- over the -- at the

end of the 20th century, massive amounts of wetland loss on the coast because the mismanagement of the river and the very oil and gas industry that we talk the about, slice and dice that coastal area and accelerated the rapidity of the loss of the wetlands. in addition, many people heard about the dead zone in the gulf, the result of high productivity, industrial agriculture in the midwest. there's a lot of those fertilizer nutrients applied to the landscape coming down to the gulf, and since the 70s caused this massive dead zone the size of new jersey or larger this year because of the flood. those effects are occurring year after year every year. they are not an event like an oil spill, and so they have enormous consequences to the resources that we're talking about as well as the vitality of

that system so the hope is that with the attention brought about by the spill as well as potentially some resources, our commission called for a dedication of 80% of the recoveries of fines under the clean water act, water quality violations as a result of the release of oil. that could be many billions of dollars being dedicated towards comprehensive restoration of the gulf. >> not just mopping up oil, but looking at the marshes. >> solving long term problems, restores the wetlands, and with that is tied to vitality are the various fisheries we're talking about. what's going on right now is that the president has charged administrator lisa jackson working with other leaders in the administration to come up with a plan which we can use these resources to do comprehensive work, working with the states to do comprehensive

restoration. if there's a silver lining from the black cloud of this oil spill, hopefully it will draw our attention to this, and we can move forward. it is not, however, a led pipe fix that this will happen because we have lots of different opinions about what to do with that money, fights among the states about how much their share should and so on. it would be a tragedy to let that go away and not that have resource and not dealing with the long term problems. >> ted, is that something that activists are dealing with, and are you -- is that something you're pressing for or where do you work in this universe of trying to see changes in the way we deal with our oceans? >> wow. i'm certainly not an expert on the gulf by any means, but i, you know, i start the activist

starts from the fisheries from around the world are in serious trouble. we manage the fisheries and don't subsidize the boats, but 0% of the world's fisheries collapsed and some are overfished. 90% of the big fish that were around growing up in the 50s are gone. there's this much left shark, this tuna, all the big fish gone, marlin, not gone, but 90% are gone. >> what do you do about that? >> manage the fisheries. >> what do you do about it? a citizen who cares. >> i go to rooms and ballrooms and yak. [laughter] >> that sound like a good gig. >> it's silly. i'm not doing the diving and cool stuff. i'm talking. it's wrong. [laughter] you know, what i see after

writing this book -- writing, being a part of this book is that my job is to create international ocean activists because these problems are so huge and they are international that people need to know that yes, they need to take steps and learn how to, you know, make sure they are not buying farm salmons from chile because you kill three pounds of wild fish to make one pounds of farm fish. you need to educate yourself as a consumer, but you also need to take action on an international level, and you can do that through different organizations. clearly, i'm here to sing praises of oceana, but you need to do that. it's so out of sight, out of mind. 1% of the money raised in this country goes -- of all environmental money raised, 1% goes to marine issues. we don't think of the oceans as

something we can taking out anything we want. my job is to educate and excite people to stand up and go, no, no, no, this is wrong. >> yeah, and patrick, you are a more hands on approach. don mentioned turtles caught in shrimp nets. tell us about your efforts to reduce that. i understand it's a bad year, a lot of turtles watch up and people pay attention. >> awareness is up. put it that way. i think the shrimp fishery i'm participating in has a good story to tell when it comes to turtles, particularly in the gulf, big time management a, started -- i guess the foundation being pour in the mid-80s when we looked at the problem and decline on the mexican coast. they were in real trouble, in 90

when we got over the hump and got compliance issues out of the way, we were able to convince fishermen that were dragging their feet that we can do it first first efficiently. >> it's a device? >> this basically in each of the nets we pull offshore coming down into the fishing circle, into the bag where the catch is collected, prior to that is an angle grid to discharge not only turtles, but the base sis of the design we're using today was created in georgia. it was basically called a cannon ball shooter with high productivity rates of shrimp catch over there, but they couldn't participate in it because they filled up nets with jelly wish in literally minutes. like i said, we got over the

hurdles and got the vast majority without losing product. they are compliance numbers by 1990 and if you start looking at the beaches and ranches around 2000, we went from a straight line where you didn't see a rise, dip, fall, or anything else. after 2000-2001 which kind of coincides with the ten year rate, it's more or less linnier, and today, last year we saw a dip, i guess the year before last it was 21,000 nests that were at the ranch, and last year 13,000. we picked a few up, and this year through may 25, looking at 11,000 with what is suspected to be a banner year, and off the texas coast which is not a

traditional home or beaches, we're looking at record numbers this year. >> are fishermen still complying well with that? i mean, that's inevitably an issue; right? >> fishermen are complying well. i know with the increase in strandings happening on the beach, noaa redoubled their efforts in the southeast region, and they are going out reeducating and whatnot. they found compliance issues with ted angles, but that can change over time. it's not an intentional error on the part of the fishermen, but one thing you have to realize as well, you know, if you're in a conservation world or marine biologist will tell you as you have an increase in the number of stock of a particular animal that you may have interactions with, as that overall recovery happens, you're going to have

more interactions with them, and we will have sadly strandings because of it. i mean, it's, you know, as the species comes back, it's going to be something that happens. >> yeah. jane, did you want to add something to that? >> well, you know, i think the -- of the seven species of sea turtles around the world, five of them live in the gulf, and they are all endangered, and what patrick said about the very concerted efforts to address the problems that were causing endangerment especially of kemps ridly were until last year very, very successful. they were beginning to really bear fruit, and that was a combination of use of these turtle excluded devices on the shrimp nets, but also protection of nesting beaches, not only in texas, but in mexico. this is an endangered species

that's co-managed with mexico. last year they took a very, very serious hit, especially the 1-2-year-olds that were very abundant in the gulf before the spill happened, coming from deeper areas into more shallow areas, and there were, i don't know the exact numbers, i don't have them in my head, but on the order of around 500 kemps were found stranded and one additional story is there was a concerted effort to go out and rescue turtles. in fishermen participated in that, many local communities, many environmental activists rescued turtles, brought them back into holding facilities throughout the gulf. they have been rehabbed, all of those have now been released into the gulf, and that's about 400 that were saved.

this year, we are seeing a very large number of turtles, especially kemps that are stranded, and remain very concerned about the causes of that. we are working very closely with the fishing industry, and others to try to understand exactly what's causing this, and we will remain concerned because this is an endangered population. we will continue to work actively to try to address the causes of those mortalities. >> thanks. we do have a microphone here, and i think, iemg not sure -- i'm not sure if there's one in the other aisle, but it's open for questions. anyone, please come to a microphone, and i will recognize you. i just ask that you introduce yourself and ask a distinct question opposed to making a statement. thank you. >> okay.

i'm jeff zippin. as you might guess, i'm a friend of seafood, and i would like to see is sustained. [laughter] we've been talking bout the effects of the spill, but one of the things this group has not addressed so far at all is what has been done to make sure it doesn't happen again? i know the minerals management service which regulates offshore oil and gas drilling has been divided up into three units. is that the answer to protecting the gulf from this happening again? >> don, do you want to take that? >> yes. yes, that's a very good question because i think another part of the issue is to do everything we can to make sure this does not happen again. as much as ted might like to have offshore oil drilling, the fact is that our nation is dependent on it at this time, and if we are looking at our future in renewable energy, this

is going to take time, and we have limited new production opportunities on land, and the other alternative is to become more beholding to other nations importing oil. we have to sustain or actually grow our domestic oil production. you heard the president make some announcements about that, and a good part of that is going to be from the gulf of mexico, so the question is if we're going to do that, whrets do it safely. our commission, this was the central thrust of what our commission addressed. the secretary of the interior has put in new regulations that are required now to permit and operate deep water drilling, 15 or so new permits issued under that new standard. they have reorganized. our commission recommended going further than what they have been able to do thus far. some of that takes legislation. there was legislation proposed at the end of the last congress, but, of course, now it's into a

very different environment, and so it seems to be we have a discussion in this town of either drill, baby, drill, and get out of my way or not, and i think there is a reasonable middle ground that is if we need this resource, we're going to need to find it in deep water because that's where it is. we learned a lot from this. we have new capabilities. we should hold the companies to high standards. they need to operate with under those standards. we need a better capacity within the government to monitor those activities, all of these common sense solutions of what we recommended, but many of them are pending at this point in congress. >> thank you. something else? >> an issue of you are concerned citizen, it's something you can make sure your representatives know what your views are. over here. >> thank you, michael, we made comments to the oil spill commission during the hearing, and i think one the questions i'd have is in the natural resource damage assessment, are we going to look at the effects

of disper cant use on fish larva? i have one other one. will this oil spill have any effect on oceans or does that suffer from emissions and crude oil? >> yeah. >> all right, let me explain ocean acidification, oceans are acidic because of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. in terms of the spill itself, do you want to address it? >> i did address the dispersant issues. >> okay. >> we are talking about roughly 1.9 million, so one-one hundredth of the amount of oil was used as a dispersant. with that said, the dispersant was food grade, and the agent is

sodium, that is the food approved ingredient, good grade. it was used. short half-life so it dispated fairly rapidly, and if it is taken up in the flesh and the food and drug administration labs in alabama did some very, very nice work with this where they showed various species and amounts of corequisite 100 times the amount used on the spill, and they showed that seafood could take it up, but they also decorated or ridded themselves of it very rapidly. that 100 times use within 72 hours. >> so how much was the seafood screened for this as well when you were making chemical screens? i know that noaa does surveys of sea turtles food and you --

seafood and you go out there and check the fish. >> so the tests we developed during the spill were to test for this compound dot that she was speaking of, and so all of the seafood, so seafood was tested for that, and it is free from those dispersants. michael's question really is the natural resource damages processed looking at effects of dispersants on larva. is that what you said? >> yeah. >>ic the answer is -- i think the answer that the natural resource damage assessment process is a very comprehensive process looking at damage from anything including the efforts to minimize the impact of the spill so it looks at everything that can possibly be quantified with the idea of evaluating the impact of the

spill on natural resources and the public's access to those resources, figuring out, building the best possible case with responsible parties, and then, you know, to hold them responsible, and then the final part of the natural resource damage assessment process is to do the restoration required paid for by the responsible party to make up for that damage that was done, whatever that looks like so it's a legal scientific economic process to really focus on natural resources so, yes, it will be part of that. >> and just speaking, putting on my reporter hat for a minute, i've been trying to do stories about asking the questions what just happened? how bad is the damage in the gulf? sometimes scientists say that's part of the assessment process, and it's a legal process, and they are not at liberty to say

everything. there's frustration about not nowing, about not having full information about what's going on in the gulf as it goes through the process, but they are doing it to make the best case against the responsible parties, and ultimately we will hear the results, but it's a bit of a frustrating times to call up and say what's happening with thus and thus, and they say sorry, that's part of the process, but call back in 2015, and we'll -- [laughter] any way. >> richard, i totally share that frustration, but i think you understand, and i think everybody here understands that it's not a nanana, we're not going to tell you, but it's really building the best possible case against the responsible parties, and if you tip your hand, you risk underminding your case, and everybody wants the responsible parties to be held accountable, and this is the way to do it. >> okay.

thanks. another question. >> my question comes -- it's primarily for the industry owner operator as well as the federal perspective and i know an effective response and recovery in the gulf relies on industry working closely with the government. is there any best practices or lessons learned that came out of the deepwater horizon response and market recovery to be shared from the federal perspective as well as the owner and operator perspective? >> that's probably for don? >> the industry? >> well, both the industry -- >> are you talking oil or seafood industry? >> seafood industry. >> mike? >> i think as i said earlier in a comment the best cooperative response from the government at the federal, state, local level with the seafood community. we dealt with -- normally we deal with three or four closures

a year base the on fecal pollution. during a 40-day period last year, we had 38 closures, and the seafood community supported noaa in the closures and more in the reopenings, but supported in the closures -- [laughter] and the states in their closures, and there's been a great cooperative effort between noaa, the states, and other federal agencies, and the industry to accomplish making sure that we're not only providing safe product to the public, but also that we're going to have sustainable, which i i believe we do have sea foot for the -- seafood for the long term, and we're spending our energy and dollars in the research hand in hand with noaa, the state, and academics. >> patrick, do you have a comment on that? >> i do think one thing that came out of this is a realizization by all companies and the government that the

fishing industry could be used as an effective response tool in situations like this, and i mean, you saw the vessel of opportunity program work, and it was very effective for what it did, and i think going forward, it puts an asset in place that many didn't realize they had in front of them, and it was at very little cost. we're sitting there in industry, doing our thing in various fisheries, and at a moments notice can be called upon to access a potential safeguard between, you know, the shoreline and the problem offshore. it's a pretty big light lightbulb going off. >> i'm curious what the seafood and oil industry and how that relationship change? are they saying we have to get the oil industry out of the gulf? obviously, they are interwoven in terms of the economy in the gulf coast, but, you know, how do you handle your relationships

with the people in the oil? >> well, you know, they are us. i mean, half of my family which immigrated from france and ireland in the 17 00s is in the oil and gas business. half of us are in the seafood business. i guess they couldn't make it in the harder of the two businesses , but we are who rewith. the real tragedy is the lives lost and the gyred. i i can't imagine what they had to go through evacuating a rig that's on fire in the middle of the night. we are who we are. we worked hand in glove a long time. they harvest a resource above the ocean floor. there have been challenges and times when there's conflicts, but overall, we work through those conflicts. we're a user of what they harvest. they are a user of what we harvest. we want it to be done correct. i think down and the commission did an excellent job in preparing a report that gave

suggestions that would be able to improve the safety of offshore oil and gas drilling. the oil and gas community came out with a great response, a billion dollars into a response program, and as patrick said, one of the most exciting things i heard said during all of this challenge was that when they started using the vessel of opportunity programs, the fishermen were out there because they hired contractors at first, and they outpaced the contractors 20 to 1 because they protected who they are, their livelihoods. i'm 7th generation in this. my sons are in business with me, the 8th generations and grand sons i hope to be the 9th generation from france to be able to accomplish and continue to apply the seas in in louisiana. >> next question. >> i work here in the federal government in washington, d.c..

i don't have a question, just more of a plea. i'm not a scientist, and i want to put a human face on this. i moved down to the mississippi gulf coast after katrina to help with the recovery, and if anyone down there has been a significant amount of time on the gulf coast, you know how close people live, and today i was talking to a friend of mien who directs the national estuary program down there, and he was mentioning that there's just a lot of money flowing around and it's nice that bp wants to do the right thing and make people whole after the oil spill, but i'm very concerned about the wetlands and the restoration and i was going to make a plea that you'll all use whatever power you have to make sure that the

money goes to the right people and the right places so that we can get the restoration we need. none of the money was actually coming to the people who were doing the restoration right now, and i know there's reasons for that and it takes a long time. i know permly having -- personally having worked in government, but that's just a request i have and if you have thoughts on that. >> thanks for the comment. jane? >> thank you for that heart felt comment and plea. i think you're absolutely right. the restoration will be really key. a few weeks ago, noaa and the other federal trustees and the state trustees, all of whom oversee this natural resource damage assessment process, announced that bp had agreed to set aside $1 billion for early restoration projects. this is restoration that will be part of the natural resource damage assessment process, and

it is early restoration because we don't have to wait for the whole natural resource damage assessment process to come to conclusion. everybody wants to start doing some restoration now, and so this down payment from bp of a billion dollars allows that to get underway, and there's a public process for listing ideas about the best restoration projects. we've held ten open sessions in the gulf and an additional one here in washington, and those ideas about what to restore and where are being folded into the process that will play out over the next couple years in terms of the allocation of the funds so i think there's a lot of interest in getting on with the restoration starting with the projects that everybody thinks would be important, and that money will be allocated to each

of the states in part and to the two federal trustees for projects not only along the coast, but also in the open ocean so there is now a formal process for funneling money into the early restoration, and i echo your hope that it will go to the right things and the right people. >> yeah, i think the exxon-valdez spill people were anxious to sthoa they were doing something, they were steam cleaning rocks, but they killed organisms. [laughter] they looked busy, but your point is well taken that you want to do something that doesn't just look good, but makes sense. more questions? >> yeah, thanks, richard. i'm with ocean communications group, and i thank you all for being here. this is a terrific conversation. i know you are busy doing good stuff. i have a good news, bad news question. the bad news was the spill in the gulf. nobody wanted that to happen. the good news is some of the

stuff we're hearing tonight, and so i have a question about human nature, and i wonder if you can just reflect on your experiences about communicating around some of these issues. clearly, when we have a crisis, it's so easy to get the word out that there's an oil spill or a fishery that's closed or there's a die out of or an explosion somewhere. when we have good news stories to tell and things are not as bad as you think they are, it seems to be really hard to get to the surface to talk about those things, and it's interesting when you look at neuroscience and social marketing and human behaviors because we all say, all of us here, we want good news, we want to hear the good news, but yet when we try to communicate and get it out, it's always one the biggest challenges. your reactions, thoughts, and advise would be appreciated. ..

>> isn't removed properly. >> you're not talking about the capacity of americans, are you? [laughter]

>> another fact that we know from the oil spill, that is a rapid method for screening. but then after you see people with under control conditions and the sample is subsidized and that they have to -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt this a little off the topic of the question. >> it went for the formal testing. of that formal testing the levels of the aromatic hydrocarbon if only shown 100 to 0,000 of the level of concern. if we take it one step further

the fda cannot two weeks ago and said we did the calculations, you have to eat 60 pounds of shrimp a day for five years to approach the level of concern. we are trying to get americans to eat to seafood meals a week. >> do you think we should be eating 60 pounds a day of shrimp? >> just let me know where you want me to ship it. [laughter] >> what about the question i know something you thought about is how deutsch to communicate when things have changed how do you convince people things have changed? what do you do? >> that is an excellent question but if i could i want to thank the lady who said she came down after katrina. there was a challenge in the gulf coast. thank you for coming.

was much appreciated. that is a great challenge house in this situation how many were you aware in the tylenol scare of the 70's? you probably remember it. was a small isolated incident but it changed marketing forever , and today i can still think about the tylenol scare. you were granted last year by seeing oil gushed out below the surface for 80 some days and then you heard about it a shorter period of time. how do we change that? we can't go back and two earned media which is basically the evening news, and you have to remember during the valdez, the evening news and you had the newspaper, morning to evening newspaper, you've got the internet, 24/7 so the branding was more complete this time. what we are going to have to do

and bp contribute to the loveless as well as the federal government, what we have to do is understand what synopsis are in the consumer's mind and message them out of that connection where we can change a bill we are never going to forgive the tylenol scare we have to convince them through the agency and other federal agencies we've seen the work she does of the universities that what they saw isn't what is happening in seafood. the black streak wasn't oil. it's not bring to be easy. we have to be paid media and get ted danson to stand up in front of the everybody and say it a hundred times. [laughter] [applause] >> we worked together for many years. i think part of the problem is we have come out of an era without being partisan of the

science wasn't on the throne, and wasn't leading the way so then you have people who we are all full for self-interest and every industry once their way so science of a sudden started to get down played, and you lost trust people would say something and it wouldn't be true. if we let science lead the way again so we can say okay, the activist is saying this and the industry is saying something or another but science, people there to protect us and letting science lead the way are saying this i think we will rebuild trust, people will allow the positive message to come through. we are conditioned to go i don't really know. it that's true. anyway, i'm grateful for what

you do. thank you. [applause] >> we have time for one more short question, short answer and then i promise to get you out of here on time. the hour is nearing. were not your wineglass tankers. last question. >> my name is lee donley yew. i transferred up north to the environmental studies and all my friends from new orleans said it was bad and they were affected by it and their dads or shrimp catch a man, they said it was affected and i am sort of confused as to ifill was that that why are you sitting up their saying it's okay. i mean a million dollars here and there from bp? i don't understand how that's going to help as much as people say it is providing we have a few billion dollars we need to

get in order to fix the damage done and also, what are of the interesting things to make sure this doesn't happen again? we have these psas announcements what is going on to make sure this doesn't happen again not only the unfair mental standpoint but the fishermen standpoint. >> first of all, about the impact, i feel we talked a little about the environmental impact and specifically focusing much of your attention on the impact of seafood the french family oil spill commission as how devastating this bill was to the region. the economy, the tourism industry, the seafood industry, and it was remarkable about how effective with the experts call the social fact.

there were people just anxious about things that translated to child abuse and crime. this was on the heels so we shouldn't understand just because we talk about the ecological impact of this bill, this was a devastating, devastating the event. we should take every step, meaning citizens, the industry, that it doesn't happen again. our recommendation is to help in that not only the government but the industries of rick symbol we recommend that the industry and establish a safety institute much like the nuclear industry where they actually stand up experts and self police, the hold each other to highest stands and we should expect that. >> thank you very much.

we have for june and mine waiting to read i have a little instructions. [applause] >> let me give you a quick note to filkins norbeck if you haven't already, i guess everyone already figured on a goal of the door, run for the food. [laughter] ted danson will be going to the dinosaur hall to sign books in the dinosaur hall and other cookbooks and chefs are available for purchase that we signed as well. so anyway, have fun. [inaudible conversations]

public citizen and its washington, d.c. office. this is one hour. >> thank you all for joining us today. i'm the president of public citizen's and pleased you could join us for this latest engagement with our 40 the anniversary speaker series public citizen has been around now for 40 years after being founded in 1971, working for

strengthening our democracy, protecting health and safety and we've been advancing justice. we recognize all of the diverse interest we have to ultimately can't be realized unless we have a functioning democracy, and above all elections system. we are pleased today to host cynthia, the chair of the federal election commission. she will make over few remarks for us and open for questions for you all. cynthia is as i said the chair of the fcc and served since 2008. prior to that she worked as a staff member in the senate for senator schumer on the rules committee and prior to that worked as a lawyer in private practice. the fec is an interesting government agency and has authority for making sure that your collection system is

working properly, but many critics including i think even the committee recognized it isn't functioning so properly right now and i'm sure we will be hearing about that. the fcc has received unusual attention from an unexpected source in last several weeks and most comedian steven colbert has filed with the commission on some strange tissues and i'm sure i will have a chance to talk about that as well. with that i will hand the floor over to you and will be great to hear what you have to say. as the mcgovern to congressional and public citizens on the good work on behalf of the public and thank you for the invitation to be here and for coming on such an incredibly hot day to hear but campaign finance law. i think for many that wasn't the interest in the topic but lately it has certainly become much more interesting and has garnered the attention of as

mentioned our late night, the host and we know that once it seeks and at that level then the public knows about an issue once you can get on late night comedy. so, we can agree that it can't be criticized for developing to slowly. even in the timeframe when i agreed to come and speak to you it's in a major decision in virginia about the constitutionality of corporate contributions. i will speak a little bit more about that but a fast-paced area and the commission has to keep up with that. i will preface my remarks by saying they are my own and should not be attributed to any of my colleagues to read it will surprise you to know that there's disagreement among my colleagues about what all should be. i know my colleague is here so you might ask him his opinion as

well on any of these issues. we tend to agree more often than not what some of our other colleagues we disagree with. >> and citizens united i broaden the little bit because the citizens united certainly was a landmark decision and got a lot of attention last year. a couple cases have been significant in shifting landscape and brought full circle to where we are today. and i want to know in particular the role in this. the fec doesn't read the law and we don't decide whether they are constitutional. we have an important but limited role in this process is to administer the campaign finance act, this spending provision of the presidential funding act, and to make sure that the law is being enforced and to develop relations when the statute provides some rules for the agency to do so.

so while it is a substantial goal, it is not that of the article for free court to decide the constitutionality of it and it is not that of congress to pass the law in the first place. one of the functions is the disclosure of the act. that is everything that happens in the campaign finance area and the commission that does go through publishing all the reports the committees are filing with us. we review every page of the reports to make sure they are accurate and where we have questions please send a further information to make sure the public record is as accurate as possible. and there's been a lot of this discussion particularly after citizens united, questions about whether we are getting enough, whether people who are supposed to be reporting are actually reporting and in april the "los angeles times" did a report

about some of the nation's leading companies and while they seem to be reporting their own spending they are not reporting their contributions to other food parties who are engaging in this activity on their behalf and public citizen's to a major report on the anniversary of the decision about what kind of spending happened after citizens united and what kind of disclosure was or was not happening as a result of that. so disclosure whether through reporting or the disclaimers we see on advertising provides the public with important information of who was funding that speech, and that is an interest the supreme court has repeatedly held as a governmental interest as recently as citizens united. i find it interesting we often talk about the part to part of citizens united that struck the band of bolting the disclosure provision in statute, so there is broad support of the supreme court for the interest.

with respect to the corporate prohibition on in an independent expenditures and in dependent spending, citizens united certainly was the turning point, but there had been clues in earlier cases about the court view of some of these provisions. in wisconsin right to life and massachusetts citizens for life the court previously chipped away at that statutory prohibition and of course citizens united struck it down entirely. so while it was surprising perhaps procedurally in that case, the court had already limited a and narrowed that statutory prohibition. another case that came out shortly after citizens united, that contribution limits are unconstitutional for individuals who want to fund an independent expenditure only organization. the independent expenditures they were not going to coordinate and provide to the

candidate and the court found that individuals could spend unlimited amounts of their own money in and independently by analogy if you want to provide a contribution to an organization who is going to make those expenditures independently that would also be the constitution requires that to be unlimited as well. some citizens ian did and speech now upheld the organizational requirements we find in the act, the essentials part of what makes them required to report whether some as a political committee or not but did for independence speech mexicans can departures from the underlying statute. one of the major court decisions come down the fcc has an obligation to respond to them we wouldn't be in the constitutional and we are presented with an advisory opinion and organizations who

want to take certain actions can present the request of the commission for its decision and based upon that can take a particular course of action and to citizens united and a speech now last year and it helps us further define the way of the land in this area. and in politics for a long time it wanted to create within its structure is connected independent only political committee as if we didn't have enough acronyms and campaign finance law we have to have one more so independent expenditure and they want to create a separate committee that would be connected to the corporate structure but independent from the contributions side. of the commission found there was a permissible structure and they could accept unlimited

contributions to the independent expenditure only committee, but no the opinion there is a potential for the contribution that is raised whenever an organization who is making contributions might have some connection to an organization that is making independent spending. so for example, someone working on the contributions side had a meeting to discuss the benefits of an independent expenditure that might raise coordination issues so the flag that issue for the public and for the requesters and that matter. we have another advisory called common sense ten. it wanted to combine the holdings of the basically speech now citizens united, speech now says an independent expenditure only organization could accept unlimited contributions and they wanted to leave that with citizens united which says independent spending by corporations is permissible

cause of the commission agreed on that request they could accept unlimited contributions for independent speech from corporations and labour unions that were affected by the citizens united decision. finally we had a request from an organization called national defence pact. in national defense pact wanted to do something similar but in a different organizational way. within their organization which has for a long time made contributions and worked of candidates to endorse on issues it deems important wanted to set up an independent expenditure account so not a separate organization but simply a separate account. the commission could not give an answer for that request as to whether it was permissible or not. it's one of those the commission was set free-3 and the rationale for both commissioners as available on the web site in that edify is a real opinion

filed, but basically because the organization made contributions, and number including commissioner walter and myself for existed dvd concerned it precluded that arrangement and so further action up by the court. and that may be coming because to have that advisory opinion reviewed by the court and as you are aware the fec massoud frequently had to prove the point we are sued for being too lax regulatory and too lenient, the representatives of van hollen recently said sat over our communications legislation so that this in court as well. as you look around the country will see there are a number of cases, with a challenging the federal statutes are similar and state statutes in the work. i feel this fair to say they

will be more development in this area as they are to come. all of this was a major shift in the landscape of what we had previously understood of the campaign finance law that corporations were generally prohibited from the general spending funds on elections. and for that i think raises issues of disclosure and coordination and political committee status to a new level. all of them were more important than before but with of the new speaker's i think they have a greater significance. that isn't to say that the status of the corporate contributions and what happened in daniel tech this week are an important but there are issues the commission can decide in the commission's jurisdiction and that's not one of them. there are lots of them like the status and reporting better within the agency jurisdiction and that is where we can focus

our efforts. i provide a personal perspective i think we can be doing more on disclosure, and i think we should be. i think the commission should consider after citizens united whether the disclosure rules need updating. for example, there is a cross reference to some of the provisions the court struck down in the reporting so what seems to me in a minimum we have to do that cleanup, and i think it wouldn't be too much either to ask whether we should reconsider some of the disclosure requirement given citizens united. if you follow the commission you know in january we were unable to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on citizens united. and i want to ask the pub public whether we should ask these questions and gather public comment on the reporting ruled it with respect to foreign nationals. another group implicated by the

citizens united decision because corporations can't send independently the issues about whether it domestic subsidiary of the corporation to they have the same rights of a domestic corporation issues about that but the commission would like to seek public comment on. and we are going to try to do to see if we can come up with those to try to tell these important questions. i would also note we have some petitions pending on these issues before the commission, and there's a procedure in general administrative law that asks if we received a petition to put it out for public comment so we are able to put those petitions out and eager to seek public comment on the petitions and anyone who follows the petition they think there's an issue the commission should be addressing so there are lots of ways to put issues before the

commission, and also in the of our documents are handled of our open meetings made available to the public, and the public can comment on any of those. there is a formal process commenting on advisory opinions, so whether you are or not doesn't matter we are interested in hearing comments from everyone and i assure you they will be read. we've read everything that comes into the door. and again, anything that goes on is available to the public ahead of time and an area of interest and need for comment we are happy to hear that as well. i find it disappointing as of yet we have not been able to seek public comment on these issues. i think it is part of our job to try to provide as much guidance as possible to those to comply with the law. the committees that follow us and need to file reports with us, those making independent

expenditures and communications and file appropriate reports we have an obligation to provide them with as much assistance in that process as possible because if we can get those reports out frankly the first time the public has the information it needs in a timely way to understand what is going on, and just for a moment on the amount of the disclosure i know that there's a lot of discussion about who the need for additional disclosure, and it's the fec we are limited to the statute so if the major purpose is the election and federal candidate and they send a thousand dollars they meet our definition. if they don't meet our definition, that is out of our jurisdiction. they may be in the jurisdiction of someone else. 527 has required obligations and the fcc provided shareholders to have comments encore grecian

spending but we have a limited ability to reach the spending and i know that there are seals and congress to try to expand that. but as of yet, that's what we are trying to work with. i think disclosure is incredibly important. it's becoming more important as there are more speakers. ..

>> to make informed decisions and give proper weight to such speakers and messages. not long after citizens united in another matter, another case in front of the supreme court called doe versus reed which was about the disclosure in referendums in california, i note that justice scalia issued a concurrence. because he didn't think that the disclosure petitions should be treated in the way the majority did. misconcurrence was notable. there are laws against threats and intimidation. short of unlawful action is a price people have been willing to pay for self-governance. requiring people to stand up in government for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. i find it notable, you won't find me quoting justice scalia

all thatch. i think he's right. i think it's a tradition in the country. where it was the soapbox on the street corner, you knew who was speaking. disclosure has been a part of civic. i think we will hear disclosure and the ramifications as the pressure mounts. including shareholders right to have a say on spending, and that sort of thing. i think that one thing that's notable is consumers, like voters, have had access to information for a long time. and voters like consumers can engage in behavior in response of that information. i grew up in a household because i couldn't have nestle quick. at that time, they were

promoting baby formula in africa. mothers across the country thought that was inappropriate. they took action with the pocket book. that has been a tried and true form of consumer response to corporate behavior. i think the montgomery boycott, busboy -- bus boycott that had effect. and i think voters have that right and consumers to be able to respond to as i think the supreme court put it, make informed decisions and give proper weight to speakers and messages. and the commission does have some role to play in this, as i said. the commission is not doing as much as i might like or my colleagues. it does promote transparency, accountable, it provides the public with a clear and accurate public record in the form of the reports that the committees file with us.

the commission and it's dedicate the staff will be making sure the data is available quickly and clearly on our record. and we also provide that data to organizations who are interested in the bulk data. organizations that look -- sort that information and try to gather some broader lessons from what's happening in the spending. we also will continue to engage in our advisory opinion process to provide as many answers as we can to clarify what the law is happening. we have some very interesting requests pending, including mr. colbert's. i'm not going to able to talk about them, they are pending. look forward to commission action. it is an important role for the fcc to provide as much guidance as we to specific questions. so i've heard recently of the calls for -- from some in the reform community that you should just shutter the agency and say use that, use our money to start

paying down the deficit. this mind sound self-serving, but i disagree. i think the agency provides a very important public service. while it's true bedeadlock on more things and the hard things. the fcc data reports would disappear and the public would have no information. i think it's safe to say. those concerned who are concerned about the state of campaign finance law and disclosure, i have to believe it wouldn't be a desired result for them as well. with that, i'll be happy to take any questions. i'll be even happier if i could answer them for you. i'll let you go. >> thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> let me start with a few, if i may. the problem, you know, the issue of disclosure as you know, citizens united opened the flood gates far lot of corporate money

to come in. a lot of that money is coming through channel that is are not disclosing it,501c4 and trade association. that's not the result of supreme court, but an fcc holding in the past. can you comment on that, or what steps can we take by the commission to get the disclosure in this big area, growing area of secret funding? >> i think to be able to respond to that, i think you need -- i'm not sure what you mean by an fcc holding in the past. if you are talking about freedoms watch or the regulation s -- >> regulations that the fcc has. >> uh-huh. yeah, okay. >> you know, it took a long time for congress to finally amend the federal election campaign act to give full disclosure. but they succeeded with the mccain-feingold. we essentially had near 100% of

the disclosure of all of the money going into outside groups that was being spent on independent expenditures and engineering communications. but the fcc narrowed that in 2007 to apply only to donations that were earmarked for a specific political expenditure. which no one does. and as a result we've seen disclosure fall from 100% down to 50% in 2010. and it'll drop much lower as we go into 2012. this is the fcc regulation. are you going to revisit that? >> well, we have been trying to revisit that. and as you are aware, congressman van hollen has fired a lawsuit over one the electioneering piece. you are right, the statute and regulation have different scopes. and we have made an attempt to try to seek public comment on

whether the commission should revisit that regulation. thus far we have not been able to put that notice of proposed rulemaking out the door. >> well, this raises the issue that you are referring to about the deadline. you are on the commission, it's awkward to talk about it. but what's the way out of this? obviously the calls to shut down the agency because people are frustrated, things aren't happening. >> well, i think it's partly a challenge of structure. the agency requires four votes to accomplish and take any action. frankly, the agency is what i would describe as sort of, you know, non -- not from an administrative level. but fairly a reactive agency. complaints are filed with us, we do have the ability to go back and revisit any of our regulations. but the reality is it's probably not going to happen. but when we get petitions in front of us to open the role making, we have to consider those. we have to consider the petition.

we have to consider advisory opinion request. we consider comments that come in on the advisory opinions or other policies that the agency is adopting. so i think it is a challenge of structure but i also think that there are mechanisms to force us to take what action we can and those do exist for the public or organizations to take. and i think, you know, again it is a group of six individuals. i think all of us are trying to do -- serve the agency in the way that we might see fit. some of us disagree about what the role of the agency is. >> any questions from the room? can you identify yourself please? >> i was wondering on citizens united if you might have an opinion on whether reformers might have gone too far with the $5,000 limit on contributions to

pac for individual, not a corporate, but a human being, and if it hasn't has been for that, no sympathy from the court for the inability to make their movie and promote it without violating those statutes? well, i think what's true about this area of the law, it's always -- as you know, it takes a long time to get any of these laws through congress. i think it's hard to describe any of them as anybody but a compromise to actually get itly congress. and again there has been more unanimous -- more support in congress for things like disclosure in the past. that showed up. it's hard for me to say that, you know, 5,000 or 10,000. that wasn't the issue in citizenned university. it was about whether the operation can run it's adds about it's product. the court took it a step further

and struck down the ban itself. but i think it's hard to it's easy in hindsight to go back and say we should have written it differently this way or the fcc should have done something different. i think we are where we are. the court did something that surprised everyone involved in the case. so our job is to implement that decision. >> you talked about the myriad of challenges that the fcc is facing. republicans have talked about eliminating the reflection commission which existed prior to the eac founding. in your opinion, your personal opinion, does the fcc have the capacity to do that? would it be a good thing? how would you be able to juggle it with your current jurisdiction? as you noted, it's challenging

enough as is. >> i will tell you exactly what i told the members of congress in a letter that we wrote to them on this issue. it's congress' determination and prerogative to decide where certain responsibles land. some of these responsibilities actually did exist at the fcc in terms of clearinghouse of information. havo which created the eac and created the entire funning of pool that goes to states to modernize. that didn't exist before havo. if we do get additional responsibles, we would need the appropriate level of funding. obviously the eas has it's own budget and contracts and personnel to do a lot of this work. so if we were to absorb those, we would need an appropriate level of resources to do as well. that's congress' call as to whether that's an appropriate way to address the issues that

were behind setting up the agency in the first place. the concerns that were addressed in havo. >> i have two questions, the first one, i don't know if you'll answer it, are there any members of the fcc commission who are against the fcc that you feel work, them, they are actually there because they are against the fcc and that's why they reappointed number one? the second one is in the light of the -- in the light of the situation that we find ourselves with the strategic computer voting scam across the nation and on the rise. i sometimes feel that the election -- that citizens united and all of the things talking about disclosure and election spending. it's almost as if they have distracted us with all of that and it's quite complex. they have just stolen the eggs

out of the hen house. i lived in a county in 2004 when we were 18 points off of the exit poles on the presidential election. it threw my state. and that was nevada and that was washo county. would you ever recommend that we follow what germany has done, which the german high court which is one the better courses the at least money oriented court in the european union, certainly. they have outlawed computer voting. because they say it violates the german institution, as the affect of counting the votes in private, or your votes are counted by somebody you don't know. so those were my two questions. >> okay. this is one going to be one of those areas where i'm going to disappoint you. i can't answer either of your questions.

i can't speak to the views of my colleagues on the role of the agency or why they were appointed. obviously, i was one of those who was appointed. i wasn't the one appointing. and with respect to election administration issues like computers, our role is campaign finance. so the spending of money and in our system, and this is -- i meet with -- i have an opportunity in this job which is fascinating to me that representatives of election commissions around the world. and in many countries, they have a unified body where they handle at a federal level both the campaign finance and election administration side. that doesn't happen in in country. we have standard, of course, by the eac and by federal law. but the administration about choosing, you know, which particular machines to use if so long as they meet certain standards are handled by states. a state has a cheap election administration official and those decisions are made at the state level. we are fairly unique in a world in that sense.

but that has been the determination that the federal law exists to create some standards and ensure access, disability access, voting rights act, obviously, to ensure access for all. but we don't -- at the commission we certainly don't deal with those. frankly at the federal level, we don't deal a lot with particular technologies, other than to set some standards. >> angela with reuters. you said you'll look at trying to ask the questions related to clarifying disclosure after citizens united? first what are the odds that you'll get an different outcome that you got last time. two, could you be more specific about what questions about disclosures you'd like to be asked for the public? >> sure. our agenda for next week is up on the web site if you want to see the specifics on that. there should be a document -- full document with that shortly. it'll be fairly long.

similar to what we had hoped to do in january, ask some questions about the reg that was adopted in 2007, a few questions about independent expenditures, and some questions about whether we should -- whether we should reconsider some aspects of foreign nationals in light of the decision. it's a much narrower set of questions than we had proposed in january. but we think there's a critical mass of questions that should get asked. certainly not everything that i think some of us might like. but it is an attempt to try to get some consensus from some of our colleagues. i'm not sure about the success rate. we're going to keep -- wii going to try again because it's an important issue. and as you'll notice also on the agenda are petitions that have been filed by both the james madison center and representative van hollen,

because we can't put out an nprm, we need to address the petitions individually. so that's where we are. >> there's an increase number of 3-3 votes on the commission. i think more lately last year than you've had in the previous ten years or whatever. why do you think there's an increasing number of splits? >> i think -- again, it's very different for me to speak for my colleagues. in many of the 3-3 split we write statements of reasons. i wouldn't presume to speak for any of my colleagues on my particular case with respect to that. i think there are a couple of things that they have said publicly and we have said publicly in terms of what's going on, and some of it is about how broadly to read cases. some of it as we mentioned this area, you know, if you go, you

know, once mccain-feingold was passed and largely upheld, mcconnell, -- i think some of us thought there might be some calming of the waters. obviously, the courts have taken -- have been interested and taken and made some big changes to the law. there have been some changes. again, i point you back to the statements of reasons and those cases because i don't think it would be far for me to even try to speak to my colleagues on that. i can only explain to you why i make the decisions that i make and a basis for them. >> talking points memo. the ensign case that's a matter that's closed. we're hoping you can speak about. in that case, the fcc went against remits to look into the payment and whether or not it was a gift from his parents or severance package.

the fcc took him at his word. it would have been difficult to get at some of the documents. do you think that's something in retrospect that makes people lose faith? >> i can't speak to how people feel. we have an enforcement process. for example, a complaint is filed. it filed to the name and complaints identified as respondents. we get a response. we have to make a determination on those two documents. that's all we have. before we can do an investigation, we have to make an initial determination based on what we're presented. and so we have to rely on that. again, i'll cite you back to the commissioners reasoning for what we relied on in that particular matter to reach the determination that we did. we had before us in any

enforcement case, we have a fairly limited set of information. until we find reason to believe we cannot go and do -- we don't have the power to do an investigation prior to making the decisions. we have to rely on what's in front of us. as we said in that statement, we relied on what we'd been told. >> i wonder if the fcc can address any of the jurisdiction. you have the power to regulate or oversight the matter, other than the campaign report. campaign financing report. because the election is not whether the committee can file the report, but also any other which will obstruct the election process or obstruct the exposure

or legislature or anything that can be obstructed. i wonder if you can -- can the fcc do this area? be sure not only corporate media can broadcast or have advertise the campaign but also the public which can really base on the equality and have equal opportunities rather than their limited to certain candidates or corporate refer candidates or republican candidates? so in every direction, it really affect our democracy. including the local election of these or election office, then we are the candidate and put other by the fall on the comment on the campaign reform --

campaign report so they heard some candidates. i just wondered if at the federal level do you have a better protective approach to promote banners and equality and for federal candidates that public can really broadcast our candidates? but not happen to be true. i wonder if you could offer sight or examine this kind of allegation or compliant? >> the jurisdiction of the fcc is limited to those areas specified in the federal election campaign act. those don't directly deal with things like access to the media. the fcc has jurisdiction over that. the only one provision that is required is that basically television candidates -- stations can't gouge candidates and charge them more than they would charge other folks for the

same amount of time. but our system in the united states is many layered. it's everything from the local election administration offices to federal law that allows for presidential funding. it doesn't happen as a centralized place in our country. the federal election campaign act deals with the campaign funding side and the disclosure of that funding and the adds, for example, that campaigns may put up on the air, they are required to have disclaimers about who paid for them and that sort of thing. we don't really have the capacity to address all of the issues that you've raised. we do address some of them in terms of making sure that all candidate committees, political committees, anyone who has participated follows the same set of rules. it doesn't matter whether you are running on the ballot asthma jr. party, minor party, or

independent, all of the same rules apply. some of the things about ballot access are set at state level. that's how it works in our system. >> hi, i'm an intern and i go to uva. i have two quick questions. having an odd number on people help, 5, 7, 9 to take decisions? also do you forsee the, you know, the limits at 5,000 per individuals and corporations to go away before 2012? are any of these things good or bad for the political system in your opinion. >> first is the structure. i think that you can certainly look around to independent agencies. they also have an appointed

chair which actually also allows the person to set the agenda and move things more quickly. we have a rotating chair. i service the chair and rotate to my colleague, carolyn hunter next year. it's a rotating chair which affects the ability of the person to have a lot of impact on the agenda or the outcomes of the agency. perhaps a different number would make some difference. but i think -- -- there has been a lot of discussions in congress about how to create a better agencies, specific proposals about how to create a different agency that has been argued to be better. i guess i live in the practical. this is the agency that we have. this is the agency that i'm appointed to. my job is to do the best that i can while i'm here and try to make it work as best that i can. you know, it's up to someone else to decide whether i'm succeeding or failing at that. i tell you i come to work trying

to make it work the best that i can and making sure the agency is running from top to bottom. yes, we've had a lot of 3-3 splits. those happen in the hard enforcement cases and they are important. there's a lot of work that happens at the agency that has little to do with who's sitting in the commissioners office. all of the disclosure, our web site which is a great resource for people. we have, you know, we have an 800 line to call and talk to a live person about what campaign finance lories. part of the job is to make sure the public record is accurate and we need to help make sure people are filing accurate. when i tried to file the irs, they didn't have a person who would help me. i think we -- you know, while i heard the argument that we aren't doing enough and we deadlock on the hard stuff, i do think we do a lot of public good in terms of providing a public record for voters, for those who

are contributing to campaigns to know what's going on and if people see problems with that, then they can either take action in their own way, like in voting, or if they see something that's a concern, they can file a complaint. we do provide an important -- the aspect of disclosure is fundamental to the law. >> we were hoping that you might be able to talk a little bit about how the internet as changed, the interpretations of a lot of these rules. you are reading previous rules written prior to the -- a lot of the more technology innovations that campaigns are using today and sort of the difficulty in interpreting for how they apply. >> it's difficulty not only for the regulations or sat -- statute. the origin gnat -- original statute was written 30 years ago. they said the commission was not going to be applying the regulations to the internet.

the internet is a cheap and easy way for people to engage in a lot of communications. the one exception is ads placed by political committees on a web site. if you are paying for an ad, then you do have to follow the disclosure disclaimers requirements that exist in the regulations. so it is a challenge. and i think the challenge is knowing exactly how to respond to it. because we could update our rules, for example, to figure out what to do with twitter. i'm guessing in fife -- five years, people will think of twitter like napster. a long time ago. it's dangerous to try to keep up with technology. technology is changing. i think those innovations are good for campaigns. it's a way for the public to be very involved, grassroots way. you don't have to have a lot of money to be able to, you know, push out information of your own on your twitter feed or your

blog on anything like that. we have largely -- and the commission took the approach in the role making that would stay off of -- stay out of the internet's way, other than like i said, ads placed for a fee on someone's cite by a campaign. campaign when their own web site are required to have disclaimers. any of the requirements that fall on to campaigns and what they do on the internet, they have to continue to comply with those. if they are raising funds, on the internet, for example, they have to follow all of the other require manies that go along with the listening funds under the act. >> you have a petition filed. jim baht, the lawyer of citizens united filed and planned to have a new super package. they would have candidates running and office holds raise unlimited sums of money for super pac and use that money on the campaigns. they didn't file a petition

saying for an opinion, but you did get one from a couple of democratic super pacs. i know you can't talk about the petitions, is this something to tackle or a timetable for trying to tackle that issue. >> you know us well enough to know i can't comment on one standing. the statute requires us to follow up within 60 days. that's the time frame. you'll see a lot of activities in advisory opinions over the next two morns to try to address all of those within the time frame. we can under the statute get an extension from folks. but we really do try to answer them within the 60 days. >> my question is asking you to revisit something you brought us at the beginning of your remarks. which is what i think we could agree is a surprising decision in virginia and early. any observations you might have

about how it would play out as you move forward with the st. ss united and also through the 2012 cycle? >> that matter is being handled by another federal agency. i'm not going to talk about the case in particular. i would just note as i think the opinion did that last month in the a circuit, found sort of the opposite found a different way. and there was a decision last year out of the 2nd circuit that also concluded in a different way. so again because another -- you know, the department of justice will handle that. i'm not going to get in their way of that. but i think they given there has been two other supreme court -- two other circuit court decisions on that, i would note that seems to be -- it seems to be not in keeping with those decisions. >> every attempt at public campaign financing involves giving public funding to candidates.

do you think it would be doable for congressional elections to make it so that voters have an allowance or fact of voucher to give $20 of public money to the favorite candidate. would that be something that the fcc might need to expand but the fcc could oversee? is that doable? >> well, i'm not -- i'm not familiar with the program exactly like the one you just described. look around to the different states. there's a number of different models for how voters can provide some ability to special candidates. in minnesota, for example, there's a -- basically up to $50, i believe, you can get it back -- your money back in sort of a tax refund. so that's in the fact looks like a lot what we think of it public financing in terms of turning government money over to candidates. so, you know, there's models all over the country for this. there are a number of bills introduced in congress about how

to bring a public financing system to the congressional level. not just at the presidential level. and obviously there's have been a lot of discussions and legislation proposed on how to refine the presidential system as well. and so, again, you know, if those bills were to pass congress, we would implement them in the appropriate way. >> are you comfortable at all steps back from the particular cases before you to request the administrative opinion and so on and looking at the landscape as you know to many of us seeps horribly flawed right now. not just with the completely inadequate disclosure, but the system itself. offer any perspective on that which doesn't involve anything that's before the commission now. i think for a lot of us, recognizing the dynamics on the commission right now, it seems like an opportunity to be more forthright, you know, help drive the process forward to get us

out of where we are. if we were able to move, it's not really addressing the underlying deep flaws in the system. >> right. well, i think the challenge is that we administer a statute. and the statute does have -- again the statute don't exactly meet up. that statute is -- our reg, i'm sorry, is before a court right now. i'm not going to spend a lot of time, you know, talking about that. because the agency is defending it's newly adopted reg in court. but i think what's -- from my perspective, what's important to note that in all of our discussion of what free speech requires, that's an -- you know, obviously a fundamental right, critically important, but that has always been balanced against other governmental interest. and in terms of prohibitions, that's been corruption or the appearance thereof with disclosure, the court has repeatedly said that it isn't --

because it is not a ban, it does not need the same level of interest. and it has identified as a very important governmental interest the ability of voters to know who's speaking. and so i think that while there is obviously concern about some of the decisions that i understand the concern that has been raised about some of the decisions. i think it's important to also focus on what the court has been telling us about disclosure and how important it is and how valid it is. constitutionally valid, it's been repeatedly held so. that's the area to focus. in terms of what we can do -- the statute covers, you know, political committees. that may not cover the entire landscape of those who are speaking in some way that a voter might consider to be participating in an election. we have the colonial and i think

we know what we mean we think about that. the commission extends to political committees or those who are engaging in electioneering communication or independent expenditures. those are defined terms and defined by the act and narrowed by the court. i appreciate the frustration, i really do with the idea that we're not getting as much disclosure as we think we should get. but some of that is out of our hands, frankly. some of it is not. i hear that criticism. that's why we are trying to do more of the area of disclosure. but some of it is based on the very technical definitions that have come from the statute and from court decisions. >> let me take one more try. so understood, stepping back from the jurisdiction of the agency, just -- you know, as the

head of an agency that has an important view of those, electoral landscape and campaign spending landscape. going beyond disclosure, are you able to say anything about how the system looks or in a deeper reform you'd be interested in seeing apart from disclosure? >> in terms of things like public financing -- there's sort of -- >> public financing for the right corporation to spend money for the idea that unlimited spending equalsss -- you know -- >> do you have me to give a dissertation on buckley? >> not a dissertation, just a comment. >> i think -- you know, i think i've expressed my personal views at the importance of disclosure and frankly of the, you know, i don't agree with the approach

that enormous speak is the only way the first amendment can be satisfied. so -- but -- i think, you know, you'll have to -- you'll have to forgive me. my role is administrator. and we have a specific role. whether i agree or disagree is irrelevant. the job that i have to do on a daily basis. if there's a day in the near future where i'm no longer serving, i'll be happy to tell you all of the thoughts. i have lots them. i've been in the area for quite some time both on the campaign and on the hill and -- but, frankly in the current role, it's irrelevant. my jobs is to follow the supreme court decisions and i think frankly other people's jobs is to explain why they think they are wrong or right and to ask us for action to take

action on that, provide us with comment and input where you can. but i have to -- i have to stick to my role and i'll hope you'll even begrudgedly perhaps respect that. >> i will. >> thank you. [laughter] >> it was a good effort. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> now available, c-span's

congressional directory. inside, information including twitter addresses, district maps, committee assignments, supreme court justices and senators. order online at c-span.org/shop. last month the social security and medicare fund trustees released their annual life-support on the financial solvency of both federal programs. now you'll hear from two of the trustees on the programs current fiscal state and future outlook. the capital hill forum was hosted by george mason university. it's an hour and 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. good afternoon. we're going to go ahead and get started.

i know people are still sort of coming in and you need to -- you need to visit the buffet. and that's fine. please continue to enjoy lunch, but in the interest of time, we want to go ahead and get started. i know our panelist have some other commitments this afternoon. so we want to go ahead and get under way. i'm jim musser, i'm the director of economic education at the mercatus center at george mason university. i see a number of friends, and some i don't, new friends, welcome. i hope this is just the first of events you are going to join us. today's program should prove thought provoting and interesting to you. it is our commitment as an organization to do solid university based academy, peer reviewed scholarship.

it's always informed by economics regardless of the issue that our scholars are working on. and we try to make sure that we are bringing you programs and research that is timely and going to be useful in your work in the policy world. economic permeates everything and it certainly permeates the way we think about things. we can't tell you why kind of political decisions that you need to make, but we can help you to ask the right asks. that is our job. for those not familiar with the mercatus center, we are based on the arlington campus of george mason, short trip across the bridge. we are here to be helpful to you. please feel free to call on us. amongst our brilliant scholars is the moderator for today's program, dr. jason fichtner. he's a research fellow and previously served as several positions at the social security

administration. he's uniquely qualified. he was the deputy commissioner of social security, chief economist and associate commissioner for retirement policy there. but it's much deeper than that. prior to the social security administration, dr. fichtner was a senior economist with the congressional joint economic committee and his primary research interest for social security, they include federal tax policy, budget issues as well as policy proposals to increase savings and investment. dr. fichtner started his d.c.-based career as an economist with the research division of the internal revenue service where he forecast return volumes and develop models to assist tax compliance and administrative initiatives. he's received a bachelor of arts degree and a public policy from georgetown university and phd in public administration and public policy from virginia

tech. he serves as adjunct faculty and virginia, where he teaches public policy process, and i think you are about to add another university to that history this fall, johns hopkins. without further ado, i will turn you over to my very learned colleague, dr. jason fichtner. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone, thank you for coming to the mercatus event. i'm senior fellow, i recently had the privilege to serve in a variety of commissions. while at social security, one of my responsibilities was to serve as the secretary to the social security bored of trustees. the trustees consistent of six members. the secretaries of treasuries, labor, hhs and the commissioners

of social security. along with those four are two public trustees nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. unfortunately, over the three years in which i worked in the trustees report, we didn't have the benefit of public trustees. those positions were vacant. unfortunately circumstances where i'm now very glad has been rectified with the combination of charles blahous and robert rice -- reischauer. before i introduce them, i'd like to say 47 million american were covered by medicare in 2010. approximately 150 currently pay in. but these programs aren't just for the old. social security also provides protection for spouses, spouses of deceased workers and children. social security is also an disability insurance program.

last month the trustees of social security and medicare released their annual update on the financial status and health. though i don't want to steal the thunder, a few quick highlights are important. social security now faces a permanent cash flow deficit, no longer bringing enough revenue in. the date of the social security trust fund is now 2036. for the combined trust funds, this is one year earlier than last year's report. this breaks out into 2038, the retirement fund. but the di program, the disability program is in greater peril. the di trust fund is expected to be insolvent in the 2018. the medicare trust fund is now expected to become insell vent in 2024. this is five years earlier than projected in last year's report. the trustees have warned that

reform is necessary. and that's important that reform also happen sooner rather than later. without reform, social security would eventually be only able to pay 3/46 scheduled benefits in 2036 and medicare also faces funding shortfalls. after 2024, tax increase alone will only be enough to finance roughly 90% of cost and decline further to 76% in cost in 2050. attempts by politicians and policy groups over the year to drive change it seems that true reform remains difficult to achieve. this morning senator lieberman introduced -- or announced his plan to introduce legislation to reform medicare, including the eligibility age. when that reform takes place going through the legislative process. we are honored to have with us the two public trustees, first off, i want to introduce dr.

charles blahous, charles blahous is currently a hoover research fellow and serves for the social security and medicare. from 2007 to 2009, dr. blahous served as the director of national economic council, from 2001, he served as the special assistance to the president for economic policy, he's done a variety of issues and been on the senate as a staffer. he's also a highly publicized author including the book on social security and unfinished work and pension wise confronting and understanding other various publications, he also frequently on "e21" he has quantum chemistry from california berkeley and bachelor s from princeton. dr. reischauer is the second, he's a former director of the congressional budget office. before that, fellow of economist

studies at the brookings institute in 1995. dr. reischauer serves on the board of several. he was a member of the medicare payment and advisory commission from 2000 to 2009, and vice chair from 2001 to 2008. so he's very knowledgeable on medicare and payment issues. hehold the bachelor of science from harvard and phd from columbia. chuck and bob will address social security and bob tackle medicare. after the presentations i'll provides comments and start discussion. we will then open the floor from questions from the audience. chuck and bob with two of the most respected political servants or political servants in d.c. and public servants i had the pleasure of working with in my time in d.c. before chuck presents, please join me in welcoming both chuck and bob today. [applause]

[applause] >> thank you very much for that warm and generous introduction. i want to begin by thank the mercatus center. i want to thank jason for his kindness and arranging this and reaching out to me and dr. reischauer. i also just before i beginning, i would like to say it's a great privilege to be a part of the trustees process. i've been particularly fortunate to be paired with dr. reischauer who's been an ideal partner in this work. certainly has been just very informative and warning to be associated with what i believe is a very rigorous process of projects social security and medicare which i believe is serving the public quite well. as jason indicated, our charge as trustees is to report on the financial health of the social security and medicare trust funds. and that's an important thing to

specify. because if you talk to people about the trust funds and social security and medicare, you are going to get a lot different views of the trust funds. at the end of my remashes today, i'd like to leave you with one editorial comment, basically try not to get too caught up in what is a metaphysical debate about the trust funds and what they mean. because the bottom line is regardless of which sides of the trust fund issue one looks at, you arrive at the same conclusion. we have to deal with the finances of social security and medicare. but simply in the interest of spelling out how the trust funds work, and what are the different sources of income to the trust funds and different obligations of the trust funds, i thought what i would do is just begin by walking through some of the nuts and bolts of trust fund financing as manifested in 20120 -- 2010. basically this table shows trust

fund as they occurred last year. we had about $713 billion in expenditures. vast majority is benefit payments. social security is an extremely administrative efficient program. in terms of the revenue sources, trust funds have a lot of different revenue sources. some of the revenue sources are revenues from outside the government. some of them are revenue that is transferred from one to the other. they all add to the balance of the social security trust funds. by far the largest source of rev -- revenue is the social security wage tax. there's an additional $20 billion that came in from the taxation of social security benefits. if you wanted to just stop right there and answer the question, what does the balance of program operations with respect to the balance of incoming tax revenues and outgoing benefit obligations

that the program is setting out, you would find that last year the program ran a deficit of $51 billion. that would be how you would look at the program from a unified budget. the revenue from outside the government coming in and the revenue being sent out -- excuse me, the obligations being sent out. beyond that, there was another $2.4 billion last year in general fund reimbursements. relatively small amount. that is going to be a bigger number this year in 2010 because we have had a temporary reduction in social security payroll tax. that reduction is going to be made up by larger reimbursements from general revenues. but last year and in most years, this number is quite small. so this all adds top -- adds up to a total noninterest of $664 billion last year. if you read through the trustees report, you will often see references to noninterest income. basically if you are looking at

the net balance of the trust balance over time, the net balance of the system, there are places in the trust fund that distinguish from money that was originally deposited and interest earnings upon those original deposits. so the noninterest income basically refers to the first of those concepts, the money that we are directly putting in the trust fund before it earns interest. now you put that together and get a noninterest income deficit relative to expenditures about $49 billion. you'll see that figure mentioned. the trust fund has a balance of $2.6 trillion. that balance earns interest. they are made from the general funds to the social security trust funds. when you add up all of the sources of income, last year social security had $781 billion in total income. causing a net increase of trust fund to about $69 billion. basically those are the nuts and bolts. people emphasize different sides. if you want to emphasize what's

happening with the trust fund and is the trust fund still rising, looking at the increase of $69 billion. if you want to emphasize the social security from a unified budget stand point, you would look up at that $51 billion deficit. this is just basically to walk you through those different nuts and bolts. now going forward a lot of things in the trustees report are expressed as a percentage of taxable payroll. basically as a percentage of social security's basic payroll tax base, the program is predominantly financed. if you want to get a sense of how much the program is costing workers and their employee, you look at these tables which translate everything into percentages of those amounts. what i would draw your attention to this on graph is a couple of things. one is last year in 2010, you had a deficit of expenditures

over tax income for the first time since the is the -- since the 1980s. what is new is defining the era of cash deficits, deficits of tax income relative to expenditures are now a permanent feature. this is the first such trustees report since there has been public trustees that has made such a finding. the other thing that's important to understand is how cost grow in the future. if you look at where expenditures where in 2007 before the baby boomers started claiming benefits and before the rescission hit, it was about 11 and a half percent. but that cost rate is going to rise to about 17 cents on the dollar by the mid 2030s. this as i will explain more later, predominantly reflects population aging. it's a little bit disguised. if you look at the graph, you'll

see a spike in 2009. that's the recession. the recession depressed gdp and stemlated benefit and especially disability and weren't for that spike, what we would see on the chart is study uninterested growth of cost stretching from 2008 to 2035 inclusive. now what ultimately happens in 2036 under current projections is that the trust fund would be deleted and at that point, only enough revenues comes to fund 77% of benefit obligations. now an important point to make is that this in no way implies that we have until 2036 to solve this problem. obviously, that is the nightmare scenario which i will describe a little bit later. even by say 2020, if you look at the relationship between annual expenditures and incoming tax revenue, that gap would be

larger than ever before experienced in social security, even in the so-called crisis years of 1977 and 1982. while we still have positive trust fund balance for several years yet, this should not be taken as implies we can afford to wait until the 2030s to deal with program finances. another graph here is very similar. it just shows the same cost as the percentage of gdp. this is usually for understanding social security in relation to medicare. you can't compare costs under the two programs in the terms of payroll tax bases because they have different. as a percentage of gdp, you can see the relative cost going forward and you can see they are very similar serges and costs, based primarily on population aging. if you look at this pitch, this is the ratio of covered workers paying into social security security