much more brutal and were oppressive regimes of the world have been on libya. it makes that sort of behavior for more likely in other countries across the

that's why it is so exciting for eia to be here with you, the people that build on the data and analysis. this type of feedback is pivotal for improving the products that we produce. i have been the administrator

for nearly two years and i find the will extremely rewarding. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] this morning's opening session is the first of two plenary sessions. the second one will take place during lunch.

please note the change from what is printed in the agenda. james sperling will deliver remarks on the broader national economy. he will also discuss president obama national policy agenda. lisa jackson, the head of the epa, will speak about the connections between clean energy, energy efficiency, health, and the environment. we also welcome the president of shell oil and director of the upstream marketing business. the stock will discuss the importance of taking a global view on the challenges we lisa jackson and martin odom will answer now. some logistics on how to conduct the q&a. volunteers will be handing out question cards. please write down the questions

on the card. that is the way that we will conduct it. you don't need to worry about missing sessions. at this time it is my profound honor to introduce lisa jackson of the u.s. environmental protection agency. in her role as administrator of the epa administrator jackson helps the environment of all-americans. prior to her employment in january 2009 jackson served as chief of staff to the new jersey governor jon corzine at the department of environmental protections. nominated for the role jackson is no stranger to the

organization. before her time in new jersey she spent 16 years with the epa. administrator jackson is a graduate of tulane university and has a degree from princeton university. i welcome administrator jackson to the conference. administrator jackson, the floor is yours. having very many conversations that revolve around the importance of energy. it is an honor to share the podium. i was a shell oil creation and a shell oil scholar.

i have to apologize to you in advance. i just want to offer my public apology. i will try to be brief to save as much time as i can for q&a. my time at the epa has been spent on pollution and the impacts on health and environments. i am certainly going to say more about the work and the energy. i want to begin on a topic that i know is on everybody's mind. that is the price of gasoline. you don't have to look far to read an article or hear an article in your own lives and obviously feel the effects of the spikes in the gasoline

prices, that is putting extraordinary pressures on food family budgets and food prices. the recovery gaining momentum is in some jeopardy. american families are struggling and they recognize the situation we are in is not sustainable on the long-term. the thing driving up those prices at this level at this moment is not the fact that our competitor nations like china and india are increasing demand. at least that is not the primary driver of cost increases yet. i also feel compelled to note upward pressure not coming from any environmental or health regulations. the standards we set are so inaccurately blown for increasing prices on economic challenges that i want to make sure that is not what is happening right now. what appears the most important

factor is our dependence on imported energy, leaving us vulnerable to prices. when something changes thousands of miles away the american people pay for it at the pump. this is something people in this town have been talking about changing for jeer years. we believe that it is time for results. when the president took office america imported 11 million barrels a day of oil. by 2025 we will reduce our net imports by a third. that goal will be met with a plan that produces more oil domesticly and supports the development of innovative,

cleaner fuel. we are already making progress. last year america produced more oil at home than we have in the last seven years. we are taking steps to increase exploration and production. as someone who grew up in new orleans on the gulf coast i don't take safe and responsible protection lightly and neither does the interior department that oversees the operations in the gulf and neither does president obama or the american people who watched the well spill hundreds of millions of gallons of oil into the gulf. personal we have to acknowledge that increasing offshore oil production, as important as it is in the short-term is not a viable, long-term solution.

we consume about 25% of the world's oil and hold about 2% of the world's proven reserves. to secure our energy future we need to come up with better ways to use and produce energy, better ways to power our economy. that means bringing energy costs down by investing in fuel efficient vehicles and fortunately we have a number of successful programs on which to build. last year the energy star program, an e.p.a. program although branded as an independent program helped americans save about $18 billion on their bills. another more recent effort to lower costs for consumers is the clean cars program that the president set in motion in 2009. by bringing together auto companies and workers and environmental groups, we came to an agreement that will result in savings at the pump

for american drivers insuring our vehicles are more fuel efficient than ever before. drivers of the cars that meet these standards are expected to save around $3,000 over the life of their vehicle. nogs saving money for american drivers the clean car program sets the stage for them to create new american jobs. not long ago chrysler committed to adding 1,000 new technicians and general motors plans to hire a thousand people in michigan. 2,000 of our fellow americans have new opportunities because of the certainty of regulations that are built on the simple premise of energy efficiency and the importance of it to our nation's energy future. 2,000 jobs that help to meet environmental standards that we set in motion in the clean cars

program. along with reducing dependence on foreign fuels, president obama has called on us to create a way to a clean energy future. the best opportunities in the field rely on what president obama called the one critical renewable resource that the world cannot match. it is critical that we maintain our leadership and development and use purchasing power to create a market. the president has called for a clean energy standard that will set the goal of generating 80% of the nation's electric supply from renewable sources. we want to put americans to work developing next generation biofuels and capturing wind energy, the world leaders in solar and continue development and production right here in the united states. it is only by supporting our

capacity here we can insure that those renewable energy sources are home grown. of course all of those actions reduce our dependence on foreign fuels, moving towards a clean energy future. that will be beneficial to our health and to our environment. by reducing mercury and acid gases and suit and carbon and other pollutions that are the by product of our burning fossil fuels, we can provide significant health benefits to the american people. we are not waiting around. it is important to do what we can to make current supplies cleaner and healthier for the american people. the efforts taken today builds on a history of success. in the last 40 years we have cut air pollution in the air we breathe by more than half. lead is down more than 90% from

a generation ago. every year since 1990 the clean air act removed 1.7 million tons of pollution from the skies and last year alone it saved 160,000 lives and presented 170,000 trips to the hospital. it is a success story. when the american people look for a law that works for them i point to the clean air act. today's children do not grow up facing the same health threats common a generation ago. there are still millions of americans, young people and adults with asthma in our country today. not long ago e.p.a. proposed the first toxic standards for power plants. these proposed standards will require american power plants to utilize proven and widely pollutant controlled technology to cut harmful emissions of

acid gases. the toxics covered in the standards are pollutants. pollutants linked to neurological problems, developmental disorders in our children and other costly and often fatal health challenges. by proposing the standards we are initiating an effort that simply through the common sense goal of reducing harmful pollution in the air we breathe will save lives and prevent illnesses and save money in our economy. widespread adoption of these standards will prevent an estimated 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks. for the kids they will prevent 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms. for utilities, this will do what the car rule did for auto workers and auto manufacturers, it will provide certainty after 20 years of anticipating these

standards and clarify where investments need to be made to reduce pollution and modernize our grid. let me close by saying the things that i talked about are things that we have to accomplish working together. the depth of the energy challenge facing us and the importance of the opportunities we don't want to miss means we have an important role to play. we are eager to work in good faith with all parties. the path of our experience has taught us the value of hearing every viewpoint. i will give you an example. when e.p.a. proposed the standards under the rsf 2 we heard through extensive public comment and direct conversations the concerns with our analysis of greenhouse gas impacts. we addressed those concerns, relied on the best science and now we have a rule that

respects the needs of agriculture communities and creates jobs and increase farmers income by $13 billion by 2022. we did something similar when we updated our standards for air toxic admissions. we considered the input of workers and communities during the public comment process. they had good ideas. we changed the proposal and cut compliance costs in half. that meant reducing costs by $1.8 billion without sacrificing the health benefits. that is the type of collaboration that makes for environmental process. we are equally concerned about american's health and deeply learned about their economy and gas prices that threat tone break budgets. we owe it all to them to be pushing in the same direction. given the concerns i congratulate you on this

gathering of decision makers and thinkers and business leaders, one of the most important times when you can be gathering. i look forward to your questions. >> thanks. [applause] >> as you can see and have been witnessing the numbers of questions i got from the audience, we need to establish a comment response period for questions to the administrator. i will do my best to condense. there are themes that emerged. let's get going here. a number of questions have come up related to e.p.a.'s work in the area of looking at the impact of natural gas and to oil. there are a number of ways it is phrased. what is the e.p.a. doing. would you comment on

regulations on high drollic fracturing. if you can speak to that issue. >> yeah. let me frame the issue. we are not the only entity doing these things. they have been regulated by the state. and e.p.a. has a number of exemptions from their regulations and laws for oil and gas production because there was not a need to necessarily have us in that space. it is a bit different on the scale we are seeing it. not only do you inject, which normally we would regulate under the underground control regulations which we run across the country. they are meant to protect

drinking water sources and you have water that comes back out from the process. dealing that water can be as much of an issue as far as water safety as well. first on the grand scale we are doing a two-year study. it has been with the goal of the study to look at the impacts on drinking water. that is broadly stated. it takes a life cycle approach of the hydraulic process. e.p.a. is looking at its regulatory authorities. i wouldn't always say backstop. in some places states don't have injection control authority. but to find those places where e.p.a. needs to provide if not guidance direction as far as injection of the fluids and the

place where we do have a gap right now is on diesel injection. we know companies are injecting it in part of their tracking process and now we need to put guidance out. shortly we will be working on it. we are reaching out to industries and to states and to our fellow departments. department of the interior, department of energy to get guidance out for those that may seek a permit because they are injecting the diesel fluid. other fluids are not regulated under the safe drinking act by law but that exemption specifically says that diesel is not exempted. i heard a question on pennsylvania. we are handling issues in the state out of our regional offices and we handle concerns as they are brought to us. in general we would prefer to allow the states to be the

first level of response. with the recent blowout in pennsylvania, the one place we thought we could add real value is get a handle on what is spilled. there is great concern that we don't have that information to share. we also have work going on for wastewater treatment plants and other issues. we are very interested in the study. >> i think he has a number of studies related to the fuel economy standards for light duty vehicles. what do you see happening with the standards in the future? there have been administration proposals and a specific proposal for heavy duty trucks. does it look like it will be similar to what was proposed? >> let me answer that. that is an easy one. i don't know. i can't tell you. one of the things that i said from the beginning is that we

will follow science and the law. so i don't have a meeting and tell them what the final standards will be. it is just the opposite. our staff comes in and brief us and i don't believe we have had that briefing yet. what i can promise you is that the final standard will comply with the law. we will take comment. now we need to review the comments and make revisions. i have to give a huge shout out to my staff who work on mobile sources, the program here in washington and in ann arbor, michigan. when you want to talk about regulation driving policy and technology you don't find a better example than what is going on in mobile sources. fantastic engineers in that field. we have standards now in place that cover model years

2012-2016. those are the standards that i spoke of earlier. we know they will save consumers money and save billions of gallons of gasoline that we won't have to use. the president likes that program and has called on us in the department of transportation. transportation administration to come up with the next round of car standards for 2017-2025. we have a proposal comes out later this summer and it will be based on technical work. we can look at increasing fuel economy every year by a range from 2% to 6%. at the highest end that would put you in the range of average fuel economy of 62 miles per gallon by 2025. let me simply say that we are not in a position to go further

until we get the studies back on everything from safety to cost. because cost is a huge factor. >> two questions here on biofuels. what do you see happening with e-15? you issued a waiver but there are other things that need to happen. and a broader question, given the supply and the demand situation does e.p.a. have a situation to revive the standard for 2011 or later? >> second question first. again, we have been working closely with the u.s. department of agriculture to insure that the modeling and the estimates that we did when we looked at the life cycle of corn ethanols are not impacted by the current situation in the commodities market. corn prices are quite high but everything that we know and everything the f.d.a. knows

does not blame a large percentage of that. less than 5% on the fact that some amount of corn is being used as food stock for ethanol. the other thing about biofuels which is fascinate to me as an engineer is that it is really about innovation. i saw a couple of plants. i was at a traditional biodiesel plant and met with several representatives. it is all about for them figuring out how to get to the next generation of fuels. it is very much a moving target in terms of food stocks. i think that is appropriate. because it is a rural concern they are interested in moving to other feed stocks. the other thing that i learneded is that although you do use the corn for traditional corn ethanol a lot can be used

back again for feed. you don't get all of the energy out as you would if you used the corn directly. right now don't feel like it will change the forecast or regulations on biofuel. the last thing that i will say is that we have a narrow role to play, which is under the law, we were asked to look at the life cycle of various fuel and feed stocks and determine whether or not they qualified as renewable fuels or advanced fuels under the definition of the law. we have done that analysis. i think we did the best job that we can. we are working on auntil sis going forward. the marketing of biofuels will depend on several other issues. we have a labeling rule to get out. we are doing that very shortly. we have put out guidance for tanks because there are

different issues with regard to tanks. and a lot of their resources have been spent on helping to move the blender pumps that will be needed so people can move to the higher blend of ethanol. >> i know you are tight on time. one last question that i will say. what are the prospects for adjusting greenhouse gases? and a related question, do you think congress will take away e.p.a.'s authority to regulate greenhouse gases? >> we hope not. i think there is nothing to fear for common sense use of the clean air act to begin to put this country in the direction of adjusting our greenhouse gas emissions. i joined the president in calling for legislation to adjust greenhouse gas

emissions. because i do believe that would have been the most efficient way for our economy to move in the direction of lowering pollution from many, many different sources, mobile sources and stationary sources as well. but that did not happen. now we are left with the clean air act. one of the things about the clean air act is that it is not the ideal tool but it is a tool. according to the supreme court it is a tool. e.p.a. made an endangerment finding. that is actually the basis for the clean car and truck rules that we just heard about. now we are moving to apply that same law to stationary sources. we have done several things. the first is what we call the tayloring rule which says that we are going to phase in over a long period of time regulation of sources, because instead of the billions of sources covered when you look at the pollution,

you want to start with the larger sources. this country has several large sources. the utility sector, transportation sector and the next on the list is refineries. and so we have said that if you are going to start that is where you should start. and the last thing that we said is that the clean air act is a technology law. it is often thought of as a public health law. you heard them say that it reduces and the health care cost avoided. the writers of the law were relying on technology to move us forward. the technology for dealing with it is not there. the technology that is there is energy efficiency. and so in the work that we have done to date, whether on mobile sources like cars and trucks or the best available controlled technology, determination that the guidance we put out in

january it is all about energy efficiency. it is about squeezing as much energy as possible out of whatever fuel you are using. and that certainly includes coal and oil. i also believe and hope at some point we will move forward with legislation again. thank you very much. >> administrator jackson has to go to something else. let's give her a huge round of applause for her thoughtful comments. i would like to now extend a warm welcome to marvin odom, the president of shell oil company and director of their

upstream america businesses. mr. odom began his very impressive career with shell as an engineer in 1982. he served in a number of management positions of increasing responsibility in both the technical and commercial aspects of energy. he became chairman of the executive committee in 2009 and in addition to his corporate responsibilities he holds several board positions, including the board of directors, board of trustees of the national urban league, deans council of the harvard kennedy school, university of texas college advisory board. mr. odom received a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering from the university of texas and m.b.a. from the university of houston. we are thrilled to have you here and look forward to your thoughts on critical energy issues we face today.

we will then take questions from the audience as i did before. please write them down on cards and we will get them up front. >> thank you very much. it is good to see everyone. quite a nice crowd this morning i have to say. it is a pleasure to be here with what is likely the most energy informed audience in washington. i think it is fair to say the most energy informed audience anywhere. i would like to begin with what might seem like the obvious. i think that it establishes right up front what has to be the starting point of any conversations about energy, whether you are in the u.s. or anywhere else. in the statement i will start with this one, there are things that we know and things we don't. and what we know and what we don't and the decisions that we make as a result have global

impacts. we know for example that the demand for energy and the number of people expressing the demand will continue to grow. but we don't know when or where the next natural disaster will occur or the next political instability will come from. we know largely because of e.i.a. data what energy sources that we have do midwesticly. we know where those resources are and how much is there. and we have a workforce that can go and get it. too often we don't know what the regulatory picture will look like for the long-term. that sends job creating opportunities to other coasts, other borders and we see that happening to a degree already in the gulf coast. we know reducing demand and increasing supply is the surest way to build a stable energy future but the political climate does not always make it

easy and neither does the decisions made by a few or far too often in rhetoric rather than in facts. i would like for us to deal in facts. i want to let certainties compel action. i want what we know to safeguard against what we don't. because from my perspective and the perspective of shell it should not be difficult to create a rational, prudent energy policy, one that insures current and future demands are met. the slate of options is relatively limited. we really need to pursue them all. i don't think there is a lot of debate about that. people start talking about when or how to pull the levers on bringing new resources or new sources of energy into the nix. one gets pitted against the other. and there are some that are less than honest about the tradeoffs.

now that sets the stage for conflict and relegates compromise to the back row and it is one of the reasons people are so disappointed in their leaders right now. there is no reason why the u.s. should be one of the late comers in figuring it out. but you can't force the energy challenges to fit neatly within borders. our markets and economies demand we take a global view. world's instability requires us to take a global view. right now, like never before, what we know can inoculate us against what we do not. for today i would like to focus on what we know in three areas where i think it is particularly the case. by definition we could spend just as much time talking about efficiency and other energies but i chose these three. take me to the other topics if you would like to talk about those in more detail. the first area is biofuels.

we know that today's biofuels are likely the most practical commercial solution for reducing carbon emissions. we know the international market for biofuels is growing. we know with the right policies in place it could grow even faster. at shell we know their delivery system is the most similar to the business. it is part of why shell continues to build capacity from biofuels. we need to go beyond corn ethanol to a mix providing the best combination of performance and low emissions. shell is one of the largest biofuel distributors and has been for a number of years selling fuel containing over 9 billion litters of biofuels in 2010 alone. we are working with the largest ethanol producer to have a

production of ethanol, sugar and power and for the supply, distribution and retail sales of transportation fuels. with an annual capacity of 2 billion litters of biofuels it will be one of the largest ventures ever. that is just the starting point. we have considerable aspirations for growth. whether we are talking about brazil or any other country significant increases in biofuels will depend on developing new technologies and advanced biofuels. working with a number of partners, energy and we are moving new technologies from lab-based. advanced biofuels will only emerge in 2020 and beyond.

it will take considerable time and investment to get these technology to full-scale commercial refineries. government policies can help create conditions necessary to build a sustainable biofuels market. a lot of good work has been done in this area, whether you are talking about the u.s., europe or other places and there is a temptation to believe that is enough. but that assumption would be wrong and there is much more that can be done including rewarding sustainable low carbon fuel. creating a regulatory framework that stimulates market-driven innovation or providing the regulatory certainty that encourages long-term investments. it also includes removing or even just lowering import tariffs and creating a level playing field for biofuels. we know these will materialize, no. but we know staggering growth

and worldwide energy demand will. we know new technology and innovations are making biofuels more viable. we know at shell that right now we are standing with a long line of people and enterprises who want to make that happen. now the second area where what we know should prompt action rather than prevent it is natural gas. here is what we know about natural gas. we know there is a lot of it, especially in the u.s. we know it is cheaper than other energy sources. we know it is a cleaner burning fuel. we know capturing it and using it is easier than ever. a few years ago north america's natural gas production was believed to be in decline. everyone knows this story as well as i do. it has made gas more accessible. now over 22,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are available worldwide.

over 2,500 trillion cubic feet are available here. current production levels there is enough supply to meet the world demand for 250 years. we have enough just in the u.s. for 100 years. by 2012, next year, shell will produce more natural gas than oil. that is not an accident. it is worth pursuing and it will be a preferred fuel and it is worth it to the people around the world who are emerging from poverty and ascending to be energy consumers like so many of us. we are the second largest gas producer worldwide. a leader in gas to liquid. in the last 10 years we invested over $17 billion in north american natural gas exploration and development. we are active in north america with about 2.4 million net

acres of resource potential. now beyond the benefits of natural gas we are seeing other benefits as well. lo cost methane is creating a lower cost and abundant supply. a 25% increase in ethane production would create around 17,000 new high-paying jobs in the check industry and about 400,000 job it is outside of it all while creating over $130 billion in economic output at an annual increase in federal, state and local tax revenues. policy makers are looking for new ways to spur job growth and lower the deficit. it is hard to imagine why a

responsible energy policy with more natural gas exploration and production is not sailing through congress. i realize part of the hesitation has to do with what are irresponsible reports around hydraulic fracturing. it can be done without harming the environment. anything less is unacceptable. shell supports regulations that require companies to disclose the checks that they use in the process and adhere to the highest safety standards. responsible operators should have no problem complying. the best ones should work to improve the process. new technologies and procedures will produce the amount of fresh water drawn from local sources and new water and storage will minimize the footprints of natural gas development.

our goal is to get to the point where we recycle 100% of the water that we use and i am confident that we will get there and we are already there. in the third and final area before taking your questions, i will touch on the domestic energy regions in the gulf coast and alaska. we know that there is a lot of supply there. we know people need it and will need more of it. we know producing it creates jobs. we know at the current pace we are losing daylight relative to our own supply needs and relative to other countries. i hear and understand why a year after the disaster in the gulf that there are some who remain critical of deep water drilling. let me be clear, our industry in many respects is only as good as the worst operator, whether in the gulf or anywhere else. shell is in favor of new, appropriate regulations that

can make the people safer and our industry stronger. now beyond new government regulations we support and we have worked to create industry leading global safety standards. we worked to build a task force to share and enhance these standards. i am proud of the fact that when we operate offshore we employ standards that go above and beyond what the local governments require. i also believe that there is a role for government to play that goes beyond oversight. that is one of enabling and encouraging private sector growth and development through permitting, which is beginning to ramp back up in the gulf, getting u.s. production back on track will require a lot more work and require it in at least two areas. restoring the projects in the gulf and opening up new areas in the eastern gulf and alaska for exploration. we were glad to see the

permits, the shell discovery approved those last month. it was the first new deep water permit approved and the first to meet the full suite of regulatory requirements for preparedness, prevention and response. now, that is encouraging. i am cautiously optimistic that will mark a returning point in the gulf. but the alaska story is different. the federal government has held lease sales off the coast of that state. despite our most intense efforts, we have yet to drill a single well. as you all are aware the government does years of analysis before deciding on a lease sale. a lease sale is an invitation

from the government saying the government wants oil and gas development. shell has been blocked by regulatory and legal boundaries and some of our leases are now within four years of expiring. the most serious has to do with obtaining a usable air permit for emissions from our temporary exploration operations. they are miles from shore. and the e.p.a. publically stated these operations will not have an impact on human health. the delay is frustrating and disappointing and undermines confidence in the american regulatory system. beyond that you might call it irresponsible. thousands of men and women are counting on the jobs. local businesses are counting on the revenue and communities on the task boost. we hope to see it resolved quickly. i appreciate the openness and the attention that

administrator jackson devoted to this issue. she has paid quite a bit of attention to this. red tape and permitting slowdowns are not limited to the gulf and alaska. they are also impacting the development of the keystone pipeline. the state department postponed their decision on whether or not the pipeline can move forward until later this year while it conducts additional environmental reviews. this is on top of the 20 meetings the agency already conducted. completion of the pipeline would move more than a million barrels of oil each day to refineries in the gulf and create over 300,000 jobs in the u.s. over the next few years. the technology to develop them did not exist 30 years ago. now, this is another example of why it is so important to

invest in innovation and secure stable sources of energy. whether we are talking about oil sands, deep water drilling or alaska, the urgency and the impact are similar. bottom line is this. if we don't develop secure energy sources we will have to import it from places that are less secure and stable and less environmentally controlled. when we are not sure when the next shift will arise, why would we want to add another layer of uncertainty to the mix? one important final thing to call out. and as we talk about what we know and what we don't. i tried very hard to not use the word solution. there is a reason for that. solution implies that the challenge is gone, over, done, finished. too often people use that word to imply one energy source or a

couple of energy sources will fix everything. well, we know that our energy challenges will never be "solved." figuring out how to best use what we have and develop new sources will always be something to inspire to. that is why we need a approach as dynamic as the challenge is. whose only constant is constant evolution and improvement. our elected leaders in washington have difficult, important work. but getting it right is critical. it will take a sustained, long-term commitment. policy makers are not alone. we see it at shell that it is our job to adopt the outlook that reasonable regulations are what pave the way for us to do what we need to do. it is our responsibility to be open and honest about what we know and what we don't know and to justify the face policy makers put in us when they seek

our input. it is our job to demonstrate that we can be trusted to do the right thing and then to do it. now living up to the charge is something that we take very seriously. because in a complex global world with complex global challenges we believe the best approach is a simple one. meeting our energy needs in an penitentiary and responsible way shouldn't be that hard. not if we deal in facts, trust in certainty and let what we know safeguard against what we do not know. thank you. >> i am going to stay down here. he is going to stay at the podium and we will go through some of the questions here. the first question, i assume the industry would like to increase awareness and support

for on shore natural gas production. >> i think that it is a great question. and actually it is phrased as an industry question, which i think is the right way to phrase it. let me just answer it in wa we will do as a country and what i hope the industry will do. when you look at the challenges surfaced around natural gas development, tracking, wart use. water disposal and so force, i believe all of those have good answers. they have very measurable impacts. i think that what we have not done as an industry and what we will do as a company and what we are working on is how to be completely transparent about that throughout our actual operations, how to measure those impacts, how to share that in a transparent fashion and how to partner with someone in that process that provides that entire data set with credibility that may not come

from the company alone. so, that is something we are working on right now. i would expect us to get to an end point of that soon. but transparency is the answer to address the concerns. >> there are a number of questions related to oil and gas, some coming in the form of price differentials. what are the business opportunities that might take advantage of oil-gas price differentials. gas to liquids came up. using gas and prescription came up as another option and some of the other questions. another question, are you and others overemphasizing it given the price differential? >> if you are a financial analyst, are you empathizing something that has a low price and i would rather you be focused on something that has more value with it. we have to take a long-term

view of energy opportunities out there. it is not about the price next week or next year. it is about a 40-year forecast because the scale of some of these projects that we put in place will last for that period of time. now i did think the area of what are the opportunities to monetize gas other than straight into power generation is a fascinating area. you have mentioned, i think, basically all of the ones we are working on. but the ones that are interesting, hold promise, are gas to liquids, turning that into a clean liquid for your permanent liquid fuel that can be used as diesel or other fuel in the market. certainly moving gas into transportation is something we are not only exploring but acting on in a pilot sense to both understand the costs associateded with that and the public uptake on that type of option.

there is a lot of talk about gas export from the u.s. or from north america. i will give you my personal opinion. that is a whole political debate that has not even begun to happen yet. we are still waking up to the fact that we had this enormous energy resource in our backyard that can completely change the way we look at energy going forward. we need to finish that and then have the debate about whether exporting some of that is something that we will allow to happen or not. if you look at it from a pure commercial, global gas perspective it could make good sense. i just recognize that we have not had the debate yet. lots of good uses for gas that works. >> in other regions of the world what do you see the most promising? outside of the u.s.? >> well, you know, it is not a

way to answer that question. think about a lost places we are working around the world. from an upstream exploration and production standpoint. the list is very long. the list is vast. there are a lot of resources out there. you can't discount what is happening in north america. again, looking at the natural gas that has been discovered and developed here, looking at the fact that we may have something on the order of 27 billion barrels of oil and resources in the artic, there are tremendous resources at home. we see the same thing in brazil and australia and obviously in the middle east and there is more development potential there. it is a widespread base overall. i would be remissed if i forgot to mention the scale of the heavy oil resources that exist

in canada. >> we talked a little about gas to liquids. some of the other technologies, one, what has happened to hydrogen. what are your thoughts on the prospect for shale oil and oil shale. >> again, i will think about it more from a company perspective. the mix we are looking at right now, the core business is oil and gas and it is extending it into biofuels because it fits well with our skills and we see the ability to step into that as being one of the near term options with the biggest impacts. into the next decade you might get something that makes a difference in the total system. we are also players in the wind business. we have a fairly substantial

wind business in north america. it is interesting, but it is not big for us. we don't see it growing rapidly. we look at it in a pure commercial sense and also from a emissions offset sense and every other environmental aspect of wind. we are not in solar right now. it is not a place we bring particular skills to. but there is a lot of innovation happening in solar. there are others here better to talk about it. hydrogen is interesting. we do research and development. we have done quite a bit in the past. we have filling stations spread out across the country, mostly in california now. we continue to see it as a potential source two or three or four decades out into the future and probably not before then. that is what i would put in the bucket of a long-term opportunity, not a more

near-term resource. >> here is a direct one. will the alaska natural gas pipeline be built? >> i think you have to. i will stick to the commercial side of this. you need a strong commercial driver to connect that with the lower 48. . >> we should not underestimate the changes made for the industry as a whole. i have read so many articles about is the industry safer and

so forth. i will talk about the changes from an industry perspective.thd a containment system. that is not a capability that existed before. it is a shame it did not exist before. we are through the first phase into that and into the second phase. the regulations that have been built up around how you draw well, the requirements of drilling the well, are significant for some companies. and some of those are good changes to make. i like the idea of when someone drills a well in the deepwater

gulf of mexico, there is a high level of regulations and standards they have to fall. that is a very good thing. the thing that you should pay attention to, if you're just concerned about should something like this happen in the future, is pay attention not so much to contain it capabilities, will be expelled and procter -- and brought to the surface, burned, but think about the ability to cap a will. put a cap on top and know that the oil is being drilled, that a can hold the pressures. capping that is a real option for stopping a leak. that is a capability that every deepwater welle we still has to meet that requirement. that is a significant item that should make people feel a lot better. , one more question, and this relates to where you see the

biggest upside on certain as -- certainties'. you have alaska, other offshore areas that have not been explored as fully. then you have on short liquids. where the you see the biggest potential beyond what people think might happen? >> there is interesting other places to look. if you are focusing on north america, there are other places, off the atlantic coast. the thing that strikes me, not the estimates -- not to underestimate the question you ask, i am not want to use the term and it energy independence of all, because that is not the right goal. sicker supply, the degree to -- secure supply, the degree to which we can provide, is the

greater than what the general public understands. it is greater than what the rhetoric is out there. >> i want to thank you for your excellent answers to the questions. thank you. i want to take a few minutes now to that comment on what eia has been up to over the last year, and then introduce the overall agenda for the next day and a half. as i hope you appreciate, eia's work is essential to congress, agencies, industry and the broader public, with all the has been happening in the energy realm. eia has a staff of highly skilled, dedicated people that we relied on to gather and

communicate information. over time, the structures in which people operate can become an impediment rather than a force for coordination. that is why over the past year we have made significant changes in the organizational structure at eia. the simplicity of our new structure is smart for our mission, by reorganizing along four key french alliance -- statistics, resources management. we now have a mandell organization oriented toward greater efficiency. we have emphasized a number of planning evaluations and other internal process mechanisms to ensure we are exemplary stores of federal funds we receive. another exciting change taking place is the launch of the redesigned web site, which we

launched in february. the new home page features a number of things. one is a new product called today in energy which is a new educational project published every weekday. a highlight of current topics are short articles written in plain english. we have improved navigation to make it easier for you to find eia data to showcase the breadth and depth of our content, and we have an updated logo to help reintroduce eia's initiatives. i hope by now you have had a chance to visit the new site and benefit from the new look at the son of the content. for those of you who are longtime users, there may be short time relearning pains, but i hope you appreciate the benefit the new web site provides. now on to the upcoming panel discussion. of the course of today and

tomorrow, you will have the opportunity to hear from a tremendous range of people to take part in these discussions. [unintelligible] >> coming up next, public television and radio executives talk about the future of public broadcasting. ron paul visit iowa to announce the formation of his presidential exploratory committee. then the winner of the student can competition. -- student cam competition. tomorrow, ben bernanke and the fed first ever news conference. this marks a change from past policy went over a written statement would be announced -- would be used to announce interest-rate decisions. this is that to about 15 eastern.

>> all this month we have been featuring the winners of c- competition.tcam's stream all the videos at studentcam.org. >> jim lehrer and others spoke at the national press club about the future of public broadcasting. this features senior npr executives. they talk about congressional efforts to eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting. hosted by the journalism school at the university of missouri, this is 19 minutes. -- 90 minutes.

>> jim is the -- addition to his life in publicly supported journalism, jim lehrer is also the author of 20 novels, two memoirs, 3 place. he is also a partner in a television-video production, "enterprise," and he has collected so many awards he needs another persona to go around collecting those awards. if with the pdf ever makes it to the school of agriculture at the university of missouri, i'm sure they will find interesting experiments were done in cloning of undergraduate dna you were there because one man could not possibly have done all that you have done. i am delighted to introduce jim

lehrer. [applause] >> this is one of the -- thank you very much, and that you all for coming. this is one event where i feel is appropriate that i be here. if that is the word. i am a graduate of the university. this is sponsored by the university of missouri school of journalism, and is about the future of journalism and public media, and i have been laboring in that more or less for 40 years. it is the old story. i think i got the right place at the right time for the right reasons after all these years, and i am delighted be here. i want to tell you eight quick missouri story that was demonstrated, is it missouri or misery of i have a quick power of the press story that involves that. i have moderated presidential

debates, and a couple of them from st. louis. one time intentionally i began by saying, good evening, from st. louis, missouri, and 90 minutes later when i ended it, i said, they keep, and good night from st. louis, missouri. the whole point of that was to see if anybody notice, and if anybody cared. i only got one phone call the next day, and it was from bill safire, who then wrote a language column in "the new york times" sunday magazine. what is this stuff. off the top of my head, i said, it is a deal that is about east and west, and there are two big cities in misery. kansas city on the west and st. louis on the east. in the west, they call it kansas city nicolette missouri, and around st. louis on the east

they call it missouri. he said thank you. i just made that up. bill put it in his column and it became possible. i have had that thrown back at me many times, that that is for real. in fact i set myself, -- i see it myself now, and when i get caught it is when i am with people from kansas city or st. louis, they ask, where did you get that? my only theory about how it happened is probably way back in the past, there was a cheerleader who invented the yell, missour-a tigers! i know. my second mission beyond telling that story is to set the stage

and context for what you will be talking about here. let me be that as quickly and as straight as i possibly can. serious journalism generally at all levels is in trouble. there are too few resources being devoted to its practice, particularly in print, but also in television, radio, and the web. the reasons are well-known as they are to meet. they are well known to most anybody as -- who is alive and well. these papers of all sizes and persuasions are hurting financially because they have lost circulation and they have lost readership and thus advertising. networks and stations are having a similar set of problems, and the web is thriving in terms of usage, but not in terms of

income and revenue. yes, there are flood of information available, from and for everybody, as well as floods of opinions and floods of opinions and entertainment about the information and the mechanical ways and means to deliver it all -- pink ipods and wee-wees and twisters and twits, but too much of the floods are being used to tease and entertain and to few to inform. i have a good source why this is a problem. the sources thomas jefferson. he told the folks when this country was founded that the only way this democratic society that we have just created is going to work is if there is an

informed electorate. the only device that was ever created for the information process was of course the first amendment, and you and me and a lot of other people in this room. in other words, the journalists. i think there it is -- and it is not happening. we are hurting in this area right now, and i think this is what you have come to talk about, i believe there is a major role for public media to play in making sure that serious journalism performs its responsibilities and its duties in a serious journalism area. mw we must fill the gaps that are being created by some of our resource-starved commercial colleagues. it is not only a an opportunity. it is a responsibility that we have that public media to do more than we are doing, and i mean every element.

we are at all levels -- television, radio, online, all geographies, and we all, every one of us, as to step up to the plate more so than we have done. we have to declare we are here, public media is here, and we are in the serious journalism business. we have a mission to perform in our community, state, country, wherever we operate, and we must get at it. west -- we must raise the awareness, money, and resources that it takes to create and expand we're doing at the local, regional, national, an international level. we must be willing to reach out within our own public media world can cooperate with each other and do joint projects, and we must form partnerships with any and all other journalism organizations, commercial as well as not commercial, to spread the reach of our serious journalism and others who are in

the same business. it is neither craggy -- braggy to say that we on the newshour are already at it as hard as we can go. you will get the details later this morning from linda winslow. they will give you the specifics about that. we have been prepared and remain prepared to change and rethink everything we do in order to adjust to the very this floods and changes in the world of journalism, and when i say journalism, i mean serious journalism. i hate it that i have to put that word in front of that. that is what i am talking about. there is all kinds of journalism. the business public meeting is in is serious journalism. i would like for you to know that with all the changes we are -- we have made and will continue to make, there is one thing that will never change,

and many of you have heard me say this before, but it cannot be repeated too often. it is how we go about the practice of journalism at the news hour. a few years ago i was asked at a seminar in aspen on journalism if i was the only -- did i have any personal guidelines for the practice of journalism, and i did, what i mind sharing them. i did in fact do that. here is part of what i sent them. do nothing i cannot defend, cover, right, and present every story with a care of what if the story or about me, i assume there is at least one other side or version to every story, i assume that your is as smart as caring and as good a person as i am, assumed the same about all people on whom i report, assume personal lives corp. -- are a private matter until they turn

-- until the turn of this jury mandates otherwise, separate ellis for new stories and label everything, do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions, no one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously, and finally i am not in the entertainment business. those are our guidelines that we practice to this day and always will. finally, there's one more thing i wanted to do. that is the close my little welcome to you by performing a bus call. the reason for that is it is very much relevant to what we're doing here today. before i went to the university of missouri school of journalism, i went to a small junior college in south texas, a place called victoria. in order to get the money required to go to missouri, i

worked eight hours a day as a ticket agent in the continental travel was bus depot. two years. one of my duties was to call the buses on the p.e. system. here is what i did. may i have your attention, please. this is your last call for continental railways to houston, 1.aving from line 1, all aboard. don't forget your baggage, please. why that is relevant, because if i had not done that, i would not have been able to go to the university of missouri because i would not have afforded it, and also for the record, you should know that was the first time i was ever paid money to speak into a microphone. thank you very much. have a great seminar. [applause]

>> thank you, jim. you got us off to a rousing start. good morning, and what. my name is barbara cochran, and i and that share in journalism for the university of missouri, and very proud. of.from a high it is a delight to see all of you here. thank you to the dean for coming from misery, going through tornadoes and all kinds of dangers get here. thanks to all our speakers who made it today. i want to save my thank you to a kirk mclaughlin and his family for creating the endowment that makes this symposium possible. thanks to our colleagues from the library at the national press club. thank you for being here.

i am glad to see so many of you share an interest in the future of public broadcasting. some of you have a professional connection because you work or have worked in public broadcasting or at the federal communications commission or congressional oversight committee or a policy organization that studies the nation paused communication system. in the interest of full disclosure, i need to tell you that i to have worked in public broadcasting. in my career i was head of news at national public radio and oversaw the creation "morning edition. that is one of the things i am most proud of. some of you are here because your viewers and listeners who have become alarmed about headlines you have seen in recent months, headlines about the value of public broadcasting and efforts in congress to end federal funding. if you're concerned about the possibility of deep cuts or the elimination of federal funds, you are not alone.

as we will hear in greater detail, 69% of the public opposed plans to eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting. that was true in the matter what their political persuasion. among democrats, independents, and republicans, a majority in each group opposed eliminating federal funds. when the recent budget agreement left funding for the corporation for public broadcasting mostly intact, many of you probably heaved a sigh of relief. as we will learn today, the debate over federal funding is far from over. funding is just one of the issues facing public broadcasting today. like the rest of media, public product testing is buffeted by the wind of change brought on by digital revolution. public broadcasting cost producers need to it at that just as easily as their

colleagues in commercial media. to help us understand the challenges and opportunities that lie at head, we are fortunate to have assembled a roster of knowledge will she'd executives and innovative journalists. the printed program you receive the outlines the agenda along with biographies of speakers and a list of on-line resources about public media. there are also publications available at the registration table outside, including a white paper that i read for the aspen institute last year called rethinking public media, or local, more interactive. that paper is available online. our first session today is going to be a conversation with the ceo's of for national public broadcasting organizations and the general manager of a local station. then we will take a short break.

by the end of the morning, i hope we come away with a better understanding about the kind of transformation that needs to take place for public broadcasting to fulfill its mission, which was expressed at the act of 1967, to be responsive to the interests of people, both in particular localities and throughout the united states and constitute an expression of diversity and excellence. we have just heard from jim lehrer about why public broadcasting matters, and no one could stated more powerfully or persuasively. now to lay a foundation for our discussion, we will hear from tom rosenstiel, who has a mystery connection, the vice- chair of the committee for concerned journalists.

you know, as a frequent commentator on trends in media and someone who is not afraid to criticize journalistic malfeasance. from his organization's annual report on the state of the news media, he has called information about public broadcasting audience is and content, which he is not want to share with us. please welcome tom rosenstiel. >> thank you, barbara. no thanks for having me have to follow jim lehrer. i will do my best. in the next few minutes, i'd want to share with you some information we have from surveys and analysis that lays facts about public broadcasting, both on radio and television. first, i want to make a couple of quick points.

about the impact of technology on journalism. one is the technology has in many ways disconnected audience and revenue. advertisers and revenue sources no longer need the news media to reach their audiences, and this is creating a major revenue collapse in the news business. the second is that one of the things that dismisses -- distinguishes public meeting in journalism -- public media in journalism is is relief from commercial pressures the other commercial media as face, and i think we have a per call senses of what difference is that makes. we have a different product and we also have over the last 10 years, 15 years, a different

audience. public media has either grow or held on to its audience much better than commercial media has, because of long-term approaches that have taken to the content they have produced, he fact that jim's principles has not changed a lot has something to do with that. long term in the marketplace, that has benefited public media. the third point i want to make before i get into the statistics is much of the new technology is transforming the news landscape is distributive and discursive in nature. it is not substantially -- what we have seen is an expansion and outlets that are aggregating and purposing and commenting on news, but not an enormous

expansion in the number of organizations that are going out and turning over rocks and finding things out. what are the facts about public media? well, one is that the audience is holding up. about 11% of adults listen to npr regularly, which is to say three times a week or more. that 11% is remarkably consistent across all age categories and demographic categories. you do not skew older as much as other media outlets. we do not have data for the news hour from 2010 for the simple reason we use the new name of the news our and our survey, and results came back in a way that people did not recognize the new name without your name in it, and the number of people --

number of people who answered that they were regular viewers made it clear they were regular viewers of pbs programming of any kind. the data i will give you for "the newshour" is from 2008. about 5% of adults listen to "the news hour" at least three times a week and that audience is stable and has not changed, which distinguishes "the newshour" from anything else we see in news. npr's audience does skew independent and democratic than it does republican. in 2010, 14% of independents, democrats, and 6% of republicans

identified themselves as regular listeners of npr. that ratio of a 2-1 tilt toward one party over another is similar to what we see at msnbc, cnn, and the network's morning shows. it is lower than fox news's partisan tilt, which is closer to 4-1, and much more than talk shows we see in primetime, cable news. the only news outlets in the country that reflect the population without some kind of partisan tilt into the local newspapers and local television, because they reflect their communities very closely, and then you aggregate them all together and get a picture that is close to the u.s.. "newshour" skewed 2-1 democrats vs. republicans. we also asked something you the

last year in the survey, which probed the reasons people say they go to different news sources. npr stood out and those results. it was the only news organization in which the number one reason people said they went there was for all the different categories, for the mix of all the things that a news organization my pride, which is everything, breaking news, in-depth reporting, news and opinion, and the entertainment. it was also one of only two outlets of the 20 or more that we queried about that was in double digits for every category of reasons that people might want to go there. we do not have this data for " hethe newshour." npr ranks first among all news outlets among audience members

who want their news delivered without a point of view. 70% of the audience wants this kind of reporting. more than any news organization in the survey about, and 62% said they want the news this week. we have this data from two's years earlier, and there it was 67%. npr ranks among the few news outlets whose believability ratings are holding up. it is actually the highest it has ever been. "the news hour"credibility has held up lately, although it is down from 1998 but it has been stable for the last seven years at 20%. most all other news organizations are declining.

23%, you recognize many americans are not watching these programs and offer no opinion. there is challenging news here. npr and the news hour are among the outlets that have the bigger -- biggest partisan gaps in believability. % democrats hour, 37 believe what they hear, 27% independents, but 60 percent of republicans. that number is similar to what we have for fox and msnbc. the gap for the news hour measured two years earlier is smaller, 18%, but still among the higher ones. do consumers get? i will speak this up.

one thing they get is foreign news, and a much higher amount than they do elsewhere. 31% of the time on npr is devoted to foreign affairs. that compares with an average of 3.5% on the rest of radio news. the news hour, 30% of the times that it was devoted to foreign affairs. that compares with 19% on the commercial network evening newscasts, 16% on the network morning news cass, and 13% on cable news. is public media biased? this is a believability gap, a partisan gap. i would say this is an enjoyable. too much about bias is in the eye of the beholder. i can show you studies we have done at -- that show pbs and is newshour were more neutral

to obama in his first 100 days. 28% were positive on npr, much less than the 37% in be in general. "the news hour" was similar. more coverage of policy and less coverage of course race than the press overall. the same is true of npr, though to a much smaller degree. i had stated that npr and the newshour have a bias towards longer stories. the average price average length of a pbs segment is more than twice as long as that on a commercial television station. that might suggest a bias toward been pouring in. to some people, it might suggest a bias toward new ones.

these things are in the eyes of the beholder. you can analyze the sources interviewed, but that does not tell you about the questions asked. ultimately it is impossible to say that bias is not some degree a matter of perception, but i can tell you the journalists at but npr and the news hour, many of whom i know, believed deeply in the idea of getting the facts straight and striving for fairness and trying to throw the pitch down the middle. when they fail to do so, i believe it is a sin of omission or failure to live up to their principles. they are not doing it as a marketing strategy to maximize an audience or to pander to an audience. that cannot be set up all news organizations today. thank you very much. >> thank you, tom. there has been an awful lot of

opinion and guesswork turnaround in the debate over public broadcasting, so is it that text. i will now invite our first panel to come up and take their seats, and we will get started. thank you. now if everyone is settled, thank you, and i will introduce our first panel to everyone. starting on my far left, you're right, is patrick butler. pat i will probably call you, and he is the president and ceo of the association of public television stations, which is the washington representative of public television stations, and you have been doing a combined

effort on behalf of public radio as well. next to pat is paul kerg, president of -- paula kerger, president and ceo of pbs. next is jocye slocum. next is bill kling, he has under his umbrella 44 public radio stations across the country. and next to bill is karen mathes, who is the general manager of wamu here in washington. thank you. i will start, pat, with to, because we are going to start by talking about the federal funding debate, crisis, and

what lies ahead. as i asked when we were talking before, before this session, what happened in the budget deal? we were hearing that public radio and planned parenthood were definitely on the table, definitely going to get caught, the deal gets made, we look in the newspaper, and the cpp, the funding corp., congress is the money to the corporation for public broadcasting, the corporation for public broadcasting is a to stations and produces a public media. cpb emerge unscathed. what happened? >> i have always maintained, or were, that this is not a partisan issue. there are more republicans who would like to defund us than republicans. not all republicans have felt

that day, and the chairman of the house communications subcommittee, has been at pains to say the house of representatives is one-half one- third of the federal government, and what the house does is only the beginning of a debate and not the end of it. what is -- what has happened in the course of this challenge here is that the democrats in the house and the senate have been quite firm in their support of public broadcasting, as has president obama. when you have a tripartite negotiations at the end of the continuing resolution process, with speaker boehner and majority leader harry reid and president obama in the room caught the forces who are opposed to public broadcasting are suddenly out numbered. i think it has been encouraging

affirmation of the fact that we are held in high esteem across the political spectrum, as tom was suggesting, and that once these votes are counted, i think there are going to be plenty of republicans in both the house and the senate to agree that public broadcasting is viable, is essential, and deserved continued federal funding, is -- even in an era when budget deficits are difficult to control and everything needs the examined quite carefully. >> so is it all over? >> no, it is not over. there are a good number of people in the congress on both the house and senate sides who are quite committed to defudning with broadcasting, and this will be a continuing battle for us for quite some time.

having finished the fiscal year of 2011 funding process, we go immediately into the 2012 appropriations process, and we will have to fight this all over again. the fact that we have been able to mount a very vigorous grass- roots campaign of people around the country who are big fans of public broadcasting, i get a lot of credit to bill kling and the 170 million americans organization that has created this grass roots effort, that effort, the station managers, and the lay leaders at local communities, as well as what we have been able to do here in washington, has been a very good strategic alliance that has yielded a good result that we have had in the last couple of weeks. kerger, pbs that

some polling, using a consortium. you found what about public attitudes? >> significant support for public broadcasting, and i think as i listened to pat, in my view, the answer the question of what happened, i think you could sum it up in one word, and that his constituents. there were a lot of people around the country that reached out to their members to say this is something, this is a service, public television, radio, that is extraordinarily valuable, and we saw that in research that was done. after the defense of our country, the values that the american public places on use of tax dollars for public broadcasting came in second. i sinking there is tremendous -- i think there's tremendous support. when you put into perspective,

15% of our funding comes from the federal government. the rest of it we raise, community by community. that 50% is hugely important because that is money that stations then leverage to raise the rest of the support for the work that they do locally. it helps pay for a lot of their transition expenses, local expenses, and is -- so in communities like washington, percentage of federal funding that comes into support stations here is less than it is in parts of the country where it could be as high as 50%, where communities are scarcers, they have less ability to provide services that would happen in this community. it is a tremendously important piece of our funding, and i think most people understand that this private, public partnership that we have worked

and is something important to maintain. that came through very loud and clear, not just in the survey we did, in advance of the debate on the hill, but also as we watched the people who reached out to their legislators to let their opinions be heard. >> bill kling, public broadcasting has not always been so organized in stating its case. how do you -- what do you think public broadcasting needs to do going forward? >> when you say organize, i think pat referred to the 170 million americans. this is a piece of research that was done by a variety of people, including a station research group, that try to determine how many people access some form of public broadcasting in the course of a week. that turns out to be more than half the american public. one of our problems is we are

left almost too much, that people are willing to voluntarily support public broadcasting, but they have not been engaged to do anything more than that about it. this time we said to them, federal funding is important, it is not just the base funding of about $450 million a year. it is a question about what should the government house role be in public broadcasting. if you read the "the new york times" story about the bbc class on the, you saw the debate about 3.6 billion pounds at risk at the bbc, and the way in which the british people rally around that. having them rally on what we call a grassroots basis, to let congress know how important this is, i think made a difference. there were 500,000 letters and

emails sent to congress, uncountable numbers of phone calls, but pat referred to the leaders who seem to have more clout. these are people who know the cell phone numbers of their congressman and senators, who can make the call, get heard, i think that as i next challenge, to get those people who support their congress people, senators, but also strongly support public broadcasting, to make the connection and to move forward, not just to defend the $400 million. public radio appropriation, our ortion of that $400 million, has not gone up since 1980. the role that the funding has plane, when a time when media that is changing so dramatically, when we have gone from radio to public media, when

we are distributing content in so many other ways, and when all of our colleagues, as you heard jim lehrer say and tom rosenstiel, are beginning to weaken in terms of their ability to do original journalism, we got to step up and we got to do more. you cannot do more with an appropriation that stays static for 30 years. looking forward, are poor, in answer to your question, trying to determine what the right amount is and making that case that you cannot be trusted with your government if you are not well informed. the famous jefferson quotation is the key. >> joyce, how this federal funding of at npr and the member a publicly radius stations? is it similar to what paula reporting, or is it a different

situation because of the with the funding is structured? >> npr gets very little federal funding. what we get is not general budget support. it is for specific grants attacks deliverables attached to them. that is important funding, and it is most important for small or rural communities that in many instances are underserved or perhaps on served by any other force of journalism. that federal funding is critical in supporting the local journalism, and that is an amazing resources for the american people. i have mentioned a couple times a story that i heard about a

place in texas -- marfa, texas, and it is a small town in west texas has served by krps, a public radio station, and it was critical in the wildfires that sprang up, in informing people where roads were closed, giving them evacuations notices, and they were ahead of even the texas the part of transportation in letting people know where they can safely travel and where they could not. this are the kinds of stations that would be really in dire straits without federal funding. it is important for all our stations, and as paula, said, it is an investment that stations leverage for the rest of their funding. >> i do not want to leave the impression that npr would be unaffected federal funding disappeared. up to $70 million a year from

stations. money stations give to national public radio comes from grants from the corporation for public broadcasting that can only be used by national program. they buy programming from american public media, national public radio, and if the money does not come to the stations, the stations' libby the pass that on the npr will change dramatically. it will affect the york city, are larger stations just as much as the small ones, and it will affect npr in much bigger way than the impression some people have, that it is just a tiny amount of money. >> fahey. -- thank you. caryn, what is federal funding

mean to you, and how has your station reacted to the potential loss of federal funding? >> major stations will be impacted as well. our revenue pie is about 5%. around $1 million a year. even as large as we are and well researched as we are in this region, our average individual gift is about $135. a loss of the federal grant, we would have instantly acquire 7400 brand-new never before contributors to supplant that money and hold on to them. our retention rate is 66%. 7400 brand new contributors to write off the bat, increasing getting about 2500 new contributors annually after that, just to supplant the federal money, let alone trying to fuel the programmatic aspirations that the station has in its other general

operating pursuits. it is quite critical. my concern about this latest this latest challenge is quite different from what we have experienced before, and i have been in public radio since 1982. the sustained nature of the attack is different. in past years, there has been a threat to public funding every year. sometimes there were peaks. this time of -- this kind of sustained attack where we had to battle random bills that came out, to fight for the continuing resolution, now it is a battle for the 2012 budget, there is an issue of that is gone to come up about removing the tax deduction for nonprofits. that is going to impact us. there is a challenge with keeping our constituency

mobilized over a long period of time, rather than just gearing up for one big battle. i spent 10 hours on capitol hill talking to a friend and foe alike. the all commented on the ground swell of support in the thousands, and that made an impact that can only keep the wolf at the door for so long. my concern is about keeping our constituency energized, and form. we have information on our website about federal funding. we had to strike that balance between not seeing too much were people become used to it and did not want to hear anymore, keeping them energize, so they will energize when they need them. that is my concern. >> anything else? to the point, what we do not want to do is to perpetually be

in the position where we are gasping for air, and this is the perils of pauline situation on a constant situation with congress. dick sure to that is -- the church that is making sure they understand as some did not. the essential nature of what it is we do in public broadcasting and the fact that americans in their millions, thou you what is that we do. i think there is no reason why we should not have a broad bipartisan consensus on federal funding of public broadcasting. it is one-hundredth of 1% of the federal budget. it is not a lot of money. as jim and bill have been saying, it is the central -- essential to the object of of having an well educated, well informed citizenship which is up to the task of self-government

in a very difficult world. if that is not essential, i do not know what is in a country like ours, and it is our responsibility as leaders of these organizations and as the station managers who do this work day to day, to make sure that people understand what it is we do is essential, that we do it well, we do it in an unbiased way, that we cover the waterfront in terms of opinion, geography, in terms of cultural background, in terms of anything you may want to say, generational, so forth and so far, that we represent the public. when we can show our friends in congress that that is what we do, i think the broad bipartisan consensus that i am looking for will be there. >> i would like to add on a moment to what had just said. one of the challenges we have

had to this debate, we heard from some on the hill that expressed interest in helping us by helping us become commercial. that was viewed as a way of getting off this cyclical challenge with federal funding. on the television side, there are many examples of cable channels that started out with the aspirations of being the commercial version of public broadcasting. when you look at how those channels, arts and entertainment, bravo, history channel, even at evolves, their focus shifts when the mission or the final outcome is based on shareholder return. a and & e -- even the history

channel, or the number one per gram is -- stars is different. -- and i true purpose say this in a minute talks i give -- if your shareholders are on main street, it takes a very different path. when you look at news, we will bring it back to the news of this panel, when you look at this, you see the consequences and pressures that, referenced during his remarks of what happens to news organizations that are settling responsible for a bottom line. they're still doing news, but it is a different focus and the kind of work we try to do on a day-to-day basis when we are constantly challenging ourselves, and on our best days,

achieving, the work that no one else is doing. we were created to fulfil what is in the public interest that is true market capital media. to help us become more commercial will not necessarily think it's down a path that will serve the country well. . .

>> look at individual stories. if you look at story selection, it is a different question, and it is the hardest thing to do. news changes. news is about change. so if you talk about change that tends, to some people, to be literal.

if you simply report the world went on today and nothing happened, you have less of a problem. from my perspective, the issue of governanye, and if there were one thing i would say, where is the governance of the corporation for public broadcasting. how strong was that? they were giving out a lot of federal money. what are the standards? what are the measurements? how are you determining whether the product is a product that should be supported or not. the boards of production companies, the ones i know best in radio, national public radio, national media, are they talking about this? are they looking at it and determining whether they are straight-forward or not many? it can be as simple as an anchor interviewing someone and saying

"hmm" or hmm" or "hmm." the same word, but a dive difference in tonalities. you have to look at what kind of people are being hired. 60% of our stations have no community governments on radio. they have a board of regents or something, but rarely meet anybody that has anything to do with the public broadcasting and public media company. the importance of that governance and a community board that will demand these kinds of standards is the key. before we finish this, i would like to come back with the

question of, where do we go? rather than just defending the status quo, what could it be? >> we'll get to that, i promise. one of the critics in -- contradictions in attaining government funding is that it could be seen as compromising the independentents, especially if the journalism is being performed. i think jeff jarvis the blogger and media critic suggested that n.p.r. should just give up federal funding because to have funding creates the appearance of political strings and pressure. do you respond to is that? does federal funding create tim

id journalism? >> i think a few things. i think about television and radio comments as well. she wrestles with the stame issues, especially in this market. on the radio, on the television side, 15% are coming from the federal government. the largest percentage of money that comes into our station comes from individual philanthropy, and lots of tricks . and i think that the fact that we are anchored in communities, and in communities with communities that are owned and operated -- ties us to our community. so on the tv side, we have swlitely different governance. i came from a station in new york where we had a board and community advisory board. we talked about a lot of issues

about coverage and they were tremendously helpful to us. at pbs we spend a lot of time looking at editoral issues. we were in the process of concluding reviews with our editoral reviews and practices, which we review every five years. and how you reconcile issues with at the same time trying to encourage the connection to local communities that i think social media offers. we have someone in the room, i rarely talk to them. there are many times i raise this material, and i think, wow, i got it right. and he is our connection to the viewers and the users of onour

content, and they have a vehicle through him in turn, it is helpful. all of our producers look to him. i think the lion's share comes from individual fill -- individual philanthropy. i think everything else unravels. i think my perspective on the tv side, i don't spend time worrying about government influence affecting journalism. our journalists are fiercely independent. certainly our colleagues at frontline, which is our significant investment in investigative journalism have tackled very difficult subjects that make people uncomfortable. that's our role.

that's what they believe is our mission. >> mike has worked with me over the last five years on trying to pass the federal shield law to trying to protect the confidentiality laws. mike is one of the most conservative members of congress. he also believes deeply and passionately that the news media are the only real check on government power in real time. we believe that the work that the "the washington post" does and others is essential to the proper functioning of this democracy to the accountability of office holders and so forth. it is an interesting question about whether government funding will tend to compromise

independentents. in fact, we have more than 40 years of experience in this field now, and i think we've built a very good record of independence of accountability, of balance and fairness that is there for anyone to see. so i think this is not a theoretical issue. >> we know npr has gone through a lot going through the departures of the chief fund raiser and then the president, shiller. how is npr doing now?

how are you coping with the aftermath of all of this. >> our journalism has not missed a beat. ours has been on the management side of things. we've learned from what we've gone through. i think we are more disciplined about our process now. most importantly, we have gotten management out of the limelight and put our journalism back in the limelight. we are interested in -- we have been with a team of people that pretty much sacrificed their easter weekend to produce the incredible story on the guantanamo bay facility that we

heard yesterday morning. i heard part of jackie eisen's six-part series on prostitution in nashville. when you see what we're doing in north africa, what we've done in japan. the recording is incredible. >> from the beginning people challenge each other. they challenge for accuracy, fairness, and balance at all times. but it is definitely courageous reporting going on. >> and npr has reviewed its standards, correct? >> yes, and we will have a draft to present to the board soon for consideration and final approval. we also have an ombudsman, and

she's here, too. >> i don't get to talk to her a lot. they are also considering the addition of a standards and practices editor position. so we are -- you know, we work very, very hard to ensure that our coverage is, as i say, accurate and balanced. but we are -- our journalists are incredibly courageous in the reporting that they do. >> how did your listeners respond? what has been the station's own consideration in dealing with a city where there is a lot going on?

>> it really caused a rallying of support. a lot of stations were in fund raiser, and they are having record fund raisers. the quality of the fund raisers remains unparalleled. there was a sense of instability, but i think npr recovered quickly, and we are all powering forward. we have a number as a local member station a mile and a half from hq. we have a number of collaborative projects. major giving, technology, web, and other digital distribution platforms. all that is moving forward. i think the practical day-to-day work relationship between member stations and npr are moving ahead.

>> i want to add to that. in the minnesota legislature, there is a caucus that is holding back or cutting funding for arts and educational program because of what they claim to be the juan williams affair in national public radio. the star hasn't gotten out quickly, just like the efforts that many of us have made to talk about the importance of looking at journalism for the sake of journalism. we're looking at cultural broadcasting for what they can be. the board of directors of minnesota public radio spent an hour of their board which is a minimal amount of time to spend examining the question of bias, and is there any basis in which to think that the news leaders

of the organization were part of the organization are missing something. that they are not examining the story selection or the possible ways the bias can creep in. and the board was very satisfied and also glad that the discussion had occurred. that the stigses around the country are beginning to look much more carefully to make sure charges that could be made not accurate. i think we had a bad brand as did planned parenthood, as did npr and public radio. and that will affect us for sometime.

>> we have another seven or eight minutes before we go to questions from our audience. i hope you will be thinking of those questions. i would like to turn to the subject of digital media. ball -- paul, you referred to this. people will say there is so much choice out there. there is so much that's available. why do we need public broadcasting? you started to address that, but you were talking about what you were doing to extend the brand of public television. >> i think this is -- i'm glad we're sticking to this part, because i always say were it not for the money, this would be the most fascinating time in the

media, because i think jefferson has been quoted twice. i think an engaged citizenry is incredibly powerful. we were looking at social media to bring viewers into a more proactive role in information is important. professional journalism is important. the two operate side-by-side. we have over the course of the last few years spent a fair amount of time thinking about and experimenting and doing work in this space. i think on the near side, he's probably doing the most interesting work in public media. he's taught me everything i know about twitter. i think you are proud of me. but it is fascinating to me. i had a discussion with a friend not that long ago about the fact that i think a lot of people there is the feeling that social media is somehow frivolous, and

it is about -- if you look at some of the work and even outside of the whole journalistic space, people like tyson who have worked with us, he uses social media as a way to try to get a handle on subjects and topics and really engage discussion before he stands in front of a large group to give a speech. if you talk about the way he interacts with his audiences, it is actually quite profound. i think the opportunities for us in public media are huge because we are an organization that is national and local. we have stations in every part of the country, and we have the ability to ch achieve scale --

to achieve scale through our national organizations. the real challenge for us is how do you really link the two together, so that you have true local connection within communities at the same time that you use the national work as a way to connect together. so we have spent efforts building out the architecture for building online both as a national distribution, but also as a place where no matter if you are in a pig market or small market you can connect your own work there. there are ways you can enable stations to put more of their

stigses into the -- stations into the actual journalism rather than creating the platforms themselves. i think this is an interesting time. i think we've been talking about lately the journalistic standards. we did a fair amount of work this year. i think five years from now we will look back and this will accelerate and evolve as we think of ways to think about professional journalism. >> things are changing so fast, you maybe have to do it more often than every five years, i think. >> it is agreed that she did a marvelous job at npr of bringing it into idge digital in-- into digital innovation.

last week she was speaking at harvard, and she had this message for public radio. "you are now competing in the big leagues and are no longer the scrappy underdogs. if you don't aggressively reach out to new audiences on new platforms, someone else will. there is no such thing of lasting media loyalty, especially in this age of media promiscuity." i suspect you may agree with that. >> in part. i think you win on the basis of brand. if that brand represents quality. how do you know what you can trust and what you can't? jim lehrer in his opening remarks pointed out what i would call derivative reporting. it is blogging about what someone else reported that someone else reported that someone somewhere reported.

it is not a pulitzer prize winner doing direct jury roomism. if you have that kind of quality, we have something called public insight journalism that draws from expertise of the audience in a data base of 100,000 experts around the country and makes journalists more efficient and helps them get their stories to be more accurate. that helps the quality, and that improves the brand. you have to be able to know what to trust. you have to be able to have somebody doing the qual original journalism rather than everybody reporting about what they think everybody else reported. >> karen, same question but applied to a media market like washington which is rich in news

sources. all news radio stayings are, i believe, the number one station in the market. so you have a lot of competition. how do you as a public radio station -- what's your role in this media ecosystem? >> that number one commercial newstalk sfation that shall remain nameless -- >> did you say it's on top? [laughter] >> we found in average for our audience in the morning drive and the 18 to 34-year-old audience. so i think the content, the quality -- we have a different mantle than our commercial colleagues do. information dissemination is another ning but

knowledge-sbling a completely different thing. we are about helping you understand from your back yard to the globe. i tell my staff i want at kitchen table level of helping people figure things out and navigate the world. whether it is a budget plan, a health plan. we have our great local education reporter doing five-part series on childhood obesity. when you go to wamu.org there is a story. you can see how the calories add up and what kind of tifflets would you have to do to burn that off. so community engagement really is key. and i think another telling figure -- twice a year we get -- i don't know if only major markets get this, but we get an average report from arbitron

that shows all of our platforms, podcasting, all of that, so we are about 775,000 people consuming all of the content on a weekly basis. 165,000 of that are platforms other than channel 1. >> so you don't know where your next listener will be from. >> ok. we're going to have hand-held mics and think about your questions. >> karen said this exactly right, and so has bill. in my previous incarnation at "the washington post" company for 21 years, we created "the washington post" -- we created washington post.com, and i see a

lot of foal "post" alumni in the audience here. but the mission was to create some world-class journalism that people around the world could enjoy through this new platform called the internet. we now have 12 or 13 million regular viewers of washingtonpost.com. more people than ever are reading "the washington post" than ever. this is because of that trust factor we've been talking about here. "the washington post" has not spent a dime outside of the washington area to p.l.o. motor -- to promote washingtonpost.com. these millions of people come

from around the world because of their faith in this franchise. the same thing can happen because it will be available to us in this new century for the public broadcasting people who are at the national and the local level. >> great. the national and local partnership is one that i'm particularly interested in. now we're reath ready for -- now we're ready for some questions. when the mic reaches you, identify yourself, and there is a question there.

>> i'm from one of the british stayings so loved by public broadcasting. i want to thank the organizers for bringing together the high priests. because if you were and produced as i do an independent producer we get more money. we don't get a postcard at christmas. we've been on the air 15 years and we don't exist. we talk among ourselves as to why we don't exist. we can watch our programs on varying public stations, but we get no recognition from the larger public television, and we never ask for any input, which seems to me quite extraordinary. we actually paid to get on the satellite. our situation is the orphans of television, and i wonder why we are treated as orphans if our

programming is sufficiently valuable to be aired. >> ok. we will add you to our christmas card list. the thing about public television that people don't understand at pbs, we're not a network. in fact, we're the network model . the decisions made in public broadcasting are made at the local level. we do aggregate a schedule. we do peth put together a scheduled program. we maintain the satellite interconnection. we have done a significant amount of work on pbs.org. there is a significant amount of programming that goes directly to the stations. the stations purchased. and that is the situation with your programming. that aenables stayings to really think about what will work for

them in the local market. what is of interest to them. we have limited funds of what we're able to distribute. so we put our resources at pbs around a smaller amount of programming that we distribute to all the stayings. if you travel from market to market, you see that when you visit a public television station, you visit a public television station. they look very different. i think as i mentioned earlier, part of the sense of what makes us so different and unique is that we are the ultimate local organization. >> next question. i think we have a hand here. >> coming from the country where the broadcast sg doing a major role in journalism, i'm surprised to see all these

conversations that npr and pbs, regardless of the fact that they are doing a great job. my question is, is there anyway that pbs and npr could combine together and build new stronger public broadcasting in this country? that's my dream. >> what a good question. the question is, can -- why do we have a separate public radio and public television system? why can't we all get along? >> we do get along. >> the reasons for them being separate are historical. we are more and more collaborating on projects and

combining forces and doing some really exciting things. i anticipate that this will continue. i think combining the two organizations as businesses is -- would be hugely complicated. i don't know that it would necessarily create a stronger combined organization, but i do know that we are -- we are really interested in working together to best serve our public. >> we have done a lot particularly over the last few years in the areas that we don't see. we work together for example on corporate underwriting and trying to bring the resources in. so on the business side, we have been working together on some of the architecture for the work that we're doing online. but more parent to the viewer is the work that we have been -- but more apparent to the viewer is the work that we have been engaged in. frontline and npr have come

together on projects with other organizes like republica. i think, you know, npr has very deep reporting capabilities that we do not have on the public television side. we will never have on the public television side. it makes no sense for us to construct a system like that. it makes more sense for us to try to work together and try to leverage the assets of both organizations of of course online everything does come together. that's where i think a lot of the partnerships have daycaren place. i think that, again, the way that we're a little different, and i want to commend nhk for doing such extraordinary coverage both in japan but more importantedly -- more importantly to the rest of the world, really is a journalism makes us all proud to be a partner in the whole public media world i think we are also

doing partnerships with you. frontline did a piece a month ago called post-mortem about the medical examiners in this country and the challenges of it. the reporting that was done between frontline, npr, and republica resulted in a week of journalism for "all things considered" swelleds a lot of -- as well as a lot of material that was available online. i think it is no coincidence between public television that we have taken a third of the peabodies that have been awarded. i think that rings organizations -- i think that brings

organizations together in positive ways. >> it might be like trying to merge the nhk and the bbc. you think about that. the challenges that have come up this year give ace chance to think of what we're funding, how we're funding, why we're fund ing, and think what could public broadcasting be? public broad casting is probably going to be the last standing in terms of journalism. newspapers are -- i love newspapers. they are weakening, and they may or may not make it through the dibblingtal -- digital transition. some of them may, lots of them may not. television and radio increasingly polarized.

you make lots more money being polarized than any other way. if that's what's informing our country, who will provide the accurate information on everything from health care to social security to wars in the middle east, et cetera. it leads us. we are in some ways fortunately here but nowhere near as well developed as we need to be to do it. your work in nhk is unbelievable in terms of what we work with here in the united states. somebody has to say how important is this? when you are cutting things in the budget the way we are cutting them in the united states, to think about, does it make sense to cut public broadcasting's $450 million in order to cut back on the knowledge that the people need to make the decisions on what the government should be cutting or what the government should be

funding, cutting the voice of america, $8 million and cutting out the mandarin service, the chinese have now said, we will pay for it, it is so important to us. we need to look at what is the role going to be, because i don't see any alternative, other than the role of public broadcasting. and it is not $450 million. i will be the only one in this environment that will be saying we should be talking about quadrupling or tripping -- tripling this kind of money. so that the issues are understood by the people that will have to vote and decide that. it is foolish. it is pound foolish to not -- not to do that. >> i think we will have to bring this discussion to an end. that you so much to our

wonderful panel for being here today. we will be back in 10 minutes to continue the discussion on digital platforms. thank you. [applause] >> tomorrow on "washington journal" at :45, harry holzer. at 8:30, mike glover. and donald ritchie talks about

compromise in congress. >> live saturday, the white house correspondents annual black tie dinner, starting with red-carpet arrival. our coverage includes highlights of past dinners and your comments from facebook and twitter. streaming at c-span.org and live on c-span. republican congressman ron paul of texas said today he's forming an explore tri committee for the 2012 election. a preliminary step toward officially declaring as a candidate. congressman paul has run for congress twice before. in 1998 as a libtarne, and in 2008 as a republican. today's announcement was made at the did i moin, iowa, holiday inn. this is 20 minutes. [applause]

s >> there are three individuals andrew ivers, a.j. fisher, and mr. spiker. they are here with me today. i would like to have them say a few words because they are going to be busy in iowa organizing this explore tri committee. i would first like to call on true ivers. [applause] >> i have a pair of statements, so i would like to read some

thoughts that i have. as an official of the republican party of iowa, i am thrilled to support congressman ron paul as a candidate for the republican nomination for president of the united states. why? why am i excited about this candidate? after 25 years of political activism i have not seen another candidate with more integrity, character, intellect, and courage than ron paul. in the midst of our financial and monetary crisis, i believe dr. paul is perhapsed december continued -- destined to be america's leader providing solutions for problems and hope for our future. having spoken on these issues, he is clearly washington's avante guarde in this area.

ron paul does represent the many -- represent the soul of the republican coalition. i believe his 22-year voting record embodies the spirit of the republican coalition. of the issues we face today, the immorality of spending money we don't have is pram perhaps the greatest threat we face. ron paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget. he has never voted to raise taxes. he has never voted for government regulation of private enterprise. thus, he has never voted to spend money we don't have. it's the spending that is at the heart of our problems, and ron

paul is washington's undisputable champion with an unmatched record of fidelity and consistency on this issue. congressman paul alone has the credentials to claim loim leadership in this area of spending within our means without borrowing and without printing. lastly, dr. paul's positive message of personal responsibility and constitutional government is our founder's formula for success. which leads to prosperity and peace. i believe his message of individual liberty, small government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy will connect with the iowa republicans in this upcoming election.

consequently, i believe we are able and will be able to build an organization and compete very well in this first in the nation's caucus state. so we look forward to the straw poll and the caucus. thank you all for coming out. [applause] >> it is my real distinct pleasure to introduce a colleague of mine, also a member of the state senator committee. [applause] >> i'm david fisher, and i'm humbled by having the honor to lead congressman paul's explore tri committee here in iowa. i'm a republican, and i've watched my own party stray far from its principles giving us ever bigger government, more

debt, more inflation, more invasion of privacy, more police in the world, more central zation -- centraization of authority. i've stepped up to lead my party back to a constrained party that will deliver more freedom and more peace and prosperity. ron paul is a real republican. and as grassroots elected iowa-g.o.p. leader, it is wholly appropriate for me to help and support him, because the principles that he champions and the young people that follow him and the movement that he leads are the future of conservativism in america. it is our job as iowans to tell the rest of america which of these potential candidates has the message that america needs to hear.

. the ideas of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound

money, for markets, and the pro-american foreign policy. thank you all for coming and had a great day. [applause] >> i am willing to take some questions and i believe the members of the committee will also take questions as well. i want to thank them for their very generous statements and your willingness to be organizers here in the state. thank you very much. without going into any opening statement, i will go ahead and take questions. >> will this enable you to do better than you did in 2008? >> the one reason why most people expected to be different is that the country is already quite different. there are literally millions of more people now concerned about the very things i talked about

four years ago. they're concerned about the economy, and they are worried that conditions are deteriorating. the very things i talked about are the things that are most important, the excess of spending, the entitlement system, if the foreign-policy, as well as the monetary system. the number of people who have become aware of this is growing tremendously and they are evident around the country. the anticipation would be that it will be a much more significant campaign if it comes to a campaign announcement, when that comes about. >> [inaudible] >> i have been traveling a lot. i go to a lot of universities and they have been very encouraging to me.

ftc's says something what about what we say and what we do. -- the fec says something about what we say and what we did. just last week there was an announcement about a debate in south carolina. first they said you did not have to be an officially announced candidate to attend the debate. the potential candidates have been slow in announcing this year. at the last minute, they did decide that you do not have to be an announced candidate but you have to have at least an exploratory committee. those types of things help you make the decision, if you're not quite ready to make a decision. you think it would be in a bandage to attend the debate, then you go ahead and -- an advantage to attend the debate, did you go ahead and establish an exploratory committee. this will help to evaluate the

support in part of the answer i gave earlier has to do with looking for that and seeing it and i see a lot of support. sometimes you get a lot of support from very vocal supporters, and you do not know whether they are pulling your not, not intentionally. but how many people are there? there is a lot more to it. are you able to raise the necessary funds and get the volunteers together? it is a continuing evaluation. i do intend to make a firm decision in the not too distant future. i would be very surprised if i do not make that decision one way or the other in the month of may. >> [inaudible] >> you will have to ask rand all that. i will have to talk to him about

that. [laughter] people have mentioned that. it would be unusual. >> barack obama had a big chunk of the youth vote in 2008. you think you will take it or will barack obama? >> that is fascinating. in the last campaign, it was very obvious that young people were into the message i was delivering. and they should be, because as far as i'm concerned, they are being dumped on. they will pay a lot of taxes and not get a lot every enumeration bag. it is difficult to get jobs. and when the six explain to college kids especially, the response is very rigid in when this is explained to college kids especially, the response is very good.

it was more or less like they were not that important, the others. a lot of them went to obama which was strange to me. our views were quite different. but when i listen carefully, there were some things that obama was saying that young people were interested in, like we really want to have changed and have a different system and have some reforms. and even as was once was promise, of more humble farm policy. many of them responded. but there is a lot of disenchantment there, to tell you the truth. i do not think that the massive project the mass of young people -- young people generally lead a revolution. i see that what we have been trying to do for the last five years or more as an intellectual

revolution, a change in ideas on foreign-policy, on monetary policy, a change in attitude about the entitlement system, and a change in the attitude about protecting personal liberty. to me, it is a change in these ideas. if it is intellectual. i believe that politicians so often reflect and intellectual climate and that is where we see at tremendous interest in what we are doing. i think that obama will not be able to hang onto that enthusiasm of the young people because of what has been happening in the last couple of years. pardon me? >> [inaudible] >> i am not getting it.

fed policy. that question is down my alley. to say the least. tomorrow there is going to be a major change in the way our farm policy is being -- our foreign- policy is being monitored. there will be the first press conference by the federal reserve board chairman. this is reflective of the grass roots movement to push the congress to find out more about what the fed is doing and what they did do in the bailout. we are finding astounding things. the monetary policy is to me a very significant issue. if you want to curtail spending, and everyone is talking about it but i do not know how sincere they are, you cannot do it without addressing the inflationary system.

congress does not have to act responsibly if they can run up a debt, tax to an extent, borrowed to an extent, and if they still do not have enough money, and they resort to printing of money. then they get into trouble and then they massively print of the money. what has happened in the last couple of years? they did exactly -- they perpetuated the same policies that gave us our crisis. too much spending and borrowing and regulating and inflation. their inflationary problems, the creation of new money, it is historic. world history has never seen the monetary inflation that we have seen in the last couple of years. trillions of dollars on monitored by the congress, and guess what that leads to? higher prices. higher prices will be the key issue in next year's election,

because people already know that prices are going up. some might not think it is a bad deal, but when the american consumer suffers because their standard of living goes down and their cost of living goes up and they do not have jobs, then they see interest rates cropping up, this is a big deal. it is related to the federal reserve system. the problems we are seeing around the world today are related to the fact that all countries are suffering the same problem because this phenomenon is worldwide. we issued the world currency, the reserve currency of the world. that gives us the privilege of exporting our money, and unfortunately, our jobs and our businesses. the countries that you see right now, you see all sorts of explanations for private thing. but they are mostly upset about the cost of food.

this is what it comes to. there will be a lot of unrest in this country because the cost of living is going up in the only thing left is to print more money and that makes the problem much worse. monetary policy is key and we have to address it. and i believe that that is going to be my last question and i think you for coming. -- i thank you for coming. [applause] >> we have a flier out on the table that will give you a few more talking points of with the campaign stands for the potential candidate. >> tomorrow, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke holds that they's first-ever news conference to talk about the economic outlook and interest rates. this is a change from past fed policy when only a written statement would be issued. we will have live coverage here on c-span tomorrow beginning at

2:15 p.m. eastern. c-span receive more than 1000 entries for this year's studentcam competition. we talk to the student who finished first in the high school division and showed his winning video. this 50 minutes. coming up, the discussion on the government's role in response. focusing on this issue for his video, here's the documentary. >> my name is math that you want to i'm a junior at a high school. on may 25, my life was changed first-ever. >> a history-making twister produced winds in excess of 200 miles per hour. the severe storm system virtually ripped the town in

half. 22 businesses. leveled 222 homes and damaged others in a community of only 2,000. but the statistics don't do justice to the heartbreak and the hurt. >> my home was located where it took nearly a year to rebuild and we were finally able to move in. but in a matter of seconds, it was gone. but even after the tornado, it did not seize to exist our recovery began after the storm passed and the city, high school and city hall and majority of the other buildings destroyed during the storm have been rebuild. >> it's amazing to see their