it was inspiring to see the community really come together. >> but there's still a cloud hanging over our community. we still struggle with the federal government and fema and disaster relief. >> 2 1/2 years removed from that day and we're still working with fema. >> in the 1990's, fema was a model government agency. but as hurricane katrina showed, croneyism, underfunding and lack of leadership turned fema into the most rid called agency in the federal government. >> the team has handled continued disaster relief there. >> parts of the government you love and parts you hate. >> there's been sometimes with some national disasters, fema has not functioned so well.

take in the last five years. they could have gotten their act together and done a better job. >> in several areas, fema handles parts of tornado assistance well. >> when it comes to recovery in florida, fema has been good to us. >> they have helped us with school buses, laying another track at the football field. playgrounds and parking lots. >> once the tornado happened, it was very apparent from the damage that it was a catastrophic event. that it was going to be beyond the needs of the community. fema stepped in very, very early in the process. >> that was definitely beneficial. they also set up a command center here not only for

helping the disaster and recovery but also helping the citizens. >> we distributed more than $2 million within the first two weeks of that nade parkersburg. >> without fema funds, parkersburg wouldn't exist or be where we are at today. >> however, they missed due to miscommunications, we find ourselves today in a critical struggle. >> at the very grassroots there's a little problem with fema, maybe different people having a different view of what the government can and can't do. >> it's easy for misunderstandings like that to happen, because they don't keep enough people on the payroll to just handle a disaster in that part of the country. >> fema has a full-time staff. we then pull from what we call

our reservists or disaster assistance employees. unfortunately, the way the reservists work, we do rotate them in and out. >> well, 2 na years later, a lot of that information we received was inaccurate. some of the guidance we received is not policy-driven. the decisions we made as a school board and really on behalf of our students and communities was based entirely on that information we received. and we find ourselves 2 1/2 years later in kind of a financial crisis of sorts as we are waiting an official word on funding. fema is now requesting that be returned. >> from the initial time we give out kind of an estimate of the amount of funding in what we call project work sheet, there are likely to be changes that happen from that time until the time the money is

allocated. so that's how those types of situations where we have those occur. >> i guess that's the 180-degree difference to obligating money. you sign a project work sheeth and state the federal government going to help by contributing this much money towards the project. months go by. in this case years go by, and they come back after a third or fourth review and say that isn't how it should have been handeled and now they are going to de obligate that money. >> they can take it away after they gave it. and de obligated, i didn't even know that was a word. you know, we should have known that could have happened. >> fema has very strict guidelines. if you don't do this or that or everything right, they have the ability to de obligate at any point. >> that's where thing of the people have become such a

factor for us. the people we originally worked with understood we needed to get back into our high school within a year. so decisions were need move that time line along quickly. and that's how things change now. things being reviewed by the third or fourth viewer and the extra costs associated. >> the city may never fully recover. but my community's restoration was not only the result of federal assistance. >> we were not going to sit around and wait for the federal government to do everything. or what we can do or not do. we just had a can-do attitude and did it. >> we, the people created our success. >> though fema has aided parts tremendously, it's also created

challenges that athlete the progress we've made. the lack of funding jeopardize my school and the education of the area. without the renewed aid from the federal government, my life and my community may face continued devastation after the storm. host: we'd like to introduce you to this year's first prize high school winner, matthew joining us from john on the, iowa. congratulations on your prize-winning entry. >> thank you, very much. host: we just showed the tour and document enrichment it was a personal story for you, but how did you come about deciding this is what you wanted to do? >> i was taking an american history class and in the class i was spodse to make a

documentary on american history and my teacher approached me with this idea to enter the sfean competition. and i thought hey, do this project and earn some money, get an a. it works. but we brain stormed some issues, and the top i can that seemed most fitting and -- most fitting and most obvious had to do with the parkersburg tornado and the role the federal government played through fema in the cast part of the federal government. host: what did you learn about the federal government? guest: that the cover, fema was able to definitely help parkersburg a lot with certain projects and getting things together. without finally fema, we

wouldn't be as rebuilt as we are today. host: and what surprised you about the federal government and how it works? >> well, particularly through fema, we are still working with the federal government today. it's an ongoing process. host: so did you start out having one opinion of fema and the government, and thven it changed as you went along? >> well, in the beginning, i wasn't aware of the struggles weerp having. it was -- we recovered, and it was done with. but i learned there was a bigger role it played and i learned both the good things fema has done and certain things they can improve on. and fema has definitely done well for parkersburg, but there are still issues that need to

be dealt with. host: the community exists of about 2,000 people. ital leveled 222 homes and damaged 480. have you been following the project of fema since you submitted the documentary? and what have you learned? >> i've heard of other tornadoes and disasters and such and i've learned that fema is still trying to help therges and they are doing the best they can. there's been issues that need to be addressed also with the floods in 2010. and i've learned that's an ongoing process for many communities. host: you mentioned there's $3,000 that goes look nch along with this. what do you mant to do with it? >> a lot of it i will put --

distribute some to a group called neighbors across the land formed after the tornado. they go around and help other communities stricken by disasters. and they help with the recovery. so i plan to donate a portion of that and update some of my film equipment. film is a passion of mine, and i like to do it, but i need a little bit of upgrade with my equipment. so i'm going to put a little bit of money into that. >> we spoke about filming for the documentary, getting all the different types of elements that you needed. >> yeses a fascinating process talking to all these people and learning their story. i had a great time talking with the former governor and as well as a representative from fema, and they provided get a insights into their -- i filmed

all the interviews on my little flip portible camcorder with a tripod with a missing leg. so had a liling little issue with that. and then i borrowed a school lap top and used some editing software off of that to put it together. i had so much great information that was difficult to compress into a 10-minute voofment but i got that done. host: well, congratulations matthew. thank you for being here and talking about the role of government in disaster response. our first-place prize winner. also joining us is the former fema director from 2001-2003 to

help us answer viewer phone calls, and in a situation like this tornado that hit parkersburg, aye aye, twhast the role -- dd -- guest: he probably left the best stories on the cutting room floor. but it's a challenge. we'll be nice to him today. he might be the next steven speelburg. host: you're right. guest: fema basically takes place when the local government -- budgets are outstripped for what resources are actually needed to respond to any type of disaster. and the process is that the

local entity talks to the governor's office, and the governor eefs office prepares a disaster's declaration that goes to the president of the united states. the president's office through fema normally reviews that application and makes a recommendation. normally when lives are at risk, the president acts very, very quickly. always with a -- with the hearts of those who have been hampled. and it really doesn't matter whether it's a democrat or republican, the president is fulfilling his obligation through people ray to respond to disasters. i know of one particular response. in kansas in 2002. the city was leled much like parkersburg was, and fema acted responsibly as they did in

parkersburg. now one of the problems is as projects develop and evolve and come to completion, there's always disagreements and discussions about the finer points. and i understand that fema has some ongoing issues with parkersburg. but i'm sure there can be an immediate resolution. i don't know the particulars in this case. the residents of parkersburg wants a quick resolution. host: how does fema determine who is going to help and how? >> well, it's individual and public assistance. i think the video matthew did mainly focuses on public

assistance. public buildings. public infrastructure. and sometimes federal agencies in my opinion overstep their bounds in trying to enforce a particular edict or rules or regulations that may be important elsewhere in the country. maybe not in the plain state of iowa. and the additional thing i think that is always a problem is you have staff over the. you make agreements. there's promises made and a fema representative says yes, we can do this and no, we can't do that. as time passes, those disaster assistance employees go out after serving their term. new policies come in. what happens is that that's not fair to local taxpayers.

when you're -- we're still dealing with issues from hurricane katrina six years ago. and in my mind that's absolutely unacceptable. host: you touched on this and matthew talked about it in hisvoofment how can money be de obligated. guest: the stat ford act sets out broad parameters on what you can and can't do rightly so there was great latitude on what officials can and can't agree to within the guidelines. sometimes a political agenda or personality gets in the way and as a last resort someone will step in and say we're going to de obligate your funds. which is totally not right and

not fair. no one en wants to see of on top of the table and a decision come to by everyone host: if there's a time frame in which fema says we've been working with you for x number of days or months and we can no longer work with you, what goes on? >> well, it was given to the then director and fotch -- but there were a lot of ongoing disasters whether it's flooding or the massive tornadoes that hit the southeast last week. those are all open disasters and normally the director or or administrator is directed to

put an individual in charge to act in his or her sted to make these decisions. that's where these decisions need to be resolved. the obligation comes about when they get -- we're running a deficit. over $1 trillion. $1.5 trillion. so many agencies are put under the gun to not spend money or hold off on money. as a result when commitments are made some officials and representatives are put on the hot plate, so to speak, and go back and study instead of saying we once money is bhiggetted or committed by fema, there ought to be follow through. host: disaster response is our topic this morning. a new study shows rival for tornado aly. ground zero for twisters now

may be in the southeast of the country. and floods drive people from gnomes missouri. -- from homes in missouri. and more rain is on the way. probably a headline we're going to be seeing across the country with spring floods. we're talking about disaster responses today. our first prize high school winner, matthew wick did his study about the role of government and disaster. caller? caller: i was wondering to talk to the director there, how much difference it makes in fema when george bush cut a lot of the funding from it? because we're having all these problems now, and now we have no money, and fema is taken care of. so i'll take your answer off the air.

guest: i am always asked often about the budgets. and the way the congress operates and the president signs the funding bill is there's what's called the disaster relief fund. d.r.f. for short. washington loves ack are anymores, but they are given x million dollars a queer to start with in their annual budgets and congress will ails replenish their disaster relief fund should it run dry. i don't know any time president budget and were called to respond to any and all actions. especially the principal responsible for 9/11. we spent so much at the sites in pennsylvania and at the pentagon. but congress says this is an

american issue and when people are hurt and in harm's way, the congress always has a generous national security trying to help their fellow citizens. if i knew specifically what you were referring to on cutting budgets, i could respond. but as the former budget director for a time, we got a response. host: caller? caller: i want to commend the young man for doing his winning video. and i worked with fema right after hurricane andrew. in miami. in 1992-1993. it took us about six years, but i was actually giggling, because this young man has fema right on the money. everything that he indicated in

his video is exactly what we went through in the early 90's. and it's interesting to see that in the 19 90's until now, it's not changed at all. >> eff -- connie, i think you and he are on to something. i would not like it when people would inform me that money got de obligated. i would basically say you made a commitment. is your word good or no good? we, as american taxpayers, expect the government to step up and assist states in responding to all natural disasters. it's not just the response but the recovery mode and rebuilding mode. i appreciate your point, connie, and i have heart burn with those individuals that

made the commitment and then for whatever reason moved another job or have a promotion or moved out of that particular responsibility and then local officials are left to deal with a new team, new faces, and they have to retell the story again. i think retelling the story once is enough. particularly when money is obligated to fund whatever projects for individuals, families or in the public assistance arena. >> in matthew's documentary, he features congressman waxman's -- saying it suffered from croneyism, lack of funding and leadership. >> i have no specifics on something specific -- guest: but maybe after hurricane katrina, i believe fema had a breakdown in

communication, but you can't just point fingers at fema for the lack of response in fema. i could point it to lack of government and it needs to start with the local government. we are still at the federal government dealing with issues. issues after the fact, helping louisiana get back up off their feet. guest: we do a lot of security consulting, high-profile protection. a lot of training. we also do a lot of disaster assistance, helping local officials try to negotiate the path. we're basically a consulting firm internationally. host: san antonio, texas,

independent. welcome to the kong very sation. caller: my question for the director is about the properties fema has located across the country that are for the expected insur intelligence of immigrants because of the war on drugs and how do they relate to disaster responses and what are they expecting as far as a disaster. >> alex, i appreciate your call, but i have to tell you, i don't know anything about that. there were no such facilities during the two years i existed as director. i know there's a lot of buzz on the internet about locations fema owns and i know we have regional offices, regional personnel. we preposition access supplies and people in those regions, but unless you know something

specifically, i'm afraid i can't help you on that issue. host: we'll go to ron, a democrat from north town, pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to correct the director on one thing. first, in 2001, i happen to know because i grew up in highwaysenton, and i left kansas in 2001 shortly after the housen to know tornado. i was interested in knowing what kind of help fema gave to that area, and i want to congratulate matthew on his win. and i'll take my answer off the line. guest: thank you, ron. i went there. the path of the tornado, as you probably remember, acted like a

knife, slicing if -- through. schools, hospitals, roads, i don't remember the specifics. it's almost 10 years ago. but measure importantly to families and individuals, individual assistance. a lot of confusing comes into play if individuals or businesses have the insurance policies. that's part of the reason that we have an industry to take the risk and lower the risk in individuals and companies by paying monthly premiums for insurance. if you have insurance, fema will not allow you to essentially double dip. in other words, they will allow your insurance policy, but then

if there's a belief by fema officials that more money, sometimes people are underinsured -- more money is needed -- remember, it's not supposed to be a full-time permanent fix. it's supposed to help you in the rough times. and i remember assistance for families that was an immediate influx that was supposed to help you pay for family needs and toiletry items and clothing. i don't remember the amount of money, but i know that it was a lot of money. and out in the plains, you're subject to a lot of tornadoes. high winds. and it's not an uncommon occurrence. part of our problem here in the u.s. is that we've raised expectations for all our citizens that if there's something that's going to

happen, then the federal government is going to come in and make you 100% whole. that's just not possible. not possible in today's budgets where we're running such huge, vast sums of money over our budgets. and it's much like you having your credit card. if you over spend your credit card, pretty soon they won't give you any credit. we're trying to make sure we have money. that's the job of the federal government. not to be first on the scene. but probably last on the see. caller: first of all, so you understand my position. if the main job of the federal government is to protect the citizens of the united states, whether it be from terrorism or war or whatever, i believe that that constitutes also helping

people recover. i live in florida. i went through the hurricane charley, hurricane francis. you name it, we went there. all of a sudden because my home was hit in hurricane charley, which was the first of four, the insurance company was willing to make us somewhat whole. but once we got to the second or third hurricane, the insurance companies didn't want to pay. to in fema or the government, certainly not the state. certainly not the city. they had no funds and were notaling with -- and --

guest: i remember very well suggest down with leaders of the insurance industry. we were talking about property and casualty companies that ensure the majority of businesses and homes in the u.s. but they too, are in a for-profit business, and they, too, have policy holders and stock holders that they have to respond to. those pressures. so it's a difficult issue. i don't like the way some insurance companies treat their policy holders, particularly if you have a policy in good standing, your premiums are current. i just don't like it. but at the same time let me just say it's not federal government's job or fema's troll make you whole again.

there's not enough money in the world to make everyone whole in narrow own mind. it is important to get you over the rough spot and get you back on your feet so you can take care of yourself. i mean, we are supposed to be a culture of individualism. and unfortunately we have become somewhat lax and reliant upon government agencies to help us. and that is not what made our country great and we cannot be on a government dole all the time. it is not possible. host: yesterday we introduced you to our first prize middle school winner for our student cam competition. today we're talking about disaster response, because that was the topic of our first prize winner in the high school category. matthew wick. i'm curious, because you went along in the process of doing

your documentary. what do you think about fema that needs to change, if anything guest: the big issue when i spoke to people around the community were the communication and de obligation issues. the miscommunication issues were mainly caused by the turnover of people. which means the people the community was talking to with fema would go somewhere else and a new person would come in and the community would have to reexplain their situation, which happened several times. that process mistakes were made and miscommunication happens. then they gave up the money and now they are de obligating it. so we are now in a financial crisis at the moment.

host: can you quabt phi how much money is the school or town waiting on? did they give you that figure? guest: i'm not sure of the current figure, but i believe it was nearly $700,000. guest: so given that, is there a way to change over the staff en -- change over the staff differently? guest: for an agency that's supposed to have a responsibility as large and vast as fema's responsibility is, to take care of all the disasters o' -- you have to have the weight behind the congress and president to fully

fund the agencies to do the job they are required to do. that is the only answer. second to that, i would only make sure once someone is assigned to a particular disaster, as the decision maker, then i would make sure that that person remains with that disaster as in parkersburg's case, until all issues on file is -- are closed. and it just stounds me that you have -- sounds to me that you have dealt with a lot of different people in turnovers. and in the big scheme of things, $700,000 didn't sound like a lot of money, but it is to parkersburg and your school district. like i said in the beginning, to believe this could be solved in a 25-30-minute meeting, it

should be able to be hashed out. that's what we do. we solve problems. this problem happened in may of 2008. we're now approaching may of 2011. and i feel sorry for the citizens of your statement, matthew, and for parkersburg, because they are dealing with this shortfall. i wish i could encourage everyone to move through this swiftly to solve the problem. not only this problem in parkersburg, but open, outstanding problems that exist in the government's files so far. >> fema its director from 2001-2003 here with us this morning to help us answer questions about disaster response and our first -- --

our caller is on. caller: y'all were talking about hurricane katrina. and when i think back on that, and everything, i lived in arkansas. and yesterday, a monday, was filled with tornado warnings all afternoon. we are thankful that we have a tornado siren. but to get back to hurricane cat, -- hurricane katrina, what i think about when i think about that is why did the government not reinforce those levies when they knew that they were not going to hold?

plus, on top of that, the people that i blame mostly for some of the things that happened down there is the mayor who did not get the people out when they had buses sitting around to get the people out host: all right. we'll leave it there. guest: she is referring to the worst photo i've ever seen in a disaster response. that would be the parking lot full of the 100 or so buses that could have been used. unfortunately, when leaders or community officials issue warnings, some citizens just refuse to heed the warnings to evacuate, to leave their home. i fully understand that. but at the same time those leaders need to put assets in place. that case, the school bus system for those who didn't have transportation, for the elderly who needed to be moved

out of the way. one of my greatest nightmares is a hurricane hitting new orleans, a category five or so, because it will destroy, as we've seen in hurricane katrina's instance, a lot of that community. much of that community, particularly the lower ninth ward to my disgust has not been rebuilt yet. money and time has been wasted. individuals have not returned. but again, it is up to the leaders of those communities to set with the government and, the only reason they were built to a category three was because of money. they were built years and years and years ago to the technical spessifications that were provided at that time.

state of the art science. plus, no one really believed that a category five hurricane would hit new orleans. but it's bound to happen eventually. host: from clums, ohio. -- from columbia, ohio. caller: i want to congratulations matthew on his great job with the video, and it looks like your guest was allegation a volunteer growing up according to some of the sources i've been reading. so maybe the young man would potentially have a position in government. [laughter] caller: hopefully he'll continue on with reviewing some of the issues in these other states that are still undergoing fema controversy. i think that would be a good job for him.

at any rate, i was wondering about, you know, the fact that when joe, you were working with president bush, and you were on his cabinet as the director of the federal emergency agency and then transferred to the homeland security department and then later left in 2003 and looks like you then went on to support new bridge strategies, which is a private company -- host: diana, we need to get to a question. caller: well, i wanted to know with the contracts that are in iraq, is there any way that bring some of that work back into the united states for the people that need jobs here.

guest: well, number one, i do not have any contracts in iraq. nor my company. so i appreciate you reading the internet. unfortunately, it's not true. i just am not prepared to respond to what you're talking about. preal because i don't know what you're -- principal my, because i don't know what you're talking about. caller: local preparedness. if local communities are not into the news program, national incident program to have their communities set up with their local officials, then be prepared to cover any of the -- any emergency -- last time we

had an f-1 go through my community. we had a flood in 2008. our little community of some 900 souls. stepping back to the to seten tornado. it was not certified, and it caused them grief anding a croatian vacation. they didn't get a -- so they suffered through this without fema's help. the government insisted at that time that those local communities must become certified. we did that. i became certified, and it's all documentation, and thank you, matthew. you might say, with my film and camera work, i became our local documentor, so that when we had the flood in 2008, i documented

as much of that as we could. host: we'll leave it there. joe, what about that? guest: well, he makes a good point. even though wrong. but a lot of communities can help themselves, and again, it gets to personal responsibility whether as an individual or family or community, to come together. make an assessment of where you think you're vulnerable. fema can help you do that. they can help communities plan properly to prepare for potential disasters, even with their building codes. our building codes nationwide today are much stronger because of programs like the ones that fema promotes, to help educate -- better educate. plus our sciences did improve dramatically. first and foremost they need to step up to the plate and not

always count on some government agency to bail you out. host: to george. caller: the matthew study was very timely. i just heard on the news last night that fema was de obligating some of its response to the recent flooding along the pa sake river in new jersey. this is a chronic problem that involves hundreds of thousands in the communities. and what my point and question is. i understand the army core of engineers has been involved in trying to mitigate some of that problem, because it's been a growing problem. not necessarily related to the problem of rainfall. what coordination is there between government agencies between the army's corps of

responsiblies and fema's responsibilities under an event that occurs over several storms and you have an accumulation of -- host: my apologies. we have to leave it there. joe? guest: well, he makes a good point in so far as coordination. there was massive coordination when it comes to the flood plain issue. un fortunately, a lot of folks in our country like to be close to water. rivers, lakes, and the oceans on both gulfs. there's an inherent risk and responsibility that goes along with that desire to be along the coast. it might be nice for the government or insurance companies to step up once or twice to rebuild for you. but you have a personal responsibility if you want to live in a flood plain, you have to know it's going to flood eventually. that's the purpose of flood plain maps. either five,10, 1,000 years

out, it will happen. and we can't always, as a taxpayer, rebuild and pay for rebuilding in low-lying areas. that's why studies need to be completed. and elected officials have to make tough decisions to decide where to build and where not to build. but you as individuals have responsibilities, too. host: matthew, talk about how the town responded. how the people responded to the tornado back in 2008. guest: immediately after the tornado hit, neighbors were helping neighbors. half the town was leveled, but there was a good portion that was untouched. and the untouched side of town didn't just stand around. they went immediately to help their neighbors and help them recover, and that was a big part of our relief effort. it was one of the reasons why

we are as rebuilt as we are today. host: and matthew, how is the town doing today? guest: the majority of the town is fully rebuilt. people have mostly rebuilt on-site. some of the houses are where they were and things are returned to normal. thanks again for entering the competition. and for being here this morning. joe allbaugh, we also want to thank you for being here as well. guest: thank you to matthew as well for stepping up. host: tomorrow we will be joined by the grand prize winner to discuss the topic of compromise in government. you can watch all the

documentary's and learn more about the competition at studentcam.org. >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," harry holzer on the effect of the recession on unemployment and workers' pay. we will talk about the 2012 presidential race in iowa and new hampshire. and senate and hip -- senate historian donald ritchie tossed as this year's studentcam grand prize winner. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. >> up next, epa administrator lee said jackson talks about u.s. energy policy. public television and radio executives on the future of public broadcasting. and ron paul visits i a lot to announce the formation of his presidential exploratory committee. all this month we have been featuring the top winners of the

studentcam competition. meet the grand prize winner and see this video tomorrow morning. watch his documentary at 6:50 a.m. in the morning. stream all the winning videos any time online at studentcam.org. >> the defense and energy departments today announced plans to work together on energy issues by developing clean energy technology and improving energy security. deputy secretary william lynn and deputy secretary common -- poneman announced this. this is an hour-and-a-half. >> i would like to introduce brooke anderson, the counselor to the national security staff.

>> welcome to the forum. thank you for coming today. as businesses across the country, american families are feeling the impact of higher gasoline prices, in an economy that relies so heavily on oil, rising gas prices of everyone. businesses see it didn't impact the bottom line. families feel the pinch when they fill up their tanks. we've known about the dangers of our dependence on oil for decades. president richard nixon talked about freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, and politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence, but that promise has so far gone unmet. since day one, president obama has pursued a comprehensive national energy policy because he believes the united states of america cannot afford to bet

our prosperity on a resource that will run out, and even before it runs out, becomes more expensive from extract from the ground. we are glad that the progress but we run into the same political gridlock, the inertia that is held us back for decades. in his march 30 address on energy security, president obama made clear that while we cannot risk -- while we cannot repeat his mistake, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise and then hitting the snooze button when they fall again. folks on today's program in panel know this very well and we are eager to have them join us today to discuss the national security implications of america's oil dependency. securing our energy future is critical to our military.

we must transition away from a department of defense to relies too much on fossil fuels which can create a strategic operational and tactical vulnerability for our forces. to solve this critical problem, the people in this room are working together to reduce our military dependence on oil to better support america's security and our own forces. but developing clean energy technology and getting them into the field, and i am happy to eat at you what here to hear these and for discussion with leading thinkers in this arena. to start the discussion i have the pleasure of introducing the death of his secretary of defense, bill lynn, who understands energy security, and his experience at the department of defense. i will turn things over the bill. thank you.

>> thanks very much, brooke. it is a pleasure to be at the white house with brooke and dan poneman for an situation that does not involve a crisis. they have a lot more coffee go, which is one improvement that could be made here. i want to welcome some of the leading experts in washington and around the country in areas of energy security. john deutch and jane harman and john podesta, all leaders and national security and energy security in particular. if you have not seen, it used to look get john deutch -- you should look at john deutch's and john podesta's article.

also with us today are the two leaders in the department of defense on energy security, sharron burke and dorothy robine. i'll be marking up with a very low retail their ideas. i want to talk about the connection between innovation in energy technology and the protection of military power. this linkage spans history. justiceship from wind to coal revolutionized naval power in the 19th century, so too does the introduction of nuclear energy on submarines and aircraft carriers transformed the balance of global power in the 20th-century. they enabled our nation to emerge as a great power and gave as a strategic edge in the cold war. today energy technology remains a critical element of our military superiority. but addressing energy needs must be a fundamental part of our

military planning. our department is operating in over 100 countries around the world. we have have troops fighting in afghanistan, air crews over libya, and relief operations under way in japan. everything that we do, every mission we perform require significant amounts of energy. three-quarters of the energy department consumes involves military operations. answering our forces have access to that energy is not easy. our forces in afghanistan and iraq have long logistical details. more than 70% of the convoys in afghanistan are used just for fuel or water. we all the supplies on roads and pro-anded's years. many have been killed trying to protect those convoys. destroying the supply line is

showing how the nature of war is changing. our adversaries are employing asymmetric tactics and in those taxes, energy can be a soft target. whether using ied's or cyber attacks and are critical infrastructure, we face a wider range of threats and must be prepared to defend against all of them. the nature of war is changing in a second way. conflict is devolving from intense but short periods of combat which in decisively, the longer, more drawn-out engagement. they become longer and more expeditionary and the amount of fuel it takes to keep our forces in the field represents a significant vulnerability. we must change how we manage energy on the battlefield and strive to reduce demand at all levels of our forces. to minimize our future energy

footprint, we're building energy for more rigid energy performance standards into our performance progress. this means calculating the full cost of fuel use our weapons systems. a new generation of military technology is being used to use energy more effectively. when it comes to that future, the navy is leading the way. the secretary has made energy performance of priority. the navy has not only incorporated more efficient technologies including hybrid drives, and it is experiencing what biofuels and other forms of alternative energy. our push for highly efficient systems also extends to the individual soldier. over the past decade, our ground forces increased their use of radius by 250% and their use of overall information technology by over 300%. that the ban for battery has nearly doubled. soldiers are on a 72 hour patrol

in afghanistan, and may be carrying 18 pounds of batteries. all this extra gear means more capable forces but it increases our reliance on energy in the theater. in afghanistan we are finding that clean energy technology is one way to lighten the load and get our troops more capabilities. atthe 1990's, the engineers one soldier center developed flexible solar panels that could power a range of devices. the marines decided to deploy these panels to afghanistan last fall.

on 13-3 foot patrol, solar panels eliminated energy supply needs -- on one three-foot patrol, solar panels eliminated energy supply needs. that supplied material advantages to our troops in theater in terms of energy consumption, especially at the technical lead. new energy technology makes our war fighters more agile, and allen and to focus on the mission, rather than their logistics' chain. it is important to note that energy on the battlefield is not only vulnerable in the last miles when convoys come under attack. military installations here in the u.s. provide direct operational support to troops in theater. today, the front lines extend the ua be operators in the united states. if the facilities that directly

supports combat operations are heavily dependent on the grade.an electrical t operations at home are increasingly important to operations abroad. we are taking steps to enhance the energy resiliency of our installations. the power grid at most of our insulations is no more sophisticated than a large off- on switch. when the grid is under strain, everything loses power. the marine base in the mojave desert, is testing a system of energy controls that can be operated in the penalty if the commercial grid goes down. micro-grade improve energy efficiency, make it easier to

incorporate solar power. and directed to facilities that .eed it most most o energy is important to the department as a budget by some. our military consumes more energy than is used by two- thirds of all the nations on earth. we account for 80% of the government's energy use and about 1% of consumption nationwide. our energy bills are already in the tens of billions of dollars. with increasing volatility in energy markets and tightening of global supply, our expenditures on gasoline alone are up two hundred 25% from just a decade ago. -- up 225% from just a decade ago. in short, dot needs to address

-- eod needs to address the energy as a supply priority. renewing our partnership with the department of energy, we have signed a memorandum of understanding. it launched a committee of leaders from both departments to steer investments and specific technologies and to foster a programmatic cooperation. we are working on micro-grids, alternative fuels, batteries, and energy storage. in the coming years, our collaboration will grow, targeting energy reliability and installations and strike capability and operations. the key to this partnership is knowledge fors specific requirements. the department of energy can

enroll its scientific ingenuity in the nation's most important national mission -- national security. innovative energy technology can increase the operational effectiveness of our forces and the department can use its size to leverage technological development of different energy technologies. by serving as a sophisticated first-user and early customer for innovative energy technologies, the military can start the commercial adoption just as we have done with jet engines, high-performance computing, and the internet. by combining energy and innovation, we can -- and our partnership can transform how this nation develops and uses clean technology, laying the foundation for a future that is both clear and more secure.

i am now delighted to yield floor to my good friend and colleague, deputy secretary of energy. [applause] >> thank you very much, bill, for that nice introduction. i am also delighted to be here and join my old friend. thank you for organizing this event. i am honored to be joined by distinguished americans who have already contributed so much. and john deutch, in the first carter administration, when the department of energy was first created, he served in the -- jeanne carmen, both in the house of representatives and at the wilson center, john podesta at the white house, and the credible thought leadership for

the center for american progress. our national economic and about environmental security -- and in their mental security depends on the resources that power -- our national economy and environment security depend on the resources that power our country. the crisis in libya in is only the latest of a series of reminders that offer a vivid picture of how our own energy security can be affected by political events and forces outside of our control. while the president has made very clear that there is no silver bullet to free ourselves from excessive oil dependence or even to bring down the cost in the short term, there are a number of important steps that we can take, that we must take,

and that we are already taking that will help protect our armed forces, help protect america's families and businesses from price spikes in the future. as president obama has made clear, the long term energy security demands that we take aggressive action to reduce our dependence on imported oil. this means increasing our domestic energy resources, improving the efficiency of our vehicles, ships and aircraft, and finding new ways to power them. the department of energy and the department of defense have been at the forefront of this country's efforts to develop, advance in energy technology that will be essential in meeting our challenges. under the leadership of secretary gates said deputy secretary lynn, the military has already taken a number of unprecedented steps to diversify its fuel supply and to reduce its energy use, including, of course, the visionary goal of requiring the navy and marine corps to obtain 50% of their energy from non-fossil sources

by 2020, the $500 million in savings at the air force has achieved by reducing fuel consumption from the air mobility command, and the announcement last week by the army that more than 20 installations nationwide will be piloting net zero facilities, meaning that they will consume only as much energy or water as they produce and they will eliminate solid waste going to landfills. this strategic partnership that we launched last year, between our two departments, built on the progress already under way in our armed forces and laboratories. that has been a robust engagement. i think that both departments have put full shoulder to the wheel. it leverages each agency's strings to sellers it clean energy and innovation and help meet the president's energy goals. as you may know, the department of energy is already the nation's largest funder of the

physical sciences in terms of basic science research and development. through our national average for system, the department brings tremendous scientific expertise to bear cross a whole portfolio of national, energy, and scientific priorities. this partnership is a crucial vehicle to strengthen our national security and to build a clean energy economy for america. to date, joint projects under the memorandum our understanding and are focused on three areas. first, advancing mobility and strength capability, which includes reducing the military dependents on oil. second come increasing energy reliability and efficiency on dod fixed and ford operating basis. third, for their institutional cooperation between the department, which includes stationing the department of energy advisors among the

commands to deploy their experience coming implementing education and training programs to develop energy education programs through each service. in order to help reduce the department of defense's dependence on oil, we are working together to develop next generation drop-in biofuels and developing fleet technologies that will help diversify our fuel options, cut pollution, and enable us to power our vehicles, ships, and aircraft without requiring the dangers fuel convoys just described to drive through war zones to reach the war fighters. these technologies will create new jobs here in the united states, help reduce oil imports, and enable our military to power our vehicles and aircraft with homegrown resources. commercializing these technologies at scale remains a major challenge. while the government cannot and should not be responsible for

single-handedly driving product demand, it can act as an important catalyst for the market. as deputy secretary mentioned, a broad scope of the department's operations provides significant opportunities to test new innovative technologies and to jump-start their commercial deployment. for example, in 2009, the defense department accounted for nearly 2% of all u.s. petroleum use. while the met -- while that may not sound like much, for a small refinery looking to modernize its technology, it can be a game changer. it is this type of ongoing partnership between our two departments, leveraging doe innovation to move our economy and strengthen our national security. the second focus of our partnership centers on improving the energy efficiency of our military bases and

installations. you heard the deputy secretary discuss the importance that the military attaches to micro- brewed technologies. to help advance these projects, they are jointly funding three projects known as spiders or smart infrastructure demonstrations for efficiency and reliability. we are very good at acronyms, apparently. these projects will demonstrate smart, secure, and reliable micro-grades that can be replicated across the military. -- micro-grids that can be replicated across the military. the department of defense also has over 307,000 buildings with over two 0.2 billion square feet of space -- with over 2.2

billion square feet of space. they are -- there are enormous opportunities to achieve cost savings under these opportunities. through these projects, our teams identified more than 200 energy conservation measures that could be implemented to save more than $3 trillion thermal units -- one and three trillion thermal units. this is not just efficiency for efficiency's sake. we can improve the ratio for our armed forces. instead of putting more money into powering our facilities, we will be able to put more of our limited resources into the sharp end of the spear. we will be able to build the leanest and meanest energy- efficient fighting machine in

the world. we all know that our nation is facing significant energy insecurity challenges. but through the kinds of partnerships that we are discussing today and through the commitment of a president, our secretary, and the efforts of so many of you here who are joining us today, we will be able to achieve our clean energy goals, strengthen our national security, and wrote america's economy in the years and decades ahead. thank you. [applause] and with that, i would like to invite our distinguished guests to join us at the table.

>> i would like to turn things over to our panelists to make brief remarks and then we will open it up for questions and a discussion. our first panelist to speak has unique and deep experience in energy and also national security issues and where the places where those two issues meet. it is jane harman. >> thank you. good morning, everyone. i think i was invited here because i am a survivor. i served 17 years in the united states congress. in dog years, that is 119 years. and i am still alive. but that does give me some insight perhaps into congress

and its inability to be a major player on energy conservation and efficiency. if ever there was a time, this is the time. it is to fulfill the promise of every president since richard nixon to help us with energy independence. let me make several points. first, about congress, i served on the energy subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee for some years. i helped author the landmark legislation on lightbulb efficiency. you would think that what we need in this congress is bipartisan, by carol legislation to retire the 100-year-old incandescent light bulb that sheds more heat than light. it is 90% heat, at 10% life, just like congress.

[laughter] -- is 90% heat, 10% light, just like congress. [laughter] the mantra of the tea party is to repeal that law because it is big brother somehow, forcing industry, which supported the law, to change to something that will somehow cut american jobs. that is not true. it will build american jobs. to be brief, what do i think are the opportunities now, especially in the light of this major effort described by both the day and and bill to move to a much more efficient fighting force, more efficient and solutions, and promote innovation? one, people, in light of high gas prices, will change their

own behavior. finally, again, there's political will to do things differently. so i do think, regardless of congress, there will be popular support for initiatives that will be taken either by the executive branch or by state governments to make us more energy efficient. so let's observe that and applaud that. that was on npr this morning. yes, i do support federal funding for npr. it has made itself into a modern productive company and people are buying more fuel-efficient vehicles in droves. but the other robert thune is for dot to lead once more. let's remember that dod has been at the forefront of all of the major cultural changes in our country. dod was at the forefront of racial integration, forced a little bit by harry truman.

it was at the forefront recently at the repeal, finally, of the unconstitutional "do not ask/don't tell" law. it has been at the forefront of moving past one of the obstacles to full equality in our society. given those two achievements, it should be a lot easier for dod to lead on this issue. i would suggest that all of the reforms going on are appropriate. i would urge just one more. i assume that dod has the largest fleet of vehicles by one single owner in the country, perhaps in the world. would it not be nice, by some form of administrative action, that every single vehicle, over a short time, be a fuel-

efficient vehicle? i could just imagine the difference that would make. we do not have to pick one winner, bill, i agree with you. electric vehicles, those that would run on any form of biofuel, hybrid vehicles, pick a number of them. dod can drive innovation for those vehicles and it can also be a mass producer and the place that drives the efficient production that makes those vehicles more available and at an affordable cost for the public. all of this is a win-win. the only loser, sadly, is the united states congress, which is at the back of the line. hopefully, soon, the public's will also be involved in demanding appropriate by partisanship out of our congress, a place like the wilson center and other these

major thoughtful outfits in this town, which are trying to urge that to happen. i just cannot wait. thank you. [applause] >> i would like to turn things over to mit professor john deutch who has a long and distinguished career working on energy and security issues. >> thank you, very much, brooke. energy security is a word that reminds us that important domestic energy developments at international consequences. important national events have domestic consequences. new -- the nuclear accident in japan, the nuclear up out look for everywhere in the world, exports contain our foreign policy options of the united states and its allies.

shell gas presents problems domestically and has international consequences by increasing the supply of natural gas throughout the world. of course, climate change remains a subject that will bring the greatest tension between the north and south in the years ahead. so there is a reason to salute bill lind and then on and for their actions to support the president's energy security initiative. we should all, everybody, the public should welcome where the agencies cooperate. here is an excellent example. "the overriding objective of this effort, in my view, should be to reduce the costs and logistic burden by providing energy to u.s. military forces in peacetime and in conflict situations. success in that enterprise has

the potential of having big benefits for the private and commercial sector." i just want to mention a couple places where i think the opportunities are greatest in the near term and where we, in the public, should be measuring the progress of dot and dod in this dimension. e and dod in this dimension. the department of energy programs can be used here for more efficient building design and operation, integrating buildings and manage energy for those bases in one integrated manner, experimenting with plugging hybrid electric

vehicles and compressed natural gas fleets in the department of defence bases. it is important that these different activities get documented. it is in that way that the value will be spread to the private sector. it is also, we have heard, the opportunities for bill laynn. in doing that, we have to remember that the principle for the plug operations with the principle concern has to be the security of our forces and the men and women in the field who are heavily worked and overworked and there will be little opportunity to experiment with different things. so we have to be selective. fortunately, the department of defense has two very able officials to pursue these

activities. i am optimistic about this. let me say something about the longer-term. we can highlight the areas of batteries, a place for a technical advance will have tremendous positive effect, both for the military and for the private sector. i do not carry 18 pounds of batteries, but i carry a lot around and i prefer to have it be less. fuel cells is another place and i would also mention alternative fuels, research and development on alternative fuels, whether it is fuels from biomass, gas, natural gas converted to liquid, or fuels from algae or other sources. it is very important that the department, working with the

doe -- have able people doing this -- in pushing all the r&d. the focus here should be on technology options rather than moving too quickly to large- scale deployment of alternative fuels. let me close with one remark. i am a big person on managing these sorts of enterprise. if it has not been done, i think a joint project office for this initiative should be established by the department of defense and the department of energy. i think that project office should have a budget set by the distinguished deputy secretaries of these different departments and put in process for the many different options available here so one does not spread the effort to thin.

i think milestones should be set for this project so that we can see how well they're making progress. i know that u.s. industry and u.s. of anniversaries are eager to participate and support this venture in its approach to be here with you this morning. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, john. i now would like to turn to our leading -- one of our leading thinkers and instigators of creative approaches to energy security, the president for the center of american progress, john podesta. >> thank you, barack. it is good to be here and i appreciate the invitation -- thank you, brooke. it is good to be here and i appreciate the invitation. i think the secretary went through good detail on the perspective of the department of defense, the security

challenges. i think the economics degree challenge has national security implications as well. we're spending budget we're spending $1 billion a day importing oil. -- we're spending $1 billion a day importing oil. the for libya, 20% of our oil was coming from states that were from countries that the state department classified as either dangerous or unstable. so it should come as no particular shock that, in one of those places, events would happen that would cause the price of oil to spike. the secretary laid out in good tell the operational tactical security questions -- in good detail the operational tactical security questions. john deutch mentioned it as well. the fact that our war fighters

are lugging around 18 pounds to 30 pounds of batteries in afghanistan for an 72 hours has its own operational effect. it is something that i think obviously needs to be attended to. therefore, i would commend the secretary for this program a try to answer the challenge, and it was noted that blending the expertise of the two departments, the innovation and the emphasis on new technology that comes from the department of energy and the operation requirements of the department of defense and the ability, in a sense, to be able to be a first- purchaser of some of these technologies that will never get off the market in the commercial land, but the operational requirements that the dod has provide a place that the high

performance and new technologies can really find a place in and find a market. i would just like to add a couple points to what has already been said. that is about how to think about this and how this program can be even ramped up to a higher level. at the center for american progress, we have been thinking about the energy security challenge and focused on a mantra -- the fact that with to build markets and give companies access to financing and we need to expand u.s. clean energy infrastructure. i think this program applies in all three ways. with respect to building markets, i think there has been a good deal of discussion already this morning about the ability to go through the procurement process and advance purchase to be able to kick in new technologies, particularly in the biofuels arena.

i have been spending some of my time on other kinds of advanced technologies, a direct expression of hydrocarbons from microorganisms. but i think there is a suite of investments that are being made applicabilityve at dod. i think it is a promising aspect. the one thing that i would note is that the defense logistics agency can only provide five ford contract. one legislation on the hill is to extend that, giving the potential to develop new park its, particularly for these new technologies. i think that is something that is worth looking at and getting support from the demonstration for. with respect to financing,

has its lines share of providing opportunities for companies to come out with breakthrough products. whether companies with loan guarantees can use the loan guarantees to essentially service government contracts, that provision was limited in the recovery act. going forward, it needs to be considered. access to dot programs gives the opportunity for companies to find stable financing in the private sector. it brings a good deal of private sector money as well. with respect to expanding u.s. clean energy infrastructure, a good deal has already been said about the built environment,

using the best and newest and efficient technologies in the dod building and that area and building efficiency. one place that my colleagues at the center have focused on is, at the air force, with respect to using airplane hangars, which is now going on in the private sector as a source of installation for solar technology. i recommend that to you. we found that there could be tremendous savings from retrofitting u.s. air force airplane hangars to provide savings in that area. the other thing that i think is important is to think about the energy infrastructure as an opportunity. it essentially, the way dod

things about its need to invest in the defense base, if you think about energy in that context, taking the lessons from the man tech program on creating the work force and technology and innovation flows in manufacturing and applying those in the energy arena, that would be a very useful place for collaboration between sharing -- between sharon and her team and the doe team. let me finish with that. >> thank you. [applause] >> ok, now we would like to open it up for your questions and comments. i heard a rumor that there would be a microphone. is, we have them. please raise your hands if you have a question or comment in we will bring a microphone to you.

right there. and please identify yourself. >> gordon davidson with davidson energy group. we have they one side on the commercial side, the possibility of loan guarantees for companies. on the early-stage side, there is a gap in their care some people call it the cash flow valley of death. the point is getting technologies into demonstration sides, which is pretty costly in and of themselves, it you're talking about production technology. i would be interested in the panel's thoughts on how to bridge that gap. >> i am sure this will have comments. we often think of two ballets of death. traditionally, the department of energy has invested in the very early stage when there are so many dozens of quarters of

expected earnings lined up in front of you. it is not expected for any shareholder to be that patient. the classic example lately, what we now see in shale gas -- looking at these horizontal drilling and tracking techniques. the industry had zero interest. now, in a 22 trillion cubic foot, it is different. you can get angel investors and private equity to come in. but you do have to acknowledge, with your question, that the loan guarantee space as the second valley of death were you have demonstrated technology, but you have not been able to bring it to a scale where you can get the kind of market that will allow the company to grow

and prosper. this is rendered even more acute by two factors. in the case that we have been promoting under some of our loan guarantee programs that you are familiar with, without a price on carbon, it is hard for a lot of those projects to be finance. then following the big credit crunch in 2008, the loans are at a length required to get a payback in 25 years. we have used that program in that gap. we do it as a patio gaps. the early place where we have made some of our traditional grant proposals, indeed, it is more on the front and that the great innovation has come to the fore, looking for those transformational breakthroughs with modest investments, changing the whole metaphor for the kind of paradigm we are using. john podesta referred to our

electoral fuels program, looking for ways that microorganisms can get away from a fuel-based fuels. -- oil-based fuels. some of these issues, where you have a beginner joop problem, with crosscutting current, it is not always easy to break through the stovepipes. that is where the secretary of energy, steve too, has put his focus on. -- steve chu, has put his focus on. >> two things to wanted dann said -- first, the problem with transferring good research ideas into programs of record is not

unique to the energy area. it is a challenge for everything we do. the path, i think, in the energy area is probably stronger than in most other areas in that it derives, from what i talked about, the operational utility of improve energy efficiency in the field, in afghanistan, which is being demonstrated. that generates a huge pole from the operational forces into the requirements process. that tends to jump that air gap between research and production. is the potential to save large amounts of money. there is a very real return on that. resources can be better spent in other areas. that generates a strong pull

that tends to pull crossed that gap from the dot perspective. but the gap is definitely there. you have to manage it. >> can i just say something on that? i agree with that. from my experience representing a district that i call the satellite center of the universe, i have seen the gaps you're talking about. but i also think we already have done a lot of the major work on some of the energy savers that have immediate and demonstrated application, like solar. the defense makers have perfected the use of solar power in space. applying it commercially is both a profit center for them and something they know how to do well. i am not saying they are the only people who know how did do this, but it is interesting to hear bill's stories about how it is being applied on a mobile bases on the field.

i remember hoping to get a little bit of money in the defense budget for an effort in kandahar to provide additional redundant cell towers to make sure that cell phones work at night, which is a big security move there. the self hours -- the self cars were powered by solar power. so we know some of this to some extent and created the mass market necessary to help a lot of those of you in the private sector to produce the stuff at an efficient cost will get natalie the defense department and the government in this game, but it more of the private sector in the game. i think we are very close if we could just work together and make sensible moves right now to crossing a threshold here that will save money, save lives, reduce the deficit -- remember

that -- we will cut defense spending, hopefully in wise ways. if we can cut defense energy use, that would be wise. >> there are bi-partisan proposals on the hill to provide greater financing support through the form of multi-window financing facilities. i think that would help in direct answer to your question. but, particularly from the thespective of this memomou, management of this program can give a strategic direction to the investments that dod will make based on their requirements that will provide the platform to companies to go out and raise money in the

private sector. across the field that we have been discussing, across the field of technologies and the swedish technologies we have been discussing, dot has an important role to play in being a consumer that can provide the basis to give those companies the ability to raise private sector capital and get into the market and make a place on the commercial side as well. >> other questions? in the front. >> sherry goodman. thank you, bill and dan, for your leadership in dod and doe. and to john deutch, thank you

for your leadership. this is a critical area where i think we have a unique opportunity that can build on word that has already -- which we talked about today -- that has already been put in place. john, when you're at dod, you worked to extend into the demonstration phase and environment and energy technology programs established back then by senator nunn. you pretty program for the demonstration project, which is funding some of the work we're talking about today. dan, you talk about the funding mechanisms in doe. there are some opportunities in the mou. getting beyond the early are in the stage, could also have

bipartisan congressional efforts -- there are some republican co-sponsors who could support and champion these efforts. as the demand signal declines with pressures on our budget and with our withdrawal, it will be important to help sustain these efforts in the increasingly challenging climate. that may be one of those opportunities to do so. >> thank you. that was an important comment. we probably have time for two more questions. in the back. >> height. -- hi. in industry, we have this conversation all the time.

i think we have raised a couple points about how industry can contribute to clean energy. i would like to hear a few others ideas of what the expectations are for industry moving forward as we grow together towards clean energy. i tend to think that what does not get measured does not get done. i know that sometimes we put into our competitive bidding process requirements for clean energy. i would just like to hear a few more words on that and what your expectations are. thank you. >> in terms of the major defense companies, i think that one of the things we are looking to do in working with used to institutionalize energy planning as part of the requirements process. it is well-known that two-thirds of the cost of a weapons system comes from operating its, not

just -- only one-third comes from the initial purchase. a heavy portion of that two thirds is the energy cost. develop proposals and designs for next generation equipment, we will be looking to you to lower those costs to develop innovative technologies, to work with some of the smaller companies around the room to come up with ideas that will be breakthrough in nature, in terms of breaking the back of our dependence on energy and the cost that that carries with it. >> there are two kinds of comments. one of my former mentors appears on the stage. john deutch used to say that if you do not measure it, you do not manage it. we have done a lot of work, for example -- and it applies equally well with their work at the pentagon because they do

have over 3000 buildings. energy audits, when you sell the house, you get a termite inspection. if you get an energy audit inspection, then it tells you what you're losing by various deficiencies. particularly important in this country, where china and india are building two hundred 60 million structures for people who do not yet exist or the next quarter-century, we have tremendous existing stock. we can start to build in those kinds of measurement tools. now i have a predicate upon which i can finance a pretty modest investment and a much more efficient furnished home, which may seem like a lot out of pocket expenses. but if it is 3 cents a month mortgage when you refinance, that is the kind of thing that we can do institutional. that is 0.1. no. 2, it is important for us to put the goals of. i think the president was

articulate in the state of the union. we could double the amount of energy we get from clean rest as ours -- clean resources, and that is a driver. that can give us unachievable and ambitious goal that will help drive us and help drive investments to the extent that there are congressional mandates that go along with them and into the right direction. cafe standards have been phenomenally successful in getting us to be more efficient in the way it does bring in support from industry. most recently, the georgetown speech, when the president asked to lower our oil import bills by 2025, by setting a target, having a cascading effect on other things it can be done to make sure we're making the kinds of investments in energy and that we have policy and regulatory tools in place to

support those and help us achieve that goal. >> any other comments? >> can i add just one thing? one of your competitors, northrop grumman, also located in my former district, has made a huge deal about reducing the energy footprint of its facilities. i am not saying that raytheon has not, but gigantic satellite phase and energy-consuming facilities, you have opportunities to change the way you like them, you heat them, nd -- the way you likelight th, and energizeeat them, them. this increases your competitiveness.

i would put this out there's another thing you might consider. >> building in at the front and a deeper current process, the requirements for the full life cycle of the system is really critical. that is really what will make a huge difference. to the point of setting goals, i think very aggressive goals set by all of this services, but particularly by secretary mavis in the navy, indicate to the people who are working in those procurement environments what the navy is likely to look like in 2016 and 2020 and begin to think about how to meet those extremely aggressive requirements to back out so much dependence, particularly on oil. and think about that from a development perspective. i think that is a very exciting

development. it just needs to be pushed through to conclusion and fruition under your leadership. i commend you for that. >> let's take a question here. yes? and then we will go there and then we will go here. >> i am on assignment at the u.s. state department at the moment as a jefferson fellow. thank you, professor doors, for mentioning your new recipes. , forofessor deutsch mentioning your your recipes. energy policies made at the state and local level, how can and dod and doe correct local

governments in terms of having local and state energy policy is that have overall energy consumption? >> there are a couple of things. we had a recent experience in this field out of the recovery act, under which the department of energy was entrusted with over $30 billion of taxpayer money. significant portions of that went directly to the state to support state energy programs. we also had community block grants. these were for precisely the kinds of investments you would want to make in weatherization and so forth that would give a strong incentive for communities to do that. if you look at the kinds of programs that we continue at of our continuing efforts, competitions we have had under

e., many of them have local counterparts. you can have specific programs for those participants who can come up to spec -- i had the opportunity to travel up to new hampshire. it was like a scene at of its zero wonderful -- a scene out of "its a wonderful life." the local bank was invested in it. they had gone state support for it. you can actually build these microcosm. as the president has said, who wins the energy revolution will win the world. there is a quite robust self- interest that can drive states and localities to make the kinds of public policy choices and such catalytic efforts that a

state and local government can make so that the private sector gets involved. i do not want to make it sound like it is a straight washington-dominated model. i think it can be a more diverse model than that. >> dod's role with state and local governments is likely to be in direct. the underlying purpose of the mou was to have a partnership between technology and operational needs. the results of that, as i described, can be micro grids, solar panels -- all of that can be imported into the commercial market and state and local government. we essentially come with our own market. if we can pioneer these things, they can then be transferred to

commercial use. that starts to address the broader national security issues that john modesto raise about reducing the deficit and reliance on suppliers to do not have our best interests in mind and so on. >> the national guard -- >> let's take a question in the third row. >> michael moynihan, in the 20th-century, number of decades ago, with the goal of increasing the resilience of communications, the defense department undertook investments in the internet, which ended of achieving those goals and yielding a very substantial benefit, it economically, domestically, as well as what was intended originally on the communications side. u.s. companies have gone on to be leaders and the internet has played a major role in u.s.

leadership in information technologies. in the case of electricity, we have a situation where the structure of the industry probably resembles, to some extent, the old communications system. it is centralized and tested the top down. it does not have the distributional resilience built in. i thought perhaps you could comment on the parallels, whether it would make sense through these micro-grids that the secretary has alluded to, and other innovative technologies, how resilience on the electricity side could end up having economic benefits for u.s. clean energy companies and others. thank you. >> that is, of course, the promise. the other thing that characterizes the telecommunications system in the 1960's and through almost of the breakup of at&t was the

limited are indeed going into the lifecycle of new products coming into the market. that rapidly changed when the system opened up, if you will, creating an open architecture. use of the dynamism of the ability of having that cascading effect of new innovation, new information, opening up the communications grid to innovation, if you will, at the edge of the top. that is what has to happen, i think, in energy, and has to happen. but that will probably take policy at both the national and, particularly at the state level, to open the opportunity up for innovation to be fully integrated into that sort of greed. i think that is the promise of a revolution in energy technology. >> ok. let's go here to the front.

>> i run an independent natural gas exploration company in the rockies. the energy secretary pointed out that, in the early 1980's, there was a lot of work being done on a horizontal drilling. i participated in that with you all. it had wonderful results. it had results so wonderful that many people -- and i am afraid maybe most people here -- do not recognize. you have won the war. you talk about who secures energy will win the war. you secure the energy. shale gas -- the amount of the shield as we discovered is immense. i cannot tell you how much there is. i believe and i am sure and that john deutch will disagree to

some extent -- i am not sure about mr. podesta -- you can run the world now off gas. you can do it with nuclear and coal. you can run the world on gas and grenoble's. they are complementary. -- theynot necessary are complementary, not analytical. we can produce its of the leaks are held to 0.1%. you can win the carbon more. you can beat climate change and keep the count down to 250 by 2015. you have won the war. if you have an almost unlimited amount of gas, how are you going to recognize it and use it? how much redundancy of other types of fuels to we need? this is a transformational

event. it needs to be recognized. >> i think everybody is quick to want to chime in, so i will be brief. first of all, it is transformational. the opening marks about how the domestic affect the international this true. think about how every winter we used to read stories about how pipeline issues were causing security issues across central europe. your premise, a broadly agree with. as our administration has just shown, the kind of discoveries of the resource internationally are also adding another 1600 pcf, or something on the order of magnitude. the opportunity is great. at the same time, we have to be smart and careful about how we develop the resource. john will be speaking more to that, because of the energy

advisory board together with the department of the interior and the epa. the third point i would note is a point about energy security. to me, in many respects, it is talking about diversification. i think we still need a broad effort -- a broad portfolio approach to the future, and not anyone basket. therefore, we see continued need to look for base power generation of low carbon, the nuclear option, taking full account of the lessons from the fukushima experience. the call from india and china is quick to be with us. carbon sequestration as part of a long-term strategy will continue to be important. >> i would add just a couple of words. this is still an area where the

problem is not solved and innovation needs to happen. in part, i think that is on the set of questions that day and raised about the careful development of those plots. in part, it is also on the end use side of the use of natural gas. if it is going to be a replacement fuel for oil, there is still a tremendous amount of capacity i think we need to focus on, thinking about where those innovations can take place and using natural gas as a precursor to chemicals, whether it is using natural gas as a substitute for liquid fuel or using natural gas in another way. there is still work that needs to be done. i think both of departments have an important role to play in that. >> there is enough gas to

convert to liquids to supply the chemical industry to do base load generation? the of oil and gas industry needs to change its culture, enhance its standards, and become the most noble, trustworthy, friendly, acceptable industry on earth. we have a long way to go to do that. >> you still have to do with the fact that there is a co2 issue. >> this will be the last question, right there. >> paul bollinger with boeing industry -- boeing energy. i think the white house for hosting the event today. -- think the white house for hosting the event today. there are a lot of challenges facing the military. i think that if the pots of money that are considered for the funding of these projects, which do not exist now, and the

fact that the investment comes from a source that does not then realize the savings, and you have a disconnect. that is where i think the white house and the leadership and ofd can weigh in and create a situation that recognizes this, so the investment that may not come back in two or three years, but comes back in five or 10 years, for a building that is pointed exist for 50 years, can get implemented. right now, you have services implementing a net zero basis and no funding. no funding. it is all totally reliant on the private sector. and the private sector has to go to market to get those funds. yet the military is prohibited right now from building installations for power. there is no priority given in the funding for security at all.

for energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gases, yes. but security, no. and that funding is reliant on the ability to sign -- a term contract with the military. omd scoring issues prohibit the military from doing that. one thing this administration could fix is the policy issue regarding scoring of mutable energy projects on military installations to allow the military to lead, like the energy leadership here in this room -- richard kid, dr. kevin vice. the industry is ready to do it. but you have to get rid of this impediment, or it can't be done. we just can't do it. we can power the government just

by burning the federal laws, regulation, and executive orders for at least a year on energy. [laughter] last but not least, if you come down to south carolina, you get to see the largest solar 787allation on boeing's new plant, that will provide most of the power. >> i will take that as an invitation. >> a couple of things. if you consult for me the issues you mentioned -- omb scoring and congressional restrictions on what you are allowed to do in the power industry, that would be terrific. it would ease our lives. what we are trying to do is put in a mix of centralized funding and component-level funding so that for instance we have

funded and centralized the installation energy test bed to test out these various technologies, because no individual component is going to make the multi-tier investment that it takes to develop these technologies and test them. but once you have them, the return comes quite quickly. so the incentives for the component to be more energy efficient in its installations and its buildings pays back very quickly. what we are trying to do is get the centralized funding, get it in a position where it primes the pump for the components, and then utilize those technologies to reduce their costs, reduce their energy consumption. the broader issues you mentioned are substantial, and they have to be tackled. but it is beyond one department to do that. >> other comments?

we will close with a question that came in through facebook. transport is the biggest use of fossil fuel products in the u.s., and probably the world. what are you doing to mitigate that? i will read it again. it came into facebook. he said transport is the biggest use of fossil fuel products in the united states, and probably the world. what are you doing to mitigate that? the broad question weekend and on. ---- we can end on. >> the president has spoken clearly to this. first, by dropping our imports by a third and making room for a drop in biofuels, that is going

to be an important part of the equation. this partnership, we hope, can provide some of the driving force in that direction. second, the electrification of our vehicle fleet. we have already taken a diversified approach to our loan guarantee program. we invested in a sweep of vehicles for incremental improvements on the theory that a modest improvement across a large market segment would have a significant effect, and it has, all the way to the full electric vehicles of tesla, the nissan leaf, and other electrical vehicles. the president has announced an objective of a million of those by 2015. there is a full suite of things we are doing, everything from enhancing domestic production of oil and gas that will reduce the import use, increasing use of

biofuels in research, whether it is in terms of electoral fuels or algal fuels. that is directed to shifting the transportation fleet of the united states off its current pass of excessive dependence on imported oil. the last thing is i agree with the points earlier about the need to think in an overall system approach. as we electrified the fleet, the critical issue is how you are powering the fleet. that is why you need to have this broad portfolio approach so we are no longer relying on oil, but in time we will have to reduce their reliance on things that have as high a greenhouse does profile, starting with coal. but even as we move to gas

combined cycle plants, we will have to get the carbon captor going as well. -- capture the going as well. >> clearly, transportation is a critical part of our efforts to reduce our dependence on energy, whether it is the direct operations of our military forces or, even more importantly, the transportation of the fuel from its source to the operations in afghanistan expose is the forces to enormous vulnerability is. every step we can take to reduce that is a critical step in the plan. >> i want to endorse that and comment -- and the comment about energy security being a huge piece of our national security. let's keep that in mind. on transportation, not just

dod-centric, my district has refineries in it. one is a chevron refinery. it is the second chevron refinery in california. almost everything that is refined goes into cars in the neighborhood which have just one driver in them and no passengers. let us understand the way america moves is as energy inefficient and energy insecure as it possibly could be. we have apparently more vehicles in this country than we have people with drivers' licenses. if we could think about the advantages to our country from things like high-speed rail, which was zeroed in the budget congress just passed for this fiscal year, i would hope that high gas prices would fuel popular outrage at some of this

inaction and we would change the way we fund and the amount that we fund mass-transit in this country. finally, my point about the department of defense transportation fleet is it can change the culture in this country. it can be a mass driver of the people in our military. it also could create the mass market necessary to lower the costs of more efficient vehicles for everybody else, who hopefully will drive in the same vehicle on hov lanes and contribute to energy security. >> on the transportation issue specifically, i think the most important things are vehicle efficiency and completing the rules that are now in the planning phase on the next phase, getting 60 miles per gallon vehicle standards in

place for the early 2020's, followed by a new truck rules to provide more efficiency in truck engines. fuels, we already talked about shifting back in the vehicle sector and to address natural gas in the fleet sector, and to follow up on what jane said, southern california is probably not the model for land use planning. but i think if we could make better investments in the new surface transportation bill on public transport, i think that is another place where there is tremendous capacity in the mid- term to save fuel, to reduce the price consumers are paying to move from one place to another, and to improve budgets for

individual families, and to create the right platform for stronger security for our country. >> i would give you the last word. >> i will close on some remarks on transportation. first of all, whenever we do with respect to liquid petroleum products in transportation is going to be modest compared to what china does, and other rapidly developing countries in asia. on a world basis, what is going on in india and china with respect to petroleum demand is more severe than the united states. what determines transportation demand in the united states are three things. one is population growth. our driving age population is growing at 1% per year.

secondly, economic growth. is it a small car? if we have the pleasure of economic growth in this country, we are going to be using more gasoline. finally, price capacity. i filled up my car with gasoline yesterday and it cost me about $60. i was completely stunned by this, but it made me think i would have to do something about how much i drive. in the long run, it is only going to be if we shift to another source of energy. in the near term, there is certainly natural gas for automatic -- automotive use. it is going to beat biofuels, if you get the costs down. and it is going to be plugged-in hybrids and electric vehicles.

if the price of gasoline remains high, i believe that over the next couple of decades we will sheepberry -- see a very sharp decline in our use of petroleum for transportation. our goal is to make sure others in the world do that as well. >> i would like to thank everyone for coming here today and participating in this discussion about the critical part of our energy security strategy. i want to thank our panelists for their presentations. thank you all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> coming up, television and radio executives on the future of public broadcasting. congressman ron paul this its iowa to announce the foundation of his presidential exploratory committee. the virginia governor talks about the economy and state and federal budgets. >> our comprehensive resource in congress has new features to make it easier to find information about your elected official. daily schedules, a full list of members, plus video of every house and senate session and progress of bills in

development. taken look -- take a look. >> jim lehrer and others spoke at the national press club about the future of broadcasting. senior npr executives talked about congressional efforts to eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting. hosted by the journalism school of the university of missouri, this is 90 minutes. >> my duty is to introduce a man who for millions of americans represents both the face and the boys of publicly supported journalism.

he is the author of 20 memoirs and three plays. he is the partner in a television video production enterprise, and he has been granted some awards he needs another persona to collect them. if wikipedia ever makes its way to the school of agriculture at the university of missouri, i am sure we are going to find some interesting experiments were done in cloning of undergraduate dna when you were there. 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, all of you, for coming. i must say this is one event

where i really feel it is appropriate that i be here, if that is the word. i am a graduate of the university. this is an event sponsored by the school of journalism. it is about the future of journalism on public media. i have been laboring in that for the last 40 years. it is an old story. i think i finally got to the right place at the right time for the right reasons. i am delighted to be here among all of you. i would like to tell you a quick story that was just demonstrated. is it missouri or is it missouri? i moderated some presidential debates. a couple of them were some -- were from st. louis. one time, intentionally, i began by saying good evening from st. louis, missouri.

90 minutes later when i ended, i said thank you and good night from st. louis, missourah. the point was to see if anybody noticed and cared. i only got one phone call the next day, and unfortunately it was from bill safire, who then wrote a language column in "the new york times." i said it was about east and west. in the west, they called it missouree, and on the east side they call it missourah. i just made that up. but bill put it in his column, and it became gospel.

i have had that thrown back at me many times that that is for real. in fact, i made it up. the only time i get caught is when i am with someone from kansas city or san louis who says, "where did you get that? that is not true." my own theory as to how it happened is it was probably way back in the past there was a cheerleader who invented the delaware and thus they had to start calling it missourah. i know. my second mission beyond telling that story is to set the stage, to have some context for what you all are going to be talking about here. let me do that as quickly and as straight as i possibly can. serious journalism generally, at all levels, nationally,

internationally, regionally -- serious journalism is in trouble. there are too few resources been devoted to its practice, particularly in print, but also in television, radio, and even on the web. the reasons are well known to all of you all, as they certainly are to me. they are well known to almost anybody who is paying attention. newspapers of all sizes and persuasions are hurting financially because they have lost circulation and readership, and thus advertising. television networks and stations are having a similar set of problems. the web is thriving in terms of usage, but not in terms of income and revenue. there are fonts of information available from and for everyone, as well as floods of ignorance -- floods of opinions

and entertainment about the information and the mechanical ways and means to deliver it all come up with ipods and androids and stuff like that. but too much of the various floods are designed or being used to tease and to entertain, and only to inform across the surface rather than below the surface. i am -- i have a good source for why this is a problem. thomas jefferson told folks when this country was founded that the only way this democratic society we had just created was going to work was if there was an informed electorate. the only device that was ever created for the information process was of course the first amendment. you and me and a lot of other people in this room, in other

words, the journalists -- it is not happening. we are hurting in this area right now. and 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 the serious journalism area. we must fill the gaps that are being created by some of our resource-starved commercial colleagues. it is not only an opportunity. i think it is a responsibility that we have a public media to do more than we are doing, and i mean every element of public media, at all levels -- television, radio, online, all geographies. everyone else has 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, and we have a mission to reform in our community, our state, our country, and wherever we operate. i must raise awareness, money, and resources to create or expand what we are doing at the local, regional, national, an international level. we must be able to reach out within our own public media world and cooperate with each other and do joint projects. we must form partnerships with all other journalism organizations to spread the reach of our serious journalism and that of others who are in the same business. it is neither braggy -- that is a word i picked up from my

daughter's when there were small. we are at it as hard as -- as hard as we can go. you will get details later from people who would give you the specifics. but we have been prepared and remain prepared to change and we think everything we do in order to adjust to the various floods and changes in the world of journalism. and i mean serious journalism. i hate it that i have to put that word in front of it, but i do. that is what i am talking about. there is all kinds of journalism. the business public media must be in this is serious journalism. i would like to know -- like to know also that with all the changes we have made and will nt made and will continue to make, there is one thing that will never change. 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 -- i was the only one asked. did i have any personal guidelines for the practice of journalism, and if i did, would i mind sharing them. and i did in fact do that. here is part of what i sent them. do nothing i cannot defend. cover, right, and present everyone -- every story in the way i would present if it were about me. assume there is more than one viewpoint to every story. assume the viewer is as good a person as i am. assume the same of all people on whom a report. assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story mandates otherwise. separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and clearly labeled everything. do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except in rare and

monumental occasions. no one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously. finally, i am not in the entertainment business. those are guidelines we practice to this day and always will. there is one more thing i wanted to do, and that is to close my welcoming to you, performing a bus call. the reason for that is relevant to what we are doing here today. before i went to the university of missouri school of journalism, i went to a small junior college in south texas, it is called victoria on the texas gulf coast. in order to get the money required to go to missouri later, i worked eight hours a day as a ticket agent in a bus depot. that was for two years. one of my duties was to call buses on the pms system. here is what i did.

may i have your attention please? this is your last call for continental trails service to houston. richmond, sugar land, stafford misery, and houston, all aboard. do not forget your baggage. if i had not done that, i would not have been able to go to the university of missouri, because i could not have afforded it. that was also the first time i was ever paid money to speak into the microphone. thank you very much. have a great seminar. [applause] >> thank you. you got us off to a rousing start. good morning, everyone. my name is barbara cochran.

i am the chair in journalism for the university of missouri. i still say misery. i am from ohio. -- still say missouree. i am from ohio. what do i know? i want to thank you for coming to missouri through tornadoes and all kinds of dangers. we really appreciate it. thanks to all our speakers who made it here today. a month to set my own thanks to edward mclaughlin and his family for creating the endowment that makes this symposium possible. thanks also to our colleagues from the national journalism library and the national press club for" sponsoring this event. -- for co-sponsoring this event. some of you work or have worked in public broadcasting or the

federal communications commission or congressional oversight committee, or a policy organization that studies the national vacation system. i need to tell you that i also have worked in public broadcasting. earlier in my career, i was head of news at national public radio and oversaw the creation of morning edition. that is one of the things i am most proud of. some of you are here because you are viewers and listeners who have become alarmed about headlines in recent months about a partisan divide of 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 were not alone. as we will hear in great detail, 69% of the public opposed plans to eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting. that was true no matter your

political persuasion. among democrats, independents, and republicans, the majority of 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. but the debate over federal funding is far from over. and funding is just one of the issues facing public broadcasting today. like the rest of media, public broadcasting is buffeted by the whirlwind of change brought on by the digital revolution. public broadcasting producers of news and information programming, which is the focus of our program today, need to adapt just as speedily as their colleagues in commercial media. to help us understand the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, we are very fortunate to have assembled a roster of knowledgeable chief executives and innovative

journalists. the program you received a outlines the agenda for this morning, along with biographies for our speakers and a list of on-line resources about public media. there are books and papers outside and online. our first session today is going to be a conversation with the ceos of for national public broadcasting organizations, and the general manager of the local station. then we will take a short break and return with journalists and producers who are working at the national and local level to engage in communities. by the end of the morning, i hope we will come away with a better understanding of the kind

of transformation that needs to take place for public broadcasting to fulfill its mission. that mission was expressed in the public broadcasting act of 1967. to be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities in threat the united states, and constitute an expression of diversity and excellence. we have just heard from jim lehrer about what public broadcasting matters. no one could state it more powerfully are more persuasively. now, to lay a foundation for our discussions, we will hear from tom rosenfield, director of the project for excellence in journalism. he is the vice chair of the committee of concerned journalists, a professional organization that is part of the missouri school of journalism. he is a frequent commentator on trends in media and someone who is not afraid to criticize journalistic malfeasance. from his annual report on the

state of the news media, he has pulled information about public broadcasting audiences and content which he is no way to share with us. -- which he is now going to share with us. [applause] >> thank you. non-thanks for having me have to follow jim lehrer. but i will do my best. in the next few minutes, i want to share with you some information we have gotten from surveys and content analysis that lays down some facts about public broadcasting, both on radio and on television. first, i want to make a couple of quick comments. that is about the impact of technology on journalism. one is that the technology has in many ways disconnected audiences and revenue.

the advertisers and revenue sources no longer need the news media to reach their audiences. this is creating a major revenue collapse in the news business. the second is that one of the things that distinguishes public media, particularly in journalism, is that it is somewhat relieved from the immediate commercial pressures that other commercial media have faced. i think we have some empirical sense of what difference that makes. we have in public media a different product. we also have, over the last 10 or 15 years, a different audience. public media has grown are held on to its audience much better than commercial media have, because, i think, of some long-

term approaches they have taken to the content the produce. the fact that jim's principles have not changed a lot has something to do with that. long-term in the marketplace, that has benefit. the third point i want to make before i get into the data is that much of the new technology that is transforming the media landscape is distributive and discursive in nature. it is not substantially reportorial. what we have seen is an enormous expansion in outlets that are aggregating and we purposing and commenting on the news, but not an enormous expansion in the number of organizations that are going out and turning over rocks and finding things out. so 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. npr does not skew older as much as other media does. this is in 2010. we do not have data for the news hour for 2010 for the simple reason that we used the new name of the news hour in our survey and the results came back in a way that suggested people did not recognize the new name without your name attached. the number of people who answered that there were regular viewers made it pretty clear there were talking about being regular viewers of pbs programming of any kind. the data i can give you from the

news hour is from 2008. what i have from that is that about 5% of adults listen to the news hour at least three times a week or more, and that that audience is also very stable and has not changed in the last few years, which really distinguishes the news hour from what we are seeing anywhere else in television news, including cable news. does skew more independent and democratic than it does republican. in 2010, 14% of independents, 14% of democrats, and 6% of republicans identified themselves as regular listeners to npr. that ratio of 8221 tilt of one party over another is similar to what we see at msnbc, cnn, and

network morning shows. fox and news's partisan tilt is isfox news's partisan tilt four to one. the only news outlet in the company that reflects populations without any partisan tilt tends to be local newspapers and local television, because they reflect the community's very closely and i predict them together to give a picture that is close to the u.s.. the news hour in 2008 also skewed about two to one democrats versus republicans, which is not unusual. we asked something new last year in the survey that probe the reasons people said they go to different news sources. npr's stood out in those resorts -- those results. it was only the 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 a news organization will provide, which is to say everything from breaking news and in-depth reporting to news and opinion and entertainment. it was one of only two outlets of the 20 or more with curried about that was in double digits for every category of reasons that people might want to go there. unfortunately, we do not have this data for the news hour because of the main issue. we hope to have that going forward. npr ranks first among all news outlets, audience members who say they want their news delivered without a point of view. fully 77% of npr's audience wants this disinterested reporting. that is more than any other news organization we surveyed about. in the sample overall, 62% say

they want their news unbiased. in the news hour, it was also much higher than the norm, 57%. npr and ranks among the few news outlets whose believability ratings are holding up. the news our credibility has also held up lately, although it is down from 1998, when it was 29% believe most or all of what they heard on the news hour. but it has been stable for the last seven years at 23%. almost all other news organizations are declining. the 23% -- you have to recognize that many americans are not watching these programs and offer no opinion. it is not 20% out of 100%. there are challenges here.

npr and the news hour are among the ups that have the biggest partisan gap in believability. at the news hour, 37% of democrats believe most of what they hear. 29% of independence. but only 16% of republicans. that is a gap of 21 points, and it is growing. that number is similar to what we have for fox and msnbc. the gap the news hour measured two years earlier is smaller. what do consumers get from the news hour and npr? i will speed this up. one thing they get is foreign news at 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% in the rest of radio news. the news hour, 30% of the time studied was devoted to foreign affairs. that compares with 19% on commercial network newscasts, 16% on network morning newscasts, and 13% on cable news. is public media biased? the public perceives that it is. there is a believability gap, a partisan gap. i would say this is not something that can be answered. too much about bias is in the eye of the beholder. i can sure use studies that we have done that show p.b.s., the news hour, and npr were more neutral than most other news outlets. . >>% of the stories on the news hour and 52% on npr were neutral, compared with 37% in

the media generally. we have a ticket to suggest that in campaign coverage the news hour offered more coverage of policy and less coverage of horse races in the press overall, and tv in particular. the same is true of npr, to a smaller degree. i have data that npr and the news hour both have a bias toward longer stories. the average length of the p.b.s. segment is almost twice that in commercial television. to some people, that might suggest a bias toward being boring. to some people, it might suggest a bias toward new ones. these things are in the eye of the beholder. you can analyze the sources interviewed, but that does not tell you about the questions asked of those sources.

alternately, it is impossible to say that bias is not a matter of perception to some degree. but i can say that the journalists at both npr and the news hour, many of whom i know, believe 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 a failure to live up to their principles. that are not doing it as a marketing strategy to maximize an audience or pander to an audience. that cannot be said of all news organizations today. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. there has been an awful lot of opinion and does work thrown around in the debate over public broadcasting, so it is good to have some facts. i am going to 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. i will introduce our first panel to everyone, starting on my far left to right. patrick butler is the president and ceo of the association of public television stations, which is the washington representative of public television stations. lately he has been doing a combined effort on behalf of public radio as well. paula is the president and ceo of pbs. joyce slocum is the interim president and ceo of npr. she has been the general counsel

there for several years. bill is the ceo of american public media, which is a national producer of programs and also has under its umbrella 44 public radio stations across the country. next to bill is karen mathis, a general manager of wamu here in washington. i am going to start with pat. we are going to start by talking about the federal funding debate, crisis, and what lies ahead. as i asked you when we were talking a little bit 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 cut. a deal gets made. we look in the newspaper and the cpb, the funding corporation, congress gives the money to the corporation for public broadcasting. the corporation for public broadcasting gives it to stations and other producers of public media. the budget had emerged pretty much unscathed. what happened? >> i have always maintained that this is not a partisan issue. there are more republicans who would like to de-fund this than there are democrats, but not all republicans have felt that way. greg walden, the chairman of the house communications subcommittee, has been at pains to say that the house of representatives is one-half of one-third of the federal government and that what the house of representatives does is only the beginning of a debate and not the end of it.

what has happened in the course of this challenge is that the democrats in the house and the senate have been quite firm in the support of public broadcasting, as has president obama. when you have a 3 part negotiation at the end of the continuing resolution process, with speaker boehner, harry reid, and president obama in the room, the forces opposed to public broadcasting are suddenly out numbered. it has been an encouraging affirmation of the fact that we are held in high esteem across the political spectrum, as tom was suggesting. once these votes are actually counted, i think there are going

to be plenty of republicans in both the house and the senate who agree that public broadcasting is valuable, is essential, and deserves continued federal funding even in an era where budget deficits are very difficult to control and everything needs to be examined quite carefully. >> is this all over? >> oh no. it is not over. there are a good number of people in the congress, in both the house and the senate, who are quite commited to de-funding public broadcasting. this is going to be a continuing battle for us for quite some time. having finished the fiscal year 2011 funding cuts, we now go immediately into the 2012 appropriations process. 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 give a lot of credit to the 70 million americans organization that has created this grass-roots effort. that grass-roots effort, the station managers, and the 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 led to the good result we have had in the last couple of weeks. >> p.b.s. did some polling using a bipartisan polling consortium. you found what about public attitude? >> quite significant support for public broadcasting. i think that as i listen to pat

, in my view, to answer the question of what happened, but the consummate it up in one word, and that is constituents. the were a lot of people around the country that reached out to their members, saying this is a service that is extraordinarily valued. we saw that in the research that was done. the value the american public places on public broadcasting comes in second out of everything. there is tremendous support. when you put it into perspective on the public television side, 15% of our funding comes from the federal government. the rest is raised in the community. that 15% is hugely important because it is money our stations can leverage to raise support for the work they do locally. it helps pay for it a lot of

transmission expenses. 15% is an aggregate number. in communities like washington, the percentage of federal funding is less than it is in parts of the country where it can be as high as 50%, where communities are sparser and there is less ability to raise the kind of money to provide the same services that we have in this community. it is a tremendously important piece of our funding. i think most people understand that this private-public partnership we have over the last 40 years is something important to maintain. that came through loud and clear not just in the service we did in advance of the debate on the hill, but also as we watched the number of people who reached out to legislators to let their opinions be heard.

>> public broadcasting has not always been so organized in stating its case. what these think public broadcasting needs to do, going forward? >> when you say organized, i think pat referred to the 170 million americans. this was a piece of research done by a variety of people, including the station research group, that tried to determine how many people access some form of public broadcasting in the course of the week. that turns out to be more than half the american public. one of our problems is that we are looked almost too much. 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 that federal funding is important. federal funding is important.