tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN June 10, 2011 1:00pm-6:30pm EDT
opening up new opportunities. consider business services. you find that the economics of a company in many different types of business services in low cost parts of the u.s. compared to abroad have shifted. very different we're finding companies setting up remote service centers in places like nebraska or parts of florida or even employing workers to work from their homes. there are now new companies springing up called home sourcing and they manage hordes of workers working out of their houses. we talked to one insurance company that has thousands of claims processors working out of their houses all over the united states. you can look at a jetblue airlines where 3/4 of its 8000 reservation agents actually work out of their home from the salt lake city area. this is opening up new opportunities for business services. in an era where americans are increasingly less mobile, this
could be an important part of the solution. at the same time, we see businesses are planning to employ people more flexibly. in our survey, we found that over 1/3 seven x five years they will hire more part-time workers. more temporary or contract workers and more telecommuting or working from home. all these opportunities means that companies can be creative about how they employ u.s. labor. it might mean a new areas of jobs open up. when we think about the high job growth scenario, achieving a high job growth in business services will require using many of these more flexible ways of where and how you employ people. as we think about the solutions as to how you get to that high job growth scenario, james will take you through a primer we have developed to think about the solution space. >> if america is in a job
crisis, what do we do about it? we're not policy specialists and don't have the best answers on this. we like to identify the issues and try to provide a base to it. it is interesting when you look at these questions and what we uncovered in our work, there seems to be four areas where if we can get real solutions from business, from the public sector, the puck -- the private sector, vermonter for norris, that would make a big difference to the problem. the first area we talk about is the idea of high skill. this goes to the core of what susan was describing. we have a fundamental job mismatch. what the educational system is creating in terms of the quality and quantity isn't up to the task.
this is quite a big disconnect. it is important to think about how to expend the question of skills. that gets into the considerations about there being help you can get from immigration in the short term while you think about what education can do. this is the core of the bigger challenges we've got to solve. keep in mind, we're not just talking about educated people. in quite a few examples, there are many instances of what feel like vocational skills. there is the welder example that are not the most highly educated skills but different kinds of skills. we think this is an important issue.
the second issue we point to is what we call high share. when you think about everything going on globalization, it is clear to us that the u.s. has benefited as much from unemployment stamp went from that. we're not suggesting protectionism or tariffs. how does the u.s. take more advantage of the kind of opportunities of globalization to create employment here? some of that might include being open to other companies from other countries investing in this country. many of them tried to and that may include the kind of opportunity is about other ways to take advantage about different low-cost locations within the u.s. even though the u.s. may be a high-cost location, that is not true ago to a local level in many instances. there are other ways to take advantage of that. the other ways can be that many
of the nuanced -- new entrepreneurs in the world are not in the u.s. in addition to the entrepreneurs, they create unemployment -- they create employment. there's a question of addressing the issues of getting a fair share. spark is the next one we tackle. this has three aspects to it. a big part has to do with encouraging innovation brought late in the economy. -- broadly in the economy. in aggregate, there has been less innovation going on in the u.s. economy in the last decade than in the previous decade. in fact, we have had more of our productivity growth come from efficiency driven mechanisms as opposed to improving the output
out of the economy. the way you do that comes from innovation. the broad point about how you read innovation more broadly in companies large and small. there is the question of sparking in the question of new company creation. the rate that new companies are being formed is slowing down. that part of that has to do with the credit and liquidity. many small businesses get form for people borrow from their banks or credit cards. as that improves, that will also improve the rate at which new companies are created. we think there is more that can be done there to accelerate the rate that new businesses are being created. also, the issue of how do we still up new industries? there is discussion about all these new technologies. it is very exciting and good for our growth and long run but also good for the environment. the rate at which those are permitted for the economy is
relatively slow. there may be some lessons to learn. what happened in the early days of the semiconductor industry is an example. if you remember, in the 1950's, there was a big difference on how quickly that industry grew up. is there some way that either by accelerating how quickly these markets come to fruition, there are policy choices that could be made to accelerate how quickly these new technologies spread through the economy and help drive growth. these are some of the questions we think are important to think about as we thank about policy and actions that the private sector and the government can do. the last one is a high-speed. we are talking about removing the impediments around the way
of creating jobs. this is not about taking away regulations as much as there seems to be so much that takes too long for businesses trying to create jobs. we heard in our service about how long it took to process various pieces of legislation like zoning laws or getting permits for this that and the other. you can compare that to how long it takes in other countries. other countries become so much more adept at making it easy for companies to go through those things and invest there and create jobs. we think this is an important area to address and take away many impediments that are in the way of creating jobs very quickly. with that, let me stop because i want to make sure we give enough time for our panel. we are also optimistic because
we think there is enough flexibility and innovation that should happen and can happen and has happened in the past in this economy that should lead to job growth. this should not be at all daunting for the united states. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, james and susan. we now have a chance to be joined by a distinguished panel to engage in a bit of a conversation about what this all means before opening up to the audience for q &a. i would like to briefly introduce the panel being seated alongside me starting with i have the pleasure of introducing our moderator zannie minton beadows.
she manages a team of writers around the world. before she moved to washington in 1996, she was an economist correspondent based in london traveling extensively in latin america and eastern europe. she joined the economist in 1994 after spending two years at the imf where she worked on macroeconomic adjustment programs in africa and the transition economies of eastern europe. before that, she was an adviser with the ministry of finance in poland working with a small group headed by professor geoffrey zaks. let me introduce the remainder of the panel, going alphabetically. first is the byron ageest. he works in the fields of high tech and i t and education and economic development. he also serves as the director of the mckinsey social sector office who works with institutions and project to help improve education, health
outcomes, economic growth, and prosperity. he is in washington where he has been since 2007. he is also the co-founder and board chairman of the hope st. group, a national non-partisan organization of executives, professional, an entrepreneur is working on developing public policies to expand economic opportunity. he is on a number of not for profit boards including yale, the pacific council on international policy, that she would foundation, the center for american progress and a member of the council of foreign relations. he was the co-author of the report you are seeing today. to his left is martin bailey. he rejoined brookings in september, 2007 to develop a program of research on business and the economy. he is studying a financial crisis as well as productivity and technology. he is a senior adviser to mackenzie. he assisted us on a number of
projects. he is an economic adviser to the congressional budget office and a director of the finnish company's of hartford, connecticut and the co-chair of the financial reform task force supported by the pew of charitable trust a member of this one like cravaack and academics working on financial reform issues. he was the chairman of the council of economic advisers under president clinton. to his left is carl camden, the president and ceo of kelly services, a world leader in work force solutions. he is on that company's board. kelly is a fortune 500 company headquartered in troy, michigan. he has an undergraduate degree in psychology and speech from southwest baptist in missouri, a graduate degree in clinical psychology and speech communication from central missouri state, and a doctorate from ohio state in communications. he was also an associate professor in the communications department at cleveland state
university before joining kelly. he joined prominent business and labor and public policy members of the founding member of the better health care together a coalition which first fundamental reform of american health care. he is on the board of directors at the detroit regional chamber, the detroit medical center, the committee for economic development, and the university of detroit mercy. he served on the detroit board of directors for the federal reserve bank of chicago. to his left is andy stern. he is the former president of the 2.2 million member service employees union, the seiu. it is the fastest-growing union in north america. under his tenure, the seiu through its signature global
organizing campaigns and grew it by more than 1.2 million workers, turning traditionally underpaid service work into jobs that can help support a family and lived at the community. previously as a labor leader, and the is a leading voice on major issues facing and confronting american workers. he was named in 2010 as the presidential appointee for the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. last but not least, is laura tyson, the professor of global management at the haas school of business in uc-berkeley. she was a dean at the london business school from 2002-2006 and dean at haas for 1998-2001 very she was a member of the president's council on jobs and competitiveness and was a member of the president's economic recovery advisory board. she served in the clinton administration and was chair of the council of economic advisers from 1993-1995 and the
president's national economic advisor for 1995-1996. dr. tyson is also a senior adviser to the mckinsey global institute. with that, let me turn it over. >> is a pleasure to be here and moderate such a distinguished panel discussing such a terrific report. i love the quality of the analysis but also you have an unfailing ability to come up with catchy phrases. the u.s. needs high scale, high chair, and high speed. we are focused on the latter, high-speed because lots of cover -- lots to cover and not very much time. [laughter] where shall we start? andy, i'll start with you. i want to say you have spent a lifetime looking at the labor market but that may be an exaggeration. how do you react to this report and does it accurately pe
project the challenges of the american worker? >> this is an important road map that comes at an historical moment. i would like to say this is not our father or grandfather is economy. is this something fundamental happening differently? i would say something revolutionary is happening differently. i happen to believe that history will say this is the third economic revolution in world history as opposed to a 3000- year agricultural transition or 300-year industrial, we are having three-year massive transformation with an enormous amount of destruction. we now know that the economy works differently. the market work differently. business cycles work differently and we are not going to go into the future looking into the rearview mirror. this is a unique time in history of many to think about this fundamental point -- market fundamentalism is no longer a way forward. strict government intervention is not a way forward.
the third economic revolution, countries are teams. teams of plants. germany has a plan. china has a plan. singapore has a plan, the usa has no plan. the road map is an attempt to try to make a plan that unique moment in history. team usa, if we love this country like i do, we need leadership and needs a plan this is a good place to start. >> excellent, that is an uplifting start. laura, many of you could talk about the difference between what austan was saying and the message of this report. conventional wisdom is that when the growth comes the job -- the jobs will come. how do you see that? has something fundamental changed? >> actually, there is not the
inconsistency that there appears at first sight. if you look at the report, it lays out three scenarios. the scenarios are high-growth, low growth, and medium growth. those are assumptions about the growth of the economy but rather demand. they are about the growth of household income and consumption and investment i don't think it is either/or. the reports as we manage to get a high growth economy, we will see jobs of these numbers in these sectors what does that require from the skill base? i see it as supply and demand working together. i think that a couple of issues were raised that are not explicit in this report but very connected. austan goolsbee talked about this being a time when we are
switching from government- economies and we are handing them off to the private sector. what can the private sector do to stimulate demand and create new jobs? the second thing that is very important here as we think about policy is that it was also said that we have to think about as we end this sought to the private sector, we can see certain ways the government can be extremely helpful. they can get out of the way in terms of permit regulations. they can help to provide the skills that the work force needs. building a support of infrastructure is another positive thing. this notion of having to change from the public to the private and change the composition of demand and change what government policy can do to help the private sector, that really brings it all together. >> let's focus on one of the
areas where the report puts a lot of emphasis on the fuel mismatch. can the work force fell the job market with the proper skills? do you see this skill mismatch? do you think that is the big problem? >> as an employer and as those providing employees to other companies, a skill mismatches extensive and more widespread than heads the popular literature. we think of that in terms of engineering as an example and it is there. we only generally have one candidate for jobs that we have available in the engineering space. that sort is the fact that in the skilled trades area and the technicians of all sorts and
everything from electricians to plumbers and x-ray technicians, you pick the area, there's a tremendous shortage. we ed kelly usually have tens of thousands of open orders that are available in those zones that you cannot find people for. i think the skills mismatch is huge. i think we are doing very little in terms of national education policy or down to very specific policies and state levels to guide individuals into the areas where jobs are currently available or are going to be available. there is also the amount of time it takes to retrain people is way too long we have got to get much better at faster retooling and re-skilling of individuals for we can expect people to go back to school for two years. that is just bad policy. >> i want to talk about the
shortcomings in retraining. before we do that, there's a second component about thinking about how to match supply. where is the demand going to be? the report was more skeptical about job growth. you have done a lot of work in manufacturing, martin. what is your take on the manufacturing job growth? >> i think the report is correct an austan goolsbee is wrong, unfortunately. [laughter] i think maybe a manufacturing renaissance in the sense that output growth in manufacturing will be stronger going forward. it actually never was that bad.
there are a lot of strong manufacturing companies. there is a lot of innovation going on in the united states. on the output side, yes, there likely will be a manufacturing renaissance. it is also the case that some of the economics that the report says, the slide that was shown, was the one for cool centers but it is true for manufacturing efforts the companies are finding that having a supply chain spread around is more difficult to do then they thought it would be. maybe the savings they are getting from that are not that great. we have heard of companies that are bringing production back to the u.s. the skills issue is important on that. we will talk more about that. the number of jobs that will be in manufacturing depends a little on how successful we are in creating people with the skills that are attractive to employers to provide more
skills. a lot of companies will do their own training but they want to have workers that they can train. one of the other reasons we can be somewhat optimistic about manufacturing is the value of the dollar. in my own work, that is really the main thing that drives whether we have a big trade deficit or whether we have something closer to balance. i won't get into the macro economics of whether we will balance the budget and have more seven domestically, but on the assumption the economy recovers and the get back towards fuller employment, will we have an unbalanced economy with lots of trade deficit or will we have a more balanced growth? a lot depends on the policies and whether we have enough domestic savings and whether the value of the dollar is at a point that makes u.s. competitive. why don't we get the jobs? the numbers just don't add up.
i thought there were going to. if you look at what is likely to be the growth of output, you can look -- we have not stopped buying things. we think that exports may do better going forward. if we get something closer to trade balance 10 years from now rather than a huge trade deficit, that will add to output growth. but the out to grow together and you ask how much productivity will rise. you don't know because it could be slow. we could get a surprise there. if you look at it has starkly what productivity has done in manufacturing and mass that with what is likely to be the output growth, you just don't get there will be a net job creation or the next 10 years. it is hard to make those numbers come out there is plenty of adverse scenarios. we don't deal with the savings imbalance we will end up with
having a big trade deficit. productivity will turn out to be faster than we thought it would be in which you would continue to lose jobs in manufacturing. much as i would like to agree with austan goolsbee, i think it is hard to get the numbers to come out that way. >> now i am even more depressed. >> this is a 10-year review and there's a short-term view. we continue to add jobs for the next few months. as a policymaker, there is an immediate potential for job creation and manufacturing that seems quite promising. martin is talking more about the fundamental productivity. that is part of the tension. >> fair point but let's stick with a 10-year horizon.
we had a sobering presentation from the two of you. s a told us it was seve revolutionary moment. carl told us that he flies there are not enough people to fill many of the positions that he wants. can we move to some solutions or something positive? can we change the grim picture? let's start with you, byron. can we turn this around? build on that more. also talk about the skill mismatches area. i think that is fundamental. what can be done? >> i think we can accomplish the high scenario. i think we can get back to
success. i agree with a lot of what andy said that there are fundamental differences and the -- in the way we need to do it. in the skills area, i think we need really revolutionary innovation in skill development and education itself. i think that is absolutely possible. at the margins, there are tremendous advances in learning technologies, adaptive learning. in the defense department, they have an adaptive learning program that can trained it support people in a matter of weeks that is normally done in two years and it does extremely and effectively. the education sector as the lead is to r &d of any sector of the economy at a time when we need the most innovation in that sector. that is a tremendously important
enabling sector for the economy. what would you do differently? one thing is that throughout the education system, we measure progress by how long you are sitting there ,seat time. we should measure it by competencies'. what have you actually learned? what do you know how to do? we would then create a whole new set of incentives for people to learn faster and learn better and for them to learn in different ways. some could learn a classroom or on-the-job or through apprentice ships. if you create that policy structure and let innovators go after it, you can have a revolution in learning. you cannot have people out of work for two years and two years in college. even the best education institutions do it. one interesting development in the last week, i don't know if
you saw it, the manufacturing institute teamed up with skills for america's future -- this is the employment and government partnership to train 500,000 people in the skill gaps in manufacturing. what the most interesting things about it is they have to find these skills ladders so all manufacturers could agree to create a mobility. you can go through community policies or learn on the job. you can then actually build those skills and be mobile. i think there are a lot of solutions. there are actually a number of very powerful solutions. >> i just spent some time looking at the history of u.s.
training programs which is a rather grim reading overall. they have not broadly been that successful. the u.s. spends weigh less than virtually any other country on training but that which does spends, is not well organized or efficient. that is my cursory reading of it. one key part of getting to this much better outcome that byron described is to improve training and improved retreading. and do so in an environment of fiscal retrenchment. how do we go about doing that? >> that is a tough one ve. in principle, i think we can. let me expand for a second of what byron said and what the armed forces do. the armed forces can't outsource
their job. this has to be done. this is an american activity but people are stationed overseas. they cannot pay huge salaries to people to do the job. but by necessity, they have to take a record they have and train them to give them the skills they need to operate high-tech systems. they found ways to do that. this necessity was the mother of invention. if we have to change the incentives within the private sector here in the u.s. of that there is more willingness for business and maybe the public sector as well but not necessarily federal, but community colleges, states, and localities to figure out how to provide the skills that businesses need so they can take
those people and give them additional skills with that particular firm more company. this is certainly not going to be easy. you can look at the record and find some signs of hope. there are some community colleges that are really good at what they do. one of the examples was delta airlines from the mackenzie report. other companies had partnered with these programs so the students can come out and work for the company. that is the kind of model we need to do. here we are a ced. i am pleased that we are here with this group because this is a group that i think we need to create a kind of standard for improving technology to get a better handle on what it is that
students re-employing workers, what skills they need to have. how can this be done cheaply? it should be a fairly quick program. can we work with community colleges, not letting the bad ones get away, but try to find those common grounds so that on the education side and on the private sector side, we can create these sure skill enhancement programs that make people better able to fit into these jobs. i don't pretend that is an easy task. surely, if we are in this economic crisis and it is really true that we have these skills shortages, shouldn't that gives emergency around doing something like this? >> what is your take on this, carl? when you face this situation,
what would be helpful to do? do you thing martin is on the right track? >> we have a very schizophrenic set of policies. we don't have an education system that produces the workers we need. we don't have an immigration policy that lets bring them in. we too long the companies that outsource to other countries. something has to give. we don't have a lot of effort behind outcomes-based education companies to reorganize against what's convenient for those of us who are teachers and reorganize by methods of education. we don't organize against outcomes. when we approach community colleges and we work with an automotive manufacturer who had guaranteed jobs and needed to add two closest to the curriculum that existed and they would be ready to go to work as
soon as they graduated -- we were told that will take two years to get state approval for the new curriculum to be put in place. by the time they laid out the time on, there is no guarantee those jobs would exist. speed to action is missing in very much of the taxpayer- supported education system. we're not talking about high school. high schools used to be and can still be a place to develop a tremendous number of locations. we let ourselves get trapped into a view that was discriminatory or tracking or we were profiling workers. there's a tremendous amount of skills that could be provided if we return vocational institution -- vocational education system tracks back into the high school. i think there is much that could be done. i argue strongly that the
business community could say -- where the skills are but they can also say how we can restructure the education system to make it more quicker. and to produce results with less expense. >>andy, what is your perspective? how satisfied are you with the current police of training and advancement? where were to put the focus for going forward? >> i think we should appreciate this is the easy place that we all like to talk about very we focus of a small number of vice -- high skills, jobs where we could solve a problem but we have been unable. these are six things we need to do. american workers need a raise. we have a maldistribution of income . work has to pay. that is the nature of the american story. people have not gotten a raise for 30 years.
there respond by pushing -- putting a second member of their family to work. the need to have consumption because they will have money in their pocket. two, i would argue that the reason there is less innovation at last new jobs performance of which is -- is because we have monopolies coming back into our economy. as the most concentrated society we have had since ronald reagan let loose and many antitrust stop. you don't have innovation and new business development in the mall -- a monopolistic economies. we have to solve that problem. we need a pro-american trading policy. we have a very idealistic trade policy that is not pro-american. we have an employer-based health care system which is ridiculous. it costs 6% more of gdp.
we don't want to talk about it. but switzerland, germany, france, there are ways that every company operates internationally and they are satisfied with getting benefits in the same thing is true of retirement at vat tax which every other country uses which is a precedent for exports and penalize imports, we don't. we have a plan that guarantees that we will not succeed. we don't want to talk about a lot of these things we talk of education. [laughter] [applause] >> that was certainly a challenging set of comments. [laughter] at the risk of failing to answer your question, i suggest we convene a large number of other palace to discuss this. for the moment, we will stick with the small issue, in your opinion, of training and workers. [laughter]
one cannot look at all the things we're looking at today in isolation. laura, you were the former dean of uc-berkeley business school. is the american education system failing american workers? >> i want to start within out of sympathy for what andy just said. i have been involved in discussion of u.s. competitiveness since about the time the phrase was first introduced. back in 1983, it was president reagan's council on competitiveness. i was a democrat but it was a bipartisan council. at the top of every component net -- every competitiveness list has appeared macro
education of the u.s. work force. by many, many measures, the education of the american work force has not improved. i think it is important here to stay that if we agree that -- i think is important here say that if we agree that the model should not have to change, i agree with something you said, that we spend much less as a share of gdp on any training and other countries. we should recognize that. one thing i will say to go back to some of the other things said, as we are cutting the size of government and cutting government spending, we better be really careful of those areas where we believe that the government actually enhances competitiveness and job performance.
these are parts of the discretionary, non-security budget. the focus of the biggest spending cuts focused because it is politically easy to do. we will not solve any of these problems without revolutionary changes but we flash everything governments do and state and local governments have to slash, those numbers about education and employment, if we look at those going forward, i know what is happening in california. people then was happening in the states and those numbers are declining now. we've got to be serious here. it has been mentioned that i may member of the presence council on jobs. i want to throw out some optimism.
business leaders in that group are absolutely trying to think about things they can do on their own or with partnership and other countries or partnerships with community colleges and i'm sorry to hear about the bad experience here, in partnerships with state and local governments, to really grab the skill issue. they need to say we cannot wait any longer. we have to do this. you set up a plan and the council is very plans-oriented. what when we do to help catalyzed operation? they're focused on figuring out ways to figure out the road to -- retention rate of students who start out in engineering degrees and then drop out. you could do something in one or two years to take a pool of potential engineers and keep them there.
that would be fantastic. you've got to have a plan and a time frame. on the revolutionary side of change, i think institutions of higher learning will have to think about this. when i was involved in the report, was thinking about business goals and of the notice the major, the majors are social science and a substantial fall off to stem cell research. schools can do more particularly in undergraduate training which requiring students to do more math and science, more quantitative methods and get more minor/major degree programs is give the people the kind of skills they need more effectively. that is an idea that came to mind. the other chart that i saw was released a great. the excess supply of high school and high-school dropouts is amazing.
the charts show that between now and 2020, the u.s. has safely stop dead in its terms of improving education levels and share of the population with a given the great. we were building up the share of the population with college education year after year. if you look at those numbers right now, nothing. if you look at what happens with high school dropouts, you have a huge excess. part of the problem is that is where there is no wage growth. i think we have to do much more with bridging bicycles with technical training. that can be done faster than changing the way college majors are organized in traditional universities. we should focus on that. >> as a source of optimism here, if we have not made much
progress in education since the 1980's, there are 20 countries in the world the past dozen that time. you can think about that as negative for the united states but it tells you that it can be done. it is not some law affects that we cannot improve our education system. there are many countries who have died. are many countries that treat vocational education with a record in a social status that is very different from our country. there are countries that have changed their system like germany who had their own big on employment crisis in the late 1980's. they systematically changed what was essentially a system to manage unemployment to employment system. they integrated the unemployment insurance system with the work force training system, with the
job placement system so that from the moment you lost your job in germany, you had the system working to help you figure out how to get back into long-term employment. that is a doable thing. we have seen how can be done. there has to be an american version of that working between federal, state, and local governments and you see countries like australia who has changed quite dramatically. instead of paying to train people, they pay for job placement and training of integrated people. the providers can be state government or nonprofit or for profits. many countries in europe have gone to mixed systems. the common element is that they are both willing to spend on this employment system and they are willing to do whatever it
takes. they have provided the outcome and we have not made that move in the united states yet. >> about six weeks ago, i wrote a piece of u.s. labor market. it had more angry readers about what we have learned from europe. i have more questions but i want to open the floor now to questions from the audience. there are two microphones so you if you can identify yourself, that would be great. >> i am from newsweek and the washington post. it seems from the report that basically the labor markets don't work. i would be interested in getting your appraisal on why is
this is the case. the supply of what is being demanded is not materializing. this is very -- this is a very to centralizing market. there are regulations that are decentralized. is it possible that part of the problem, a large part of the problem, is that the corporate and company level? companies use to be more willing to invest in training schools for their work forces because they had a norm that these would be mostly career employees. by train them when they're 20 or 25 or 30, they would reap the benefits of that training over 30, 40, 50 years. if that concept has changed, and workers are becoming more disposable, companies are going to invest less in them.
>> it is less about companies deciding that workers are disposable or not permanent as it is that fundamentally work itself had -- is changing. i look at job life cycles for the average amount time you can expect a job to processed either by demography -- either by geography or title has shrunk. those of us above my age can remember categories of jobs that shrunk 80% or 90%. bank tellers is a common example. with the shrinking job life cycles, companies are unable to continually retrain workers and move them from job to job. with the geographic mobility of jobs, you are not able to engage in that retraining. it is somewhat naively perspective to say that companies have walked away from the training.
from world war two big group and of fell apart with the new rise of information and the mobility at work. to answer fundamental questions as to why the markets don't work is because we are in an area where no one is similarly viewed as having responsibility for the employability. companies don't have that view of the employability of workers does jobs move and workers move and jobs end. educational institutions are doing what they can to cope. they have not really adjusted to the idea of non-permanent of work. government policy is nonexistent in this area.
and we have a society where individuals have not yet taken on the notion that they are responsible ultimately for their own employability. the markets are not working because they are disorganized and confused. >> i agree with everything you said about everything except perhaps the last comment. one of the things that we have not talked about here is the dramatic escalation and cost of education. is for-profit colleges or community colleges or not for-profit ones around the country or the states are having to triple the tuition overnight. i think the fastest growing
amount of debt in the united states is student debt. somebody asked me the other day if they should take on $100,000 of debt for this degree. i cannot say absolutely yes. i need to know more. this goes to the issue of what is the degree for but you also have a problem that if you are getting a degree in x but 10 years from now, x will not be the thing you need -- the employability issue is a major one. i agree that no one is in charge. i don't agree that a large number of americans are not worried sick about this and trying to figure out how they can make their own investments in their on employability. we are not giving them enough bridges or tracks or information or retraining possibilities. we are meant giving them enough to make those decisions turn into high return decisions for them. >> i was thinking more about
when you get a degree or come out with a high-school degree, no where along the way did we teach you about how you go about -- ?> about what tax > >> how do you go about achieving basic employability. we almost communicate an ideal that once you achieve these goals and you have your piece of paper, life is good. rather than life has barely just began and here are the skills you need to keep yourself. >> first of all, i don't think you would conclude in the history of united states that the system does not work. we have had full employment most years. there are issues that have been developing in the last 10 years.
we know that education and training are not really market sectors. they don't improve efficiency. you answered your own question. if your employer, do you want to provide expensive training to your work force? the person will take the training and work somewhere else. i think tourism market better than it is involved. >> i would add one thing which is as an economist, if the market is not working, why not? the job market as a physical market. you need to be where the job is or move to it. the other problem is information. it is at all levels. a kid graduates from high school has to make a decision how did they know what they should train for and what training is needed
and what jobs will be demanded? you can pick a major in university and to four years of work and you go to the job placement of as and figure out if there will be a job for you at the other end. there's a real information problem. it is both for workers trying to retrain mid career and students entering the system. >> thank you very much. i am a member of the ced. i'm so glad we're talking about skills match -- mismatch. i have been doing so much work with an organization called the national center organization for women that there is now a map we have put on our website, which by congressional district, we have mapped with the kids are
doing starting in high-school through associate degrees, community colleges, colleges and physically information technology, computer science, computing. we connected with the job openings that are available in those congressional districts. it is a tour de force of data. i hope it will challenge each congressional district -- after all, education is about all local and the state, not the federal government as much as obama tries very hard to talk about this. it has to be done at these local levels. that is so the superintendent's
and gentlemen like yourself in your own area can work with either the community college. i want to ask about cyber security. we're going to have such a demand continually and maybe this is an area where we will get, hopefully, the kind of national porn-defense fellowships' that we is to get what we were in the cold war. now that we have the cyber security challenge that will be with us forever, can the defense department, knowing they have to work with u.s. citizens and immigrants, can they be a place to take that information? they're the ones who brought women into the military force. they did not have enough people in the military force it is the
same thing now. we don't have enough skilled people. but think there has to be a use of the u.s. military that may help accelerate these sclerotic changes that we all seem to agree we need. >> let me collect a couple more questions. >> i am an independent management consultant. i really like the four pieces you laid out as part of this problem. my question was about the one i expected to see which was tax policy. the idea of creating jobs quickly is stimulatory of lowering capital gains and putting in investment tax credit increases. things are said about the comparative nature of our income tax being the second highest in the world. i was wondering the reason that
was omitted. if you want to add it, you could call it a stimulus. [laughter] ." are running out of time and we need to address all of these. >> >> i am a student at the indiana university. the governor of our state has proposed a budget cut to higher education. with these cuts, my question is, how is it possible for a student myself, who is paying to get through college, to be able to get the training that i need to enter the workforce, and many other students in the state of pennsylvania? the state of pennsylvania has more universities than any other state and country. how will these budget cuts affect what you talked about today? >> thank you very much. >> i'm with the center for
american progress. i worked on post secondary issues. my questions are about higher education financing and distance and labor collaboration. we have a disparity in the u.s. and i think it is global between how much we pay in tax subsidies for four-year schools to educate people versus two-year schools. two-year schools get the hardest students to educate and far less money to educate them. that is one question. the other question is, it always strikes me that expanded higher education access since the gi bill and other social programs in the 1960's. we have put a bunch of new students into the higher education system to the higher education studensystem was never designed to educate. most of the students are what we
call in the literature nontraditional students. it's not a surprise that they get very little attention. traditional, a young college students get most of the money. business and labor unions either employed or represent many of those students. many of the people cannot be students. how can we find common ground on that issue to try and agenda to say, everyone needs at least two years of post secondary education? >> thank you. that is a terrific list of questions. byron, tax policy, stimulus, the disparity between the two-year and four-year colleges treated take your pick, but i would like all the questions answered by someone. [laughter] >> i will take tax policy and talk about where it sits in the overall frame of this report.
i guess our thinking was that, in doing this report, there is a very robust debate, for sure, about stimulus. stimulus by spending -- you know, federal spending and an aggregate, macro numbers, or tax cuts of various sorts. that debate is going on. my own sense is that the debate is fairly stalemated. what the debate is ignoring is that there are a number of very significant ways that we can reignite the job creation engine in this country. it is not about those two things. we wanted to focus on those areas that we think are getting far less attention than we should and could drive significant job creation. a number of my colleagues here, i'm guessing, will address the
skills questions. most of the questions have been about skills. i do want to say that skills were one of the four things we focused on. it is extremely important that we get, not only the supply side of skills, but the demand side right. there are some tremendous opportunities where the underlying economics are shifting back in our favor, arguably. challenges we see in the global economy are also opportunities. rising energy costs are a challenge. on the other hand, that means the supply chain should be shortened. we should be producing things closer to the end-market and guess what? we have the biggest end-market in the country. wage rates in indian outsourcing hubs are rising by 15% per year. we have demonstrated that there are dozens of cities in the middle of america whose
economics and skills -- you know, the cost and the skills of doing remote services -- are just as attractive as india and they will be getting relatively better. we should be looking at how we create demand there. innovation is absolutely the key to this. we are going to have productivity. we are going to have efficiencies. we do not have innovation that great new products, services, higher-quality, we will not get simultaneously large job creation and large productivity gains. with innovation, we can do that. even in health care, where there has been a tremendous amount of pessimism about low productivity, i was at an event about a week ago and it was amazing what they were doing with a new delivery models. it actually employed much more
people, delivered better policy at low cost. we have a tremendous wellspring in this country and foundations of innovation that we can unleash. we can absolutely reignite the engine. >> i was going to answer one of the other questions that was raised, but on the attack is -- but on the tax issue, you might want to look at a previous reports that we did really do tackle a lot of the business and environmental issues. back to the question on cyber security and whether the military could be a way to create new kinds of jobs. one thing that's quite interesting -- first of all, there's a bit of a myth that industries, like the software industry, is all about highly technical computer science skills. it is not. ding is athe co
basic scripting. one of the jokes is that the factory worker of the future is doing basic coding. if you couple that with the idea that the u.s. government is trying to open up all kinds of massive data -- nasa, the military, the department of defense, has an enormous amount of data that they are allowing innovators to start to work with that data. it is potentially starting to create new jobs that are quite different. we do point to that in the report when we talk about these new industries. it could come from all the government data. >> charlie is hovering over me, which means we have run out of time. verye were two questions barel
clearly targeted at higher education which i think you should answer. one from the gentleman from pennsylvania and secondly, the disparity between two-year and four-year colleges. >> i share the concerns that were expressed. i think it is a tragedy. it is a tragedy that reflects a kind of dishonesty in america. we have just spent the entire discussion on skills and education and what we're doing around the country is cutting education. there are dire budgetary situations, but we need to think about both revolutionaries in -- both revolutionizing education and also that we are making it impossible for students to complete education. i think we all agree on a two- year versus four-year feud we have all talked about
nontraditional degree programs. i really want to take one second just to say, just to realize that the conversation -- it has been a great conversation. has been primarily about skills. it's about the supply-side of the situation. the supply-side of the situation is not why we got into a great recession and it is not why we are coming out so slowly. we had a massive financial collapse and a massive housing bubble. history tells us it will take some time and we will grow more slowly. i think that says to us that in this period of slow growth and painful transition out, we do every single thing we can to address the supply considerations that have always been there -- ok, to make sure that as we come out, we do not hit them again. let us use this as an opportunity to deal with the supply-side issues, but let's
not kid ourselves that things like, say, things like i mentioned earlier. one of the things germany did that is not mentioned in the report is a lot of their support for the economy was in very effective infrastructure projects. they got the project out the door fast. they got permiting done. infrastructure projects in the u.s. and around the world employed a lot of people. they could employ people in the united states right now. we have money that is on spent right now because of problems in the permitting -- we have money that is unspent right now because of problems in the printing area. will be hard to pick up substantial momentum. what can the government do right away to deal with this and deal with the supply issues going forward? >> that is inappropriate 0.2 end.
-- that is an appropriate point to end. >> i want to close with four points. whether you are an optimist or a pessimist, i think it's very clear we have a lot of work ahead of us and you challenges in terms of jobs growth and skills management. i think this has been a superb discussion. i want to thank everyone of you for one of the best discussions we've had in a long time but i want to ask a question. i know this was not in your charter. did i not read in "the economist" you had a wonderful article about france. somewhere buried in that article, i think there was a reference to the fact that last year, the french created between 600,000 and 700,000 new businesses.
is that number correct? if france can do that, that is what we basically did in 2006. in 2010, we had 505,000 new positions. france is the size of texas. for goodness sakes, let's get with it. [laughter] we do have a new subcommittee focusing on some of these issues on post secondary education to we will probably call you to assist us. there's a lot of work here. bruce is cochairing this. carl is on the subcommittee. lenny is on the subcommittee. finally, i wish andy stern were
not so shy. [laughter] i want to conclude with what he said at the beginning. he talks about teen usa -- team usa. we need to start with team washington. we need to get the business leadership and the political leadership of their ideological hobbyhorses and focusing on some of these issues that really affect team washington and team usa. we are trying to do our part. i hope everyone here and people watching this on c-span and elsewhere will read the report and pay attention. thank you for being here and thank you to our panel. [applause]
>> coming up this weekend on c- span, oral arguments this week from the 11th circuit court of appeals on the obama administration's new health care law. a 3-judge panel heard arguments . this is the latest challenge to the law. we'll have that for you on sunday at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. on "road to the white house" an
interview with former new mexico gov. gary johnson. topics discussed include his plans on reducing the debt and the deficit, his views on gay marriage, and a number of other social issues. sunday, 9:30 p.m. eastern on c- span. officials in alaska have released thousands of pages of e-mails sent and received by palin in her first 20 months as governor. on our home page at c-span.org, you will find a link to "the anchorage daily news" coverage with a link to the e-mails. that is on c-span.org. more than 20 years after the end of the cold war, a new york
historical society panel reflects on ronald reagan and mikhail gorbachev. nathan connally on the civil rights movement and the promise of suburbia. photographer rick rose. get the complete schedule that c-span.org -- schedule at c- span.org/history. >> this weekend, on booktv, the role of fannie mae and freddie financial 2008 collapse. henry kissinger on whether it is possible to have a true economic partnership with china. also, microsoft co-founder paul allen talks about his memoir. sign up for booktv alerts.
>> the national oceanic and atmospheric administration were released a new policy that will allow seafood businesses to apply for permits to start fish farms in the gulf of mexico. the administrator talks about the new rules and a discussion of the impact of the oil spill on seafood. she is joined by actor and environmentalist ted danson and louisiana seafood business owners. >> after this event, delicious. and september of 2008, we opened with -- at the museum of national history. it was a wonderful project. we collaborated with many of the leading organizations in the country. more than 10 million people have been through to see it.
it's our way of sharing our knowledge about the ocean and this planet with millions of people and hopefully raise awareness about those 2/3 of the planet. it's part of our broader initiative that we have been working on for a number of years, using our collections, using our science, and our partnerships. tonight is an opportunity to come together at your national museum to address some of the really important topics for society in this panel. let me start by acknowledging a lot of the institutions that have supported the bentonite. starting with noaa, which has been our collaborator and partner for more than 100 years. the food market was a sponsor of this event last year, as well. seafood bay aquarium's watch program. this year we have a new sponsor,
the gulf states marine fisheries commission, whose support has enabled us to bring six chefs from the gulf states that will best chefs. d.c.'s the museum has added -- museum has had a collaboration with noaa for several years. we are delighted to have with us tonight to give us opening remarks, the administrator of noaa. jane it's a very distinguished marine biologist and has been a member of our advisory board for a number of years. she was appointed administrator of noaa a few years ago. if you would like to make some welcoming remarks, please join
us. [applause] [applause] >> good evening, everyone. it's great to see you here. welcome to the smithsonian event. tonight's program is designed to tantalize your mind, as well as titillate your tastebuds. i hope you'll have good things at the program and afterwards. this intellectual appetizer that we are beginning with will offer you a look at the gulf one year later. i'm anxious to hear the views of the members of the panel. by way of opening remarks in a keynote address to get us going, let me begin by sharing some of what he mentioned, sharing some behind-the-scenes information that bears on tonight's venue, as well as our program. i referred to the strong
partnership between the smithsonian and noaa that goes back over 100 years. noaa fisheries was created in 1871 as the u.s. commission of fish and fisheries. it was the very first federal agency concerned with the natural resource, conservation, and science. its first commissioner was enough other than spencer baird, formal this auditorium was named, and was also assistant secretary of the smithsonian institution. can you imagine doing both of those jobs today? the collaboration remains strong. we share the world's largest collection of fish with scientist working closely with the smithsonian. partnerships extend to a wide variety of marine biology and
conservation. the relationship is evident. tonight's event reflects this partnership in science and conservation and it is appropriate that we do so here in the baird auditorium. turning to the subject of tonight's events. last april, the deepwater horizon exploded onto the scene in the gulf. an unprecedented environmental disaster -- over 1,000 miles of shoreline and released oil into the gulf itself. 10 days into the oil spill, i met with over 100 fishermen who feared losing their way of life and the gulf that they know and love. they knew better than anyone that oil seeping into the nursery wetlands might mean an
uncertain future. their connection to the bayou, the gulf waters, and they're concerned about losing it were possible and they were right to be concerned. many of them have suffered deeply. their businesses and their communities -- many of them have been devastated. fast forward to today. although the vast majority of oil in the gulf is now gone, oil lingers close to shore and in many coastal areas in louisiana and in isolated places on the seafloor bottom. the effect on the gulf ecosystem and surrounding communities will be felt for years. a cooperative natural damage -- natural resource damage assessment is well under way, but it will be years before we have a clear picture of the full impact of the oil on the gulf
ecosystems. while we wait for full information about the damage done and future implications, we do know the status of seafood today. all the federal waters in the gulf that were once closed to fishing -- and that represented, at its peak, 37% of federal waters in the gulf -- all of that is now open to fishing. it is open for the very reason that the seafood they are in has been extensively and thoroughly tested for oil and contamination and found to be safe to eat. noaa, fda, and the state's tested seafood extensively before reopening these areas. they continue to ensure the safety of seafood today through additional surveillance and testing. if new oil appears that may be a threat to seafood's safety, we will not hesitate to close waters again.
our focus on the status of seafood in the gulf should be about more than simply answering the question -- is the gulf seafood safe from oil and contaminants? the larger focus must also include -- what are we doing to ensure healthy fisheries and held the sources of seafood? the foundations of the unique culture and the very special attraction the gulf offers to so many visitors of the region, as well as to the local inhabitants. the health of the gulf is inseparable from the health of its coastal communities and their culture. our efforts to support a healthy gulf are multiple, from fishing to habitat restoration, to making the gulf coast ecosystems and economies more resilient to
disasters. devastation from hurricanes after hurricane, katrina in 2005, at readout on its heels, and -- rita, gustav, and ike. losing the protection those places once afforded, as the people in the gulf call them, "speed bumps for hurricanes." with the devastating power of the mississippi river tragically apparent, it has never been more critical to take a hard look at what is the essential to building the gulf coast resiliency and rebuilding the wetlands and barrier islands that provide protection. restoration is not a silver bullet, but it can help on many levels. past experience shows that restoration yield significant
economic and environmental payoff, creating jobs and further opening the way for travel and recreation, adding income for restaurants, hotels, and coastal economies. healthy ecosystems provide major benefits, such as hurricane protection, pollution control, and improved consumer confidence in seafood -- benefits that stretch far beyond the gulf. as we begin the long road to economic and environmental recovery in the gulf, noaa is pursuing efforts on multiple fronts to help with progress. i have touched on seafood safety, ending overfishing, and habitat restoration, which are all key elements in a vibrant future for the gulf. i would like to briefly touch on one additional component that complements these. that is aquaculture. the farming of marine plants and animals has huge potential to
provide health the seafood, create new jobs, and contribute to reducing the trade deficit. however, it is vitally important that aquaculture be done in a fashion that is environmentally sound. i am pleased to announce that today, noaa and the department of commerce released our new aquaculture policy. these policies establish a framework intended to encourage sustainable domestic aquaculture, support coastal communities, an important commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as help restore species and habitats. in addition to these policies, we are committing to developing a national shellfish initiative , in partnership with industry, to take specific steps to increase commercial production of shellfish and promote innovation in the industry, and to implementing the gulf of mexico fishery management plan for aquaculture, which includes
the regulatory infrastructure needed for offshore aquaculture development needed in the gulf. we hope that both of these initiatives will have profound and lasting effects on the environmental and economic recovery in the gulf and on aquaculture development throughout the nation. with that, i'm pleased to turn the program over to our moderator tonight, mr. richard harris of national public radio. thank you, all. [applause] [applause] >> thanks for the wonderful introduction treaty should come up -- introduction. you should come up. we have about an hour to talk and i promise i will not hold you over. we will get off to the food and wine at the end of the hour. i think there will be some
widely thought to share before we go and we will proceed at pace. i will start by introducing the panel and peppering them with a few questions. we have a few microphones in the title. after a while, i will join -- i will ask everyone to join in on the conversation. there are a few scattered seats up front. if you are standing and you want to sit, there are some opportunities to reduce so. let me start by introducing this quite impressive lineup of folks. we will start on your far left. don bosh, president at the university of maryland center for biological science. i met him more than 20 years ago because he was running a laboratory in louisiana and he was also a professor of marine
science at louisiana state university. he really knows the gulf. he knows the chesapeake bay really well and he was also on the president's oil spill commission. he has served on many key commissions. to his left -- [laughter] i forgot to wear my watch. that is how i usually tell right from left. a familiar face to you, ted danson. you may have seen him on tv once or twice. he was in coney island earlier today shooting his hbo thing really early in the morning. he is amazingly fresh. he is here because he has become a very passionate ocean activist. he works for the organization called oceana. he has also written a book that was co-written with a
journalist named michael dorso. he has hollywood in his blood, but i also think he has ocean in his veins. to his left, an associate professor and specialist in food sciences at louisiana state university. she has been diligently running up and down the gulf coast since the oil spill, looking at seafood safety issues, and will be participating with us on those grounds. to her left is patrick riley, a shrimp fisherman, but he is more than a shrimp fishermen. as a general manager of this outfit called western seafood co. -- he is from freeport, texas. he is a developmental in fishing apparatus.
he has been quite involved in that. mike is from motivate seafood in louisiana. one of the gulf of mexico's largest oyster harvesting and processing companies. are your oysters been served tonight? taste have a chance to his oysters in the food hall when we are done. i'm delightful that he is here. you have already heard from the doctor. let me start by turning to don. ok, it has been one year since the oil spill. how does it look? when we saw those videos, it brought back memories of how horrible everything looked a year ago. how is the gulf?
>> nature is a wonderful thing. it treated oil as an organic some strain. a lot of things grew. for the most part, it is no longer there. there are a number of issues that we need to resolve about lingering effects. she also indicated there's a natural resources damage assessment to carefully quantify the impact. there are a lot of ongoing studies to see the degree to which those impacts happened. i think this was handled remarkably well, specifically with respect to -- as a scientist, when it this spill was happening and all this concern about the contamination problem and the potential risk to human health -- the fish, for
example, has mechanisms to take these compounds, the ones we are most concerned about -- fish have very effective mechanisms to detoxify them. from the start, the risk to seafood that could be contaminated seafood is small to begin with. of course, on top of that, it is a very large ocean. only small amounts of the seafood could have been exposed to this. from the standpoint of the ocean commission, we have studied not the effects of the spill so much as the governmental response. we saw a quite remarkable effort to assess and make sure we have a safe process. these areas were closed as a precaution.
subsequently, a program with very detailed testing is still going on. we can detect contaminants. with thousands of samples at this point, there's very little indication that there is any contamination. i think we can all feel safe the seafood is safe and enjoy it tonight. >> patrick reilly, you go out in the gulf. what is your perspective, from somebody on the water? >> in the areas we are harvesting from, just after the spill -- [inaudible] mic is on. hello? ok. [laughter] >> thank you, mike. >> well done. >> just after the spill and the
quick response by noaa and the closing of the areas affected by that, you have very wide buffer zones for safety reasons and what not. not only the areas that were directly affected, but a very wide perimeter around them. we did not see an effect on our product. since those closed areas reopened, we never saw any effects at all on that product. as a fishery operator a little further off shore -- and really up to the beach on texas -- we never saw anything. >> is shrimp fishery back in full swing? >> shrimp fishery never left. we took a hit because of overall
volume because we had production units, vessels, basically shut in. they either joined to help with the cleanup or they chose not to fish overall. some of the near shore vessels did not have access to the nearshore waters to fish in southern louisiana. once the shrift left -- once they shrimp left the shore, it was left up to larger boats. frankly, we did not have the number of larger boats to participate in the treasury. in freeport, even though we are on the far western region of the gulf, after our closure, which is 60 days, we generate quite a bit of volume from boats that come over from texas.
typically, july 15. we would have one or two 20-day trips generating 60,000 pounds apiece. we took a little bit of a hit there. those boats could not make it over. from a biological standpoint, no. >> mike, did you have trouble selling oysters after this bill? -- the spill. >> a lot of people got really hungry for seafood. it was almost like when johnny carson said there was going to be a shortage of toilet paper and everybody ran out and bought toilet paper and there was a shortage of toilet paper. [laughter] that is kind of what happened immediately. we sold all of our freezer inventories.
we were closed because of the impending oil. i want to compliment the doctor. the government's response was above and beyond what i have seen in my 40 years. they did an excellent job of being on the ground and helping us understand challenges and helping to resolve those challenges. the oyster community took a hit during the event because the governor opened fresh water diversions. we have floods in national about two weeks before the event and that water was coming down the mississippi river. it was to push the oil offshore. we have 7,500 miles of coastline in louisiana. only about 400 miles were oiled. >> all that fresh water was also
welcomed by the oysters. >> we had about 50% of our oysters die. we were down to 50% production. this year, probably another 50%, or about 25% of our traditional production. we are kind of a big guerrilla of oyster production in the gulf. >> so it will take you a couple of years, if you have to wait for the oysters to grow up. you have a few years. >> maybe three or four years, we will be back to whether then -- back to better than we were before. this year, knocked down again with the great floods. we are beginning to see -- we are beginning to see some straws that are breaking people's backs this time.
it is really a challenge. >> we heard a lot after the spill that people were afraid to eat gulf seafood. why did that happen? >> people were afraid to eat the seafood because we saw all these pictures in the media of oiled seafood. entrance a plea, it meant to them that it might be toxic -- intrinsically, it meant to them that it might be toxic. we had to try to help elay the fears of the consumer. the consumer included the processor and the chef. the national marine fishery service, dr. levchenko's organization, invited people within the states and within academia to be trained on the testing that was done to screen
the seafood for any sort of oil contamination. we know that we can smell the pah's at very low levels. we have a very low threshold in our noses. this technology dates back to the early 1960's in japan, where japanese researchers tried to equate -- if i have an oil spill and i take what i think is that concentration and put it in a tank and put in fish and allow them to swim and then take out at certain periods -- how quickly does it take up the compounds. by the same token, put it into water and see how quickly that dissipated.
it was shown that they can detect down to .5 parts per million. what does that mean for you? one. one part per million is about a drop o. >> our people back to eating gulf seafood now? >> there are still some concerns. we did a lot of training with the harvest through open waters, working with the fda and noaa to guarantee that the seafood is harvested through open waters. they can do that easily. we trained the processors so they could see that you really can smell it. people are gradually coming back, but there is still concerne.
was a very large national media effort. it created a perception tree we know perception is one of the hardest things to change -- it created a perception. we know perception is one of the hardest things to change. >> we also did extensive chemical testing on seafood. we have had a chemical tests for the compounds in the hydrocarbons that have been mentioned that are a potential concern because they are carcinogenic. during the spill, we developed a new test for the dispersant. we were doing both the sniff test and the chemical test. i think that is useful information. when i go back to the gulf still, people ask. there's a lot of concern. there are lingering concerns about the safety and i think you have put your finger on it.
that is, the images that we saw a day after day after day have made people suspicious. >> yeah. ted, you have obviously been passionate about oceans for many years long before the spill happened. did the spill help you focus a different way focusbeing an ocean activist? >> i want to reassure you that the guy who played sam malone will talk to you about fish. they'll have buttons that they can push if i say something wrong. [laughter] you are in safe hands. i started out as an activist in california with a group called no oil, inc. in the pacific palisades. that is kind of how i started in this.
what was hard for me was, even before the spill, the conversation of -- let's lift the moratorium that was in place for 25 years and let's open our coast to offshore oil drilling, are most sensitive areas. i know this is a sensitive conversation to have when so many people in louisiana depend on oil and a lot of people work for it. nevertheless, from my point of view, offshore oil drilling is way too risky for us to be doing and the rewards are way too little. for me, it was more of a reminder of that. i also like to weigh in that i am surprised by what i hear tonight and not because i doubt it. i did not know it.
perception is such a large part of it. you think about oil addiction and you do not even want to go there. i would hate to say that i am so happy that this is true and i will be up there eating a great deal -- actors and free food, we will be anything. [laughter] i would hate to have that be an endorsement that is okay to go back to business as usual because oil does not harm the ecosystem, so it's ok to keep digging for oil in more and more dangerous places. -- that isivist why one thing. [applause] >> jane, how did our contestant do? >> i am not sense rain ted --
i'm not censoring ted. i would be remiss to say that there were not long-term impacts. dr. boesch said that. i think we're saying two things. one, the seafood from the spiguf is not contaminated by oil or dispersants. at the same time, we still do not know the full impact of the spill on the animals and the ecosystem of the gulf. we will not know that for some time. even those tiny droplets of oil that were in the water while the oil was flowing, even very small drops can be very toxic to a fish egg or fish larva. there is very real concern that
there are impacts that we will not see for a number of years. it's hard to quantify, document, see. one of the legacies of the exxon spill was a new knowledge about the impact of oil on developments of fish larva. we know that they're very sensitive to oil. there are some real concerns about long-term impact that we will not know for a while. that's part of the natural resource damage assessment, to try to evaluate that and not to say that everything is fine now because it looks ok. there's a lot we do not know. >> there were fish populations that looked just fine for a couple of years and then crashed. you do not want to call the all clear to soon. >> there's a difference between fish you might be catching to
beat that can -- to eat that can process hydrocarbons. that fish that was swimming the gulf, even if it encountered oil, but could be safe to eat now, but that's not true of the young, vulnerable stages of the larvae. it is very important when in the life cycle the impact was felt. >> you have to understand how large the gulf of mexico is. 640 quadrillion gallons. there are trillions of gallons every year that -- every day that pour out of the mississippi and other areas. 640 quadrillion gallons.
600,000 square miles on land. if you believe the maximum, it would be 200 million gallons. it is the proverbial drop in the bucket in terms of the large ecosystem. i'm not saying this is not a challenge. it was a challenge and it was responded to very well. you have to look at it in a bigger picture type of presentation. also, what type of oil was it? the exxon valdez was a heavy crude oil that was already partially refined and ready to move forward. you are talking about light, sweet louisiana approved -- louisiana crude. we have 40,000 offshore wells. we leak 50 to 100 million per
year. i was raised in southern california. i would go to the beach in southern california and i would get tar balls on my feet. there's a lot of leakage there. >> yeah. >> absolutely, the numbers mean a lot. it is also true that the natural seaps are a low rate and there is a natural ecosystem. this was a big hit all at once and we are now trying to understand how that sort out. let me turn to don. i imagine people not only care whether their food is safe, but whether it is sustainable and what is the overall health of seafood from the gulf. in answering that question, you could remind us this is not the only insult that has ever
happened to the gulf of mexico. >> we have talked about the effects of the seafood we captured and enjoyed last year and its safety. those species, those populations, of those fisheries have a set of long-term problems they are trying to grapple with. first of all, like everywhere else in the world, we have overfished some of those resources. we are trying to use the best science to manage that in a more sustainable way. noaa has played a large role in that in terms of the federal territory. in addition to that, some of the fishery methods we have used have caused all sorts of unfortunate side effects. for example, when they told
shrimpers that captured lots of other fish -- captured and wasted. also, capturing things like sea turtles. we are in the process of trying to find a better way to do that. there has been a lot of effort and progress made on efforts to avoid capture in sea turtles, but there are still mortalities due to sea turtles. beyond that, there are other challenges in terms of the rapid dynamic changes of that environment that have been unleashed by humans. the biggest of all that has affected everything is climate change. it will put us on a path of much more rapid sea level rise in the low-lying gulf areas. it will be a major challenge going forward. in addition to that, we have massive -- and the end of the
20th century, massive amounts of wetlands were lost along the coast, mainly in the mississippi delta as a result of our mismanagement of the river, but also the very oil and gas industry that we talked about sliced and diced that coastal area and exhilarated the -- and accelerated the loss of the wetlands. also, the result of high productivity industrial agriculture in the midwest. a lot of the fertilizer nutrients are applied to the landscape and since it has caused a mass of dead some -- dead zone may be the size of new jersey or larger because of the flood affects. that's happening year after year. it is not an event like an oil spill. they have enormous consequences to the resources we are talking
about, as well as the vitality of that system. the hope is that with the attention brought about by the spill, are commission called for a dedication of 80% of the recoveries of fines under the clean water act -- water quality violations as a result of the release of oil -- could be millions of dollars dedicated towards comprehensive restoration of the gulf. >> not just mopping up oil, but looking for marshes and everything. >> restoring those wetlands. with that is tied to vitality of the various fisheries we're talking about. the president has charged administrator jackson, working with dr. levchenko and others in the administration to come up with a plan to use these
resources for a comprehensive restoration. if there is a silver lining, hopefully it will draw attention to this that we can move forward. it is not however, a lead pipe cinch that this will happen. we have a lot of opinions about what to do with that money. there are fights about how much their fair share should be. >> ted, is that something activists are dealing with? is that something you are pressing for? where do you work in this universe in trying to see changes in the way we deal with our oceans? >> i am certainly not an expert on the gulf by any means. the activist starts -- our
fisheries around the world are in trouble. we do not over subsidized are boats. it% of the world's fisheries have collapsed. 90% of those around when i was growing up in the 1950's argon. there is this much left. all the big fish is gone. at 90% is gone. >> what do you do about that? >> well you start managing your fishery. >> what do you do about that? >> i go into ballrooms and dii yack. i am talking. it is wrong.
anyway, when i see after writing this book, or being part of this both is that my job is to create international ocean activists because these problems are so huge and they are international that people in need to take steps to and learn how to make sure you are not buying farmed salmon from chile because you end up killing three pawns of wild fish to make that wildan't -- 3 pounds of fish to make that 1 pound. you can do better different organization. i am here to sing the praises of osha. you need to do that. it is still out of sight, a lot of mind to 1% of of the money raised in this country -- all environmental money raised, when% goes to marine issues.
we do not think about the oceans has anything but something we could put as much into as we want, and as much as we want out of it. my job is to get people to stand up and say this is wrong. >> patrick, you have a more hands-on approach. donald mentioned the turtles getting caught in traps and nets. talk about your efforts to reduce debt. -- and that. >> awareness is up. i think the shrimp fishery that i am participating in has a good story to tell when it comes to turtles. a big time management action started in the mid-1980's, when we started looking at this problem on the decline and the mexican coast.
it was in real trouble. in 1990, when we got over the hump, and got compliance issues out of the way, we were able to convince the fisherman that we could do it effectively. >> that is what? >> a turbo-excluder-device -- turtle excluder device. prior to when the catch is collected, we have an angled grid that is designed to discharge not only ted, and amazingly, it was created to exclude jelly balls. it was called a cannonball shooter. they had a high rate. they would fill up the nets with a jellyfish in literally
minutes. we got over the hurdles. we have the vast majority of fishman thinking they could pull this device -- device. we had a great compliance numbers by late 1990. if you look at the beaches in rancher and a wave all around 2000, you went from a straight line where you did not see a dip or a fall. after 2000, two thousand one, -- 2001, we started to see an architect. today, other than last year, we sought a dip. the year before last, we're looking at 21,000. last year, some 13,000. we picked up quite a few in veracruz. through may 25, we are looking at 11,000 in what is expected to be a banner year.
half of the texas coast, which is not a traditional beach, we are looking at record numbers this year. fishermen complain -- our fishermen comply in pretty well? >> they are now has redoubled their efforts. -- no one has redoubled their efforts. there reeducating fisherman. they have found compliance issues, but those things could change overtime. it is not an intentional error on the part of the fisherman, but one thing that you have to realize as well, if you are in a conservation world, where a marine biologist, as you have stock of a particular animal you may have interactions with, as
the overall recovery happens, you will have more interactions with them, and we will have thomas said, standing is because of that. -- we will have, sadly, strain indians because of it. >> -- strandings because of that. >> i think of the species, five of them lived in the gulf, and they're all in danger. what patrick has said about the concerted efforts to address the problems we are causing, especially at times ripley, work,'s last year, very successful -- were, until last year, there is successful. this also protected nesting beaches in texas and mexico. this is an endangered species
that is co-manage with mexico. last year, they said a serious hit, especially the one-year- olds and the two-year-olds, which were abundant. they were coming from deeper areas into more shallow areas, and i do not know the exact numbers, but they were on the order of around 500 times grizzlies found -- temps grizzlies found stranded. one additional good news story is there was a concerted effort to go out and rescue oiled turtles. many communities and activists joined forces to rescue turtles, and brought them back into holding facilities throughout the gulf. they have been rehabs. almost all of them have been
released. 400 were saved. this year, we are seeing a very large number of turtles that are stranded. we remain very concerned about the causes of the current week, at noaa are working closely to understand what is causing this, and we will remain concerned. if it is an endangered population, so we will continue to work actively to try to address the causes of those mortality's. >> we have a microphone here. i'm not sure there is one in the other file, but i will open this up for questions. if you would like to, and anyone come to a microphone and i would recognize you can -- recognize you. i ask you introduce yourself and ask a question to the >> my name
is just. -- question. >> my name is jeff. as you might guess by looking at me, i am a friend of seafood and would like to see it sustained we have been talking about the facts of this bill, but one thing this group has not addressed is what has been done to make sure this will not happen again? i know the minerals management service which regulates offshore oil and gas drilling has been divided into three units. is that the answer for protecting the gulf -- to protecting the golf from this happening again? >> that is a very good question. another part of this issue is to make sure we do everything we can to make sure this does not happen again. as much as. might like to have offshore oil -- as much as ted danson would not like to have offshore
drilling, our country is dependent on it. this will take time, and we have limited new production opportunities on land. the other alternative is to become more beholden to other nations holding oil. we have to grow our domestic oil production. you have for the president make announcements about that. a good part of that will be the gulf of mexico. the question is, if we are going to do that, let's do it safely. this is essential to what are commission addressed. the secretary of the interior has put in new regulations that are required now to permit and regulate deep water drilling. 15 or so new permits have been issued under that new standard. they every door to reorganize. our commission recommended going further than what they have been able to do thus far. some of that six legislation. there was legislation proposed
at the end of the last congress. now, it is a different environment. we seem to have a discussion of either drill, baby, drill, and get out of our way, or not, and i think there is a reasonable middle ground. if we need this resource, we will need to find it in deep water, and that is where it is, we have learned a lot, we have new capabilities, we should hold the companies to new standards. we need a better capacity within our government to monitor those activities. all of this common-sense solutions are what we recommend that, but many of them are pending at this point in congress turned >> thank you. at issue, if you are a concerned citizen, make sure your representatives know what your views are. >> thank you. michael. we made some comments, and one of the questions i would have in
the natural resource damage assessment, are we going to look at the effect of dispersant years on fish larva? i have one other one. will the oil spill have any effect on the ocean acidification, or is that separate from emissions and crude oil? >> ocean acidification is actually the oceans getting more acidic as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. the obvious connection is the more oil we burn, the more carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere. in terms of this bill, musslucia lampila? >> we are talking about roughly 1.9 million gallons. so, when/100 of the amount of oil was actually used as a dispersant. was that said, the dispersant was food grade, -- with that
said, the disparate and was food grade. it is a through-approved ingredient -- is a food-approved ingredient. a dissipated fairly rapidly. has also been shown that if it is taken up in the flesh, and the food and drug administration lab did some very nice work with this, where they showed various species, and amounts at 100 times the amount used on the spill, and they shared seafood could take it up, but they also back. it, or rid themselves of it very rapidly reaching depurate it, or rid themselves of it very rapidly. >> how much of this was made during medical -- chemical
screens? i know you continue to catch fish, check them out, and so forth. >> the test that we developed during the spill was to test for this compound that she was speaking of. so, all of the seafood was tested for that. it is free from the as the spartans. -- dispersants. it is the natural resource damage assessment process looking at the effect of the spartans on large rise -- larvae .are it is a comprehensive process that is looking at damage from anything, including the efforts to minimize the impact of the spell. so, it looks said anything that could possibly be quantified with the idea of evaluating the
impact of the spill on natural resources, and the public and tell access to those resources. -- and the public's access to those resources. the final part of the natural resource damage assessment process is to do the restoration required, paid for by the responsible parties, to make up for the damage that was done, whatever that looks like. so, it is a legal, scientific, economic process, to really focus on natural resources, so, yes, it will be part of that. >> just putting on my reporter had for a minute, and have been trying to act about -- asked about how bad the damage is, and sometimes it is a legal
process, and they're not at liberty to say everything. there is a little bit of frustration with not having full information, but we are assured that they are doing this to make the best cases against the responsible parties, and ultimately we will hear what the results are, but it is a bit of a frustrating time to call and say what is happening with such and such. call back again in 2015. >> richard, i share that frustration, has and you na natand, it is not a ♪ but if you tip your hand, you risk undermining your case.
>> my name is rachel. thank you for being here. my question is primarily for the industry-owner, operator, and also the federal perspective. i was wondering if there were any best practices or lessons learned that came out of deep water rise in response and mark recoveries that could be shared -- deep water horizon response and market recovery set could be shared. >> i think the best cooperative response from the government at the federal, state and local level was with the seafood community. normally, we deal with three or
four closures in the year based more on fecal pollution. during a 40-day. last year, we and 38 closures, -- during a 48-day time, we had 38 closures. we supported them in their closures, and the states in their closures. there is no great cooperative effort between noaa, the states, and other federal agencies to accomplish that not only are we providing a safe product, but also that we're going to have sustainable seafood for the long term. we are spending our energies and dollars in doing their research and-in-hand with noaa. patrick, you have a comment? >> i think one thing that came out of this was a realization by oil companies and the government
that the fishing industry himself could be used as an effective response tool in situations like this, and you saw the vessel of opportunity program worked. it was very effective for what it did. if i think, going forward, it puts an asset in place that many did not realize they have in front of them. it is at very little cost. we are doing our thing in various fisheries, and at a moment's notice, which could be called upon to act at -- as a potential safeguard between the shoreline and the problem of shore. that is a pretty good light of going off. >> i am just curious to what extent the seafood industry and the oil industry -- how that relationship has changed. are the seafood people say we need to get the oil industry out of the golf? obviously, it is for the economy of the gulf coast, so, how you
handle your relationship with people in oil? >> they are us. half of my family, which in the grid from france and ireland in the 1700's are in the oil and gas business. half of us are in the seafood business. i guess they could not make it into the harder of the two businesses. the real tragedy was the 11 lives were lost. i cannot and imagine what those people had to go through evacuate in a fire in the middle of a night on an oil rig. they are who we are. we have worked hand-in-glove for a long time. they harvest their resources below the ocean floor, and we harvest their resources above the ocean floor. there have been challenges in conference, but we have been able to work through those conflict. we are a user of what they harvest, they are a user of what we artist. we wanted to be done correct.
-- of what we harvest. i think there was an excellent job done in preparing the report of the suggestions. the oil and gas community came out with a great response, a $1 billion response program, and as patrick said one of the most exciting things that i heard is that when they started using the vessel of opportunity programs, the fisherman, they were out there, because they hired a bunch of contractors at first, and they outpaced the contractors at about 20-one, because they were protecting who they were, their livelihoods. i'm seventh generation in the. my sons are in business with this. my grandson's would be the ninth generation. >> to ipad question? >> -- thank you.
question? >> my name is sharon hayes. i worked in the federal government. i am not a scientist. i want to put a human face on this. i'm most to the gulf coast right after katrina and help out with recovery. -- help out with recovery. if anybody a -- help out with recovery. if anybody has spent a significant amount of time, you know how closely people live. i was talking to a friend of mine developed the national estuary program down there. he was mentioning that there was a lot of money flowing around, and it is nice that bp wants to do the right thing and make people whole after the oil spill, but i am concerned about the wetlands and the restoration, and i was going to
make a plea that you use the power you have to make sure the money goes to the right people, the right places, to get the restoration we need. none of the money is going to the people that are doing the restoration right now. i know there are reasons for that. it takes a long time, i know personally having worked in government. >> thank you for the comment. >> thank you for that very heartfelt, and please. i think you are absolutely right. i think there restoration will be really key. a few weeks ago, noaa and the other federal trusties and the state trusties to oversee this assessment process announced that bp had agreed to set aside $1 billion for early restoration projects. this is restoration that will be
part of the natural resource damage assessment process. it is early restoration because we do not have to wait for the damage assessment process to come to conclusion. everybody wants to start doing restoration now. this down payment from bp allows them to get under way. bear is a public process for soap -- there is a public process for soliciting ideas. we have held 10 open sessions in the gulf, and an additional one here, in washington. those ideas about what to restore and where are being folded into the process that will play out over the next couple of years in terms of the allocation of the funds. i think there is a lot of interest in getting on with the restoration, starting with the project everybody thinks will be
important, and that money will be allocated to each of the states in part and the federal trusties, for projects not only along the coast, but also the open ocean. there is now a formal process for funneling money into the early restoration, and i echo your hope that it goes to the right people. >> i think the exxon valdez spill cleanup, people were so anxious to show they were doing something. they were steam cleaning the rocks. there were actually killing organisms. your point is well taken. >> i am with the notions communications group, and i want to thank you for being here. i have a good news/bad news question for you. clearly, the bad news was the
spill in the gulf of mexico. the good news is some of the stuff we are hearing tonight. i have a question about human nature, and i wonder if you can reflect on your experiences about communicating around these issues. clearly, one we have the crisis it is easy to get the word out the terrorism oil spill, there is the fishery that is close, or an explosion when we have a good news story to tell about things not been as bad as you think they are, it seems like it is hard to get through the surface and talk about the stings. it is interesting when you look and neuroscience, social marketing, and human behavior, because we all say we want to hear good news, yet when we try to communicate it, it is always one of the biggest challenges. just your reaction, thoughts, advice would be much appreciated.
>> lucina lampila? >> thank you for that question. we had a lot of people come down to the gulf coast that were sincerely concerned, and they would buy shrimp when possible. how many of you have ever cleaned a shrimp in the whole form? this is remarkable. we would have people come down, by schramm, and they would say i took the head off, and it had a black strategic buying shrimp, and they would say i took the handoff, and it had a black streak of oil coming down. [laughter] >> that is the digestive tract. that is cindy and gritty if it is not removed probably. -- sandy and gritty as that is not removed properly cared >> you are not talking about the intellectual capacity of americans, are you?
[laughter] >> another fact that we know from the oil spill, i talk about testing which is a rapid method for screening. if it passed that, it went to seven trained people where they would smell under controlled conditions, and if it passed five out of the seven, the sample was sub-divided. >> i am sorry to interrupt. you're on the topic a second ago. >> of the formal testing, of the levels of the hydrocarbons, they have only shown to be 100 to 1000 of the level of concern, said bettas house if we are talking.
it fleet -- so that this house safe we are talking. if we take it one step further, we did the calculations. you have to read 60 pounds of gulf shrimp a day for five years to approach the level of concern. we are trying to get americans to eat two seafood meals a week. >> should we be eating 60 pounds a bear trend? >> yes. let me know where you want me to ship it. [laughter] [applause] [applause] >> so, what about the question? i know this is something you have thought about. how'd you communicate when things have changed? how would you convince people when things have changed? what do you do? >> it does not answer the question, but i want to thank the lady who said she came after katrina. that was a real challenge. thank you for coming to help.
that is a great challenge. how, in this situation, how many of you were around when the title ball scale. in the 1970's? it was a -- happened in the 1970's? it was an isolated incident, but it changed food and drug marketing forever. i can still remember the tylenol scare. if you were branded by seeing oil gushed out of a pipe for 80 some odd days. then, you heard about it for shorter period of time. how the change that? we cannot go back and do earned media, which is the evening news. you have to remember, during exxon valdez, you have the evening news, and the newspaper. today, you have the internet, 247 cnn, so the branding was more complete this time. what we will have to do -- bp
has to check did a lot of dollars, as well as the federal government -- we will have to see what synopsises are connected in the consumer's mind, and message them out of that connection to where we can change that. we are never going to forget about the tylenol scare all. -- tylenol scare. we will have to convince them through dr. lu chan a -- dr. lubchenco's organization. will not be easy. we will need to get ted danson to stand up in front of everybody and say a 100 times. >> hi, dawn. we worked together for many years. part of the problem is we came out of an era where science,
without being partisan, it was not really on the throne. was not really leading the way. then you have people -- it was not leading the way. you have people -- we are all products of our self-interest. every industry wants their way. science started to get downplayed, and you lost trust that people would say something and it would be true. if we let science lead the way again, so we can all go ok, he is saying this, and the industry is saying something or other, but science, people who are there to protect us, are saying this, i think we will rebuild trust, and then you can start -- people will allow the positive message to come through. now, we're so conditioned to tell "i do not really know if that is true." so, anyway, i am so grateful for
what you do, and how you have restored faith in science again. thank you. [applause] >> we have time for one more short question. short question, then i've promised to get you out of here on time. the hour is nearing. warm up your wineglass sanders. >> i went to school down south and transferred up north to do environmental studies. my friends in new orleans said it was bad, and their people were effected by it. i am slightly confused as to -- if it was that bad, why are you sitting up here and saying is ok. a million dollars here, on million dollars there from bp, i am not understanding how that will help as many people -- how
that will help as people say it is. what are the industry's doing to make sure this does not happen again? we have public service announcements. what really is going on to make sure this does not happen again, from not only the environmentalist's standpoint, but for the fishermen's standpoint. >> first of all, about the impact, i think we talked about the environmental impact, and we were focusing much of our attention of -- on the impact of seafood. we did not look comprehensively. how devastating the still was to the community and the region -- the economy, the tourism industry, the seafood industry -- it was remarkable about how it effected what the experts called the cycle-social effect. there were people who were just
anxious about things. that translated to child abuse, to crime, all of those kinds of things. this was coming on the heels of the hurricane and things of this sort. just because we talked about the ecological impact of the spill might not be as bad as some people thought, this was a devastating, devastating event. we should take every step. we, meeting -- meaning citizens and the industry, that it does not happen again. for example, we recommended that the industry establishes safety institute, much like the nuclear industry dead after three mile island, where they -- did after three mile island. the self-police. they told each other to high standards. -- said they hold each other to
high standards. >> thank you. we have food and wine awaiting us. i have a little bit of construction. [applause] -- of instruction. [applause] >> if you have not, let me just give you a quick note. if you look in your bag, -- i guess everybody has figured it out. the lock the doors, run for the food. -- go out the doors, runs for the suit. ted danson will be in the dinosaur halls to sign books. books from some other -- some of our other chefs will be available for purchase as well. so, anyway, have fun. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> coming up this weekend, here the oral argument from the 11th circuit court of appeals on the obama administration's new health care law. this is the latest challenge to the law brought by 26 different states who have banded together in opposition to the new law. we will have that for you on sunday at 10:30 a.m. eastern, here, on c-span. on "road to the white house called an interview with former new mexico governor gary johnson. topics include his plans for reducing the debt and deficits. his views on gay marriage, abortion, prayer in public schools, and other social issues. it airs on sunday here on c- span.
>> this weekend, on booktv, in "reckless endangerment," the role of fannie mae and freddie mac and the financial collapse. henry kissinger on whether it is possible to form a true economic partnership with china. also, the co-founder of microsoft, paul allen, talks about his memoirs. look for the complete schedule and senate for booktv alert. >> this week and on american history television on c-span 3, more than 20 years after the end of the cold war, a panel reflect on ronald reagan and mikhail gorbachev. from lectures in history, the civil rights movement, and the promise of suburbia. on american artifacts, restoring civil war for the --
photographs. get the complete schedule apple c-span.org -- at c-span.org. >> a federal communications commission report found that while the number of media outlets has grown, there has been a shortage of local journalism needed to hold schools and businesses accountable. the findings of the study, looking at the impact of technology on local media were presented at a public meeting thursday in washington, d.c.. the session begins with a discussion with a first-ever nationwide test of the an emergency alert system. julius genachowski chairs this meeting. mark paez. >> i practiced with him before we start >> thank you both for coming.
thank you for your ongoing work in this very important area in the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad to be before you with damon penn, my colleague with the federal emergency management agency for cotton nudity programs. in fact, with my colleague, the director of the office of oceanic and atmospheric administration weather service has been another key partner in the emergency alerting system. on november 9 at this year at 2:00 p.m. eastern standard time, the commission, sina and noaa looking to dealer system with eas. eas has been around for many years. this is the first nationwide test. a nationwide test is essential in ensuring the functions have intended during emergency. as we've repeatedly learned during recent disasters such as
c. or latecomers and i'm in japan as well as tornadoes, floods that devastated various parts of our country. reliable and effective emergency alert system is key to ensuring safety of our citizens during a time of disaster. first let me provide some background on the eas. the eas is an alerting system which relies on media-based communications. it will transmit emergency alerts and warnings of american public at the national, state and local levels. pas has been in existence since 1994 though its antecedents have been arund since the 50s. broadcasters, satellite, radio, satellite television providers as well as cable television and violent video providers all participate in the system. the eas participants provide tremendous public service by transmitting thousands of alerts and warnings to the public each year regarding whether threats, child abductions and many other types of emergencies.
this flag you see displayed shows that the present-day eas reaches the public. esa hierarchal message distribution session. a miller may be buy out the by a press official at the national, state or local level and initiating a specially encoded message to a broadcast statn -based network then in turn delivers the message to individual eas participants. the public safety officials need to send an alert warning to alert region or even the entire country, we need to know that the system will work as intended. only a top-down simultaneous test of all components of eas can provide an appropriate diagnosis of a systemwide performance. we get along with our federal partners want to conduct the first national test as soon as possible. we thought was pretty to conduct a test when hurricane season was nearing its end and before the severe winter weather season begins in earnest. after consultation with eas participants, which is overnight
to avoid the holiday rush and we chose 2:00 p.m. eastern standard time to minimize any disruption during rush hours. after the first task in a periodical national test will likely be retained in may, different time just like the weekly and monthly testing out. the beauty of the eas designed to work another disseminating emergency alerts or unavailable. other is no guarantee other communication methods will withstand after major disasters, various elements of the eas are designed to withstand such calamities. the bureau will soon release a public notice officially announcing the date and time of the first nationwide eas test. in addition, the beer has begun meetings with fema and u.s. participant stakeholders to ben dialogue to resolve operational issues in advance pass. the working to develop a dedicated website and provide information about the test of the public. i like to thank several people at the sec, sina and noaa for
their hard work on these issues. i ke to dodge her deputy. she, with the folks, for cybersecuritization. also greatcoat, bonnie k., thom beers and david pan, wait witmer, anton jonsson, and buckingham, mark paisley and also eric pinky for all their work on this emerging ssues. now it like to turn it over to damon penn. >> mr. chairman, commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. it's a great day to announce the national test of the partnership that has been affirmed in a couple with mark and his efforts really produced a vital service to the american people. angst while those gathered for recognizing the importance of alerts and warnings and foryour continued support of integrated
public alert and warning system also known as ipods. as many of you know, ou program really has tried over the past two years and again that has been really due to our partnership with the sec and the relationships we build with the industry. we've established, mueller protocols is a standard now to outreach programs and relationships and made a turnaround for program at all. how it helps us reach morethan the american population of emergency occurs, what to first ensure you eas to maka critical element in alerting the public. we completed two preliminary tests as jamie mentioned in alaska and found the functions as advertised at first the technical lesson to modify procedures, but with a basic understanding in basic agreement
that has been advertised. we have shared findings at the fcc and brocasters and in november we will show the american public will have courage to conduct an end to a nationwide test of the system and from there we'll value bait the outcomes, take steps to correct efficient he is and ll move forward from there. that it has, we are simply hoping it would work as planned. as we reanalyzed the test given to snc nonpolluting american public, we quickly realized the commish in the test was more complex than the old economy you can't have in the 1950s. multiple means and methods in the to be at all levels of government and needs to reach out the american public. so when we decided that we would -- we also decided we needed a way to include technology new safety is the dirty exist that need a way to incorporate emerging technologies. so we threw out a concept we
have requirement-based approaches and really developing applications based approach. so when we apply this approach, the fema same aggregator becomes a device that we can now use to exercise the existing cable abilities, but open countless other applications that not even considered. so we abandoned them my way or the highway approach for the common alert protocol standard. once that was approved, that shows the leadership of the nation we are looking much further in the future and standing standard for interoperality for all alerts and warnings. now if an inventor wants to develop a piece of equipment, emergency managers can know and peace of mind that the equipment is compatible with any message that the federal government may send in any message they want to generate at their level.
we've opened up the opportunity for development of countless benefits to the american people at the same time. the potential is boundless. now we can take emergency technology in the midwest for example and incorporate that. we can incorporate initiatives in the southeast. .. >> to give you an idea of the potential, and how it has extended beyond some of our wildest dreams, we are developing the capability to integrate the systems with several predictable databases. we are testing methods where a computer can generate a downwind phone, and some multiple messages to effective communities.
-- effective community. national public radio has developed technology that can take a text message and is occasionally -- instantly translated to a borel reader. the sky and the imagination are the only limits we have. so, to close, thank you again, commissioner and mr. chairman, and thank you to jamie and his team. lisa, david, come, gregg, jeffrey for helping us make this reality. thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> he's saving his voice for hurrica season is available at request. [laughter] >> thank you come all of you. let me ask my colleagues if you have any questions. >> i think it is great news we are going to do a test of the úa
system. ú it's a ú national challenge buta also in national opportunity toú develop a system that we are going to increasingly rely on t@ deal with national crises and weather emergencies and man-made emergencies and anbar alerts and objected children, and i want to highlight two things. i want to commend the public-private partnership that is behind this. he mentioned the stakeholders and participants and it's a pretty wide range of folks, so getting them all working together and coordinated and pulling together for the common good is admirable and i congratulate you on that. it works best when we can do that we found that out during the dtv transition just a couple of years ago. i also want to commend the interagency coordination that you've done here, david and mark and others, too.
this is such an urgent priority, and we have to have absolutely seamless coordination and cooperation when you talk about coping with disasters like the ones we have in recent months and recent years, too, so i want to commend that interagency cooperation you've done here and i want to particularly commend the admiral for doing the same thing on other issues that are under your office and the bureau, so i think that's commendable and a wonderful example for all of us as we seek to protect people in the 21st century. thank you coming and i wish you luck in the test. obviously he will run into some problem but you are already learning from the alaska@x@p experience. i think that's great and we will learn a t from this one, too. i have your here. >> thank you. >> i would just echo the words of my distinguished colleague
that as i travelled the country in the past five years i have heard frequently from broadcasters and public safety officials etc the need to do exactly what you're doing so this is a historic step. we are going to learn a lot and make great progress here and it's going to help protect the syem and the resources of the great nation. thank you for doing what you're doing and we look forward to learning frm it and hearing more about what comes about as a resu and how we can learn more and do better. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner? >> i commend the staff of the public safety homeland and community, community also the security, noah and fema for the hard work necessary to conduct th first eort top to bottom nationwide test of the emergency alert system. the goal i that all americans as they are turning into their favorite tv or radio station at 2 p.m. on november 9th should be
able to see or hear this test alert. those, like me, who hail from states vulnerable to hurricanes know all too well the value of timely communications in emergencies. therefore, i am glad that under the leadership of chairman gechowski and the admiral barnett that this commission is doing all it can to ensure that all americans have access to and rely on the national eas. thank you. >> thank you so much. i want to echo a couple of points. one, interagency coordination. it's symbolic that we have here not only admiral barnett from our team but fema and the national weather service, because we know that proper emergency alerting and response in the country can't happen without effective, efficient in their agency coordination. and the three of you here
reflects a tremendous amount of interagency cordination that occurs oa regular basis and includes agencies that aren't represented here today. that's a big deal. i commend everyone for working together on this and it's reflected by the presentation today. a second poi is that this is as commissioner mcdowell said this ishistoric. and in fact, we are what is developing to be a series of historic steps when it comes to emergency alerting and response. so this specific test, the first top to bottom test of the eas is itself historic but the other steps touched upon today are some that were also part of a full set of initiatives that are targeted at making sure we are
harnessing modern technology to communicate with people in the way that is effective in times of emergency. and so what we all grew up within the traditional eas system remains very important. but can no longer be the only way that we seek to aert people. and the work that has been done in the last several months on plans, the mobile alerting servic that's a very important part of this puzzle. the interoperability that you mentioned in the systems and protocols is a very important development. the progress that we are now making on getting in national and air operable mobile broadband public safety network up and running yesterday the senate commerce subcommittee or
full committee approved important legislation in this area. next generation 911 where there is still a lot of work to do, but it's now a matter of what is being actively pursued in another area where i believe we can make progress of historical significance. so for all of that, on behalf of the public, we are grateful to the work that you're doing and we know that the eas test is extremely important. and again, i think one of the most impressive things of the presentation is that you're thinking about the eas test, not in a vertical silo, and related to oer emergency alerting mechanisms, that you're thinking about playing field, and that makes complete sense because from the perspective that an ordinary person you just want to make sure you need to be a
little something that's going wrg, that there is a way to reach you wherever you are, efficiently that you have information you can act on and save lives and protect your family. so, very appreciate of this presentation. thank you again, to that for all barnett and your great staff to fema, the national weather service, we look forward to further reports and the work that you're doing. d d@f@f@b thank you. >> madam secretary, our next item, please. >> the final item on your agenda impact of technology on the information needs of communities >> before it turned over to
steve for his presentation let >> let me say a few words foundd at how technology is changing the media landscape and affecting the community. commission called on the fcc to examine some of the issues more closely, and iasked steve walden to come to the commission to lead a working group to do so, to assess the landscape, identify trends and ma recommendations how the community's needs can best be met in a broadband world. today, i am proud to sa that they have completed and delivered the report. the project share,teve walden is here to present the key findings and recommendations of the staff report. but before i turn it over to steve, a few brief comments about the process and steve's remarkable team. anyone that reads this report will be impressed by the thoughtfulness of the analysis and its recommendation. the report's findings and
recommendations contained a strong and hopeful through line. there's never been a more exciting time than this broadband age to achieve our founders vision of the free democracy with a free press and informed and in power citizens. as the report identifies and so the prince the potenti of new communications technologies, it also highlights important gaps that threaten to limit the potential. the report does all of this in a thoughtful and fact based way with a full grasp of the opportunities of new technology as well as deep respect for a long established forms of media. that the report deserves this description is no surprise given steve walden penn press, diverse unique background. steve worked for many years a a highly espected reporter and editor at publications including newsweek and u.s. news and world
report. he's also a successful internet entrepreneur, having created an online community that had millions of americans as regular users and he also wrote for "the wall street journal".com. he was the ideal person to lead the effort on this report, and on behalf of all of us, thank you for your service. this was a group effort within the agency great example of collaboration across departments and grateful to all the staff who worked on this often squeezing on top of their other responsibilities. i want to especially note the deputy chief of the office of strategic planning and the senior counsel, senior adviser for the extraordinary work. i also want to note just to lead into the presentation steve attracted an impressive collection of outside journalist academic and scholars to help develop the report that improved professor james hamilton of
duke, ellen goodman of rutgers, peter shalem ohio state, cynthia come rf ann byrd. the team conducted more than 600 in-depth interviews and a very diverse range of people across the country held multiple public hearings, made numerous visits and newsreels across the country analyzed scores of studies and compiled more than 1100 comments from the general public. the commission takes pride in this process and in the final pruct. with that, i would like to turn it over to you to present your findings and recommendations. the floor is yours. please take your time. >> thank you. it has been a great honor work on this project with this great staff and with the mmission. as you mentioned this project was launched at the beginning of 2010 when it was very clear that we were in a time of rapid and seismic chae in the media world. you have on the one hand a
tremendous innovation, additional innovation everywhere and every day and at the same time newspapers closings, staff layoffs and the media going through a very serious contraction. so, the idea was to therefore take a good hard look at this and the answer to basic questions. one is our citizens and communities getting the news and information and reporting that the need and what. second is policy that the fcc and others are in sync with the nature of moder media markets especially when it comes to encouraging novation and advancing public-interest goals. the process, as you mentioned, we created an informal working group that basically demanded extracurricular time from many people at the agency across many
departments as well as bringing in some really outstanding outside experts to help. would it more than 6 interviews and has a wide range of people we interviewed. media executives, such as leaders, foundations, investors, conservatives, liberals, the old media, new media, really very broad range. we had to public workshops, public comments and significantly we also did a very careful literature review because we're the first ones to study this, there are very outstanding studies and reports that we made great use of. as you mentioned, we were very fortunate to have a really outstanding team, and you mentioned the key folks, elizabeth, andrea, james hamilton, ellen goodman, peter shane, cynthia knard and tamara
who worked hard around-the-clock on this. we also as you said had people throughout the agencyorking on this. i'not going to read all the names as we would use up all the time there we can see that we had contributions rom every department which is fitting for the nature of the modern media landscape which isn't silo in the traditional ways that, you know, the agency is divided up. and we made a very aggressive use of free labor and in terms that too much of their work to do and this is really gratifying process. i have to say of all the exciting moments the most gratifying moment in the entire process is when one of the folks on the stuff, and i won't mention his name, who said the first four drafts were horrible, said the fifth draft was pretty
good, and i know we were finally ready to release. just starting with the six come the first principle that actually has to guide all of this is the first amendment. this confuses a lot of what we talked about and the way that we approach the recommendation as a journalist and i take them very seriously that while we care very deeply about what is happening with journalism we also have the first amendment as the basic parameters for how we approach this both in terms of guaranteeing freedom and placing the limits on the government intervention. the way that the report is structured and by the way the rert is now as i have on the web site is a major section on the media landscape which is a description of what is happening in the landscape right now.
we broke into the sections on commercial media, nonprofit media, non-media institutions by which we mean there are lots of ways people get very important information that don't go through the media. and libraries, schools, government websites, and those e increasingly important ways people get information devotee of the policy and putting the fcc's policies and track record and i am proud really of the commission a pretty tough as some of the fcc i think that speaks well to the commission and its desire to get the right. and then we have recommendations to the recommendations are not only for the fcc. we took the sec recommendations very seriously but we also spoke about possible ways that other players in the media landscape can help.
e main findings and and not shelf are that first most of the media landscape is actuay very vibrant, tremendous amount of innovation will go into more debt about that, but that is a central point. and there are some very seious issues and especially the one we keep coming back to over and over again is what we believe is a shortage of local accountability reporting and since i'm going to use this word accountability reporting a bunch of times, i should define it. this is basically things like covering city hall, the school board, the state house, the basic civic institutions holding those institutions accountable and th information citizens need, so it very interesting moment where these elements ll mean serious harm to communities but ying attention to them
will mean we will be able to create i believe the best media system that we've ever had. i know that sounds like hyperbole, but i think when you consider the advantages that have happened and the serious gaps are going to be in a very exciting moment. so first let's talk about the basic backdrop that helps us undersnd what went on. the contraction of the traditional media. it was sometimes said newspapers would have been a better position of the hit just grown their web traffic and if it were only that easy the truth is that from 20005 to 2009, newspapers online web trafic doubles and digital revenue grew $616 million which sounds like a very big sum until you hear that at theame time it lost
$22.6 biion this led to the newspaper business print dollars for being replaced by digital lines and if you look at the numbers hard it is print dollars being replaced by digital pennies, and that is the nut of the problem is that it's very hard to outrun the losses in the traditional business model. what are the implications. we ended up focusing a lot on the needy gritty subject, which is staffed. what happens and newsrooms when these kind of revenue contractions happen? and it's a really distressing set of numbers when you look at what's happened with traditional media.
just in the last few years which means it's nowdown to the level newspapers had before watergate. a tv network ns staff are down by half since the 1980's. news magazine, where i used t work, down by half since the 1980's. if you look a particular communities shall finish to see how this plays out you see the impact. so a study by a few which system the best work in this area of baltimore the look of the "baltimore sun," the "baltimore sun" produced 30 more stores in 2010 years earlier so look at philadelphia these available news butpublic issues is dramatically diminished over the last three years by many measures air time story account and keyword measurements. if you look at a particular news room, the news and observer in 2000 for theyhad to hundred 50 newsroom employees. by 2011 they had 103.
it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that that can have a really serious ipact. and specifically some of the beads that lost reporters, courts, shools, legal affairs, agriculture, environment, state education, fundamental issues of concern is to citizens and of the health of american communities. statehouses. from two dozen three to 2008, when spending by state governments went up by about 20% the number of peple covering state government went down by one-third. it's not a good formula if you are concerned about safeguarding taxpayers' dollars. investigative reporting is down. this is a hard, this is hard to come up with numbers that are exactly, but to lose. membership in the investigative reporters association from 2000 to three was 5300, and now it is 4,000.
the number of submissions for the public service categories and the pulitzer prizes is up 43% from 1984 to 2010. coverage of washington, the washington bureau, 27 states have no washington reporters. the number of your nose down by about a half since the 1980's. religion, religion coverage a topic dear to my heart my chicken with a religion news writers and said what happened in the last year with a set of religion news a the local level was nearly gone, which is very sad because the previous ten years had been a period of real growth in tha area. hamsterization this is a term a columbia internal review referred to about a hamster wheel and this is the phenomenon of reporters who now have in addition to their regular beat the have a second beat and right
for the website and tweet and are learning how to do video it creates the sense they feel like they're hamsters on a wheel. since the work of the federal government i decided to bureaucratize the phrase a little bit and we are now referring to this as hampsterization, and this is a process of when you don't necessarily eliminate the become it's like it's not like there's no one there covering it but reporters are stretched and it means to use a different metaphor if you're talking about a media landscape there are still reporters who can look at the landscape and describe what is there but they have less and less time to turn over the rocks and look in the shadows. you can see in the case of calls reporting eighth important topic, the kaiser foundation did a study and said its interest in health coverage is up, the number of reporters is down and they concluded a result of that was a loss of in-depth enterprise stories. education, there's lots of
education reporters, but they are less ambitious and doing less debt. same thing with local business reporters. the ceo of bloomberg said it is currently not a market well served. now, i think this obviously has, to communities. it's wasted taxpayer dollars, corruption, schools, the did simon who was a former reporter the "baltimore sun" who may be is better known as the producer of the lawyer at a senate hearing said it's going to be one of the great times to be a corrupt politician and i wasn't there so i don't know who he was looking at when he said that, but i thought it was a very exciting moment. now it's very hard to prove in this case. we are talking the impact is on stories not written. so how do you prove that, how do you prove what the impact is? and we try to get at this differently. we interview reporters about what are you doing now compared to what used to do? what did you use to do that you
can't do any more? we looked at stories where there was journalism done after the crisis. so for instance, one of the worst mining disasters in recent years is the upper big branch mine disaster in virginia. some fantastic journalism was done after the disaster finding there were more than 1300 violations on the books. so one can only imagine what might have happened, whether there was 29 workers who died might not have suffered the fate of the journalism had gone before the disaster or if more of it had been done before. california is agree to example where the l.a. times eventually did a terrific piece about the chief administrative officer and a working-class city in california who was being paid more than $787,000. this was going on for five years, and because bell had no
one covering it, taxpayers wrapped up $5.6 million, so we can only imagine if there had been a reporter there whether or not taxpayers would have saved them. as often happens, in situations like this, i is it tends to be the least powerful and the most vulnerable and we were touched by people who talked about not necessarily journalists but people in communities on the front lines to solve problems for communities about this happened to their lives an efctiveness of solving community problems as the contraption that happened. as for instance, an expert on the family court system in michigan said coverage has gotten smaller and smaller in the years. why does that matter? what's the impact? he says well, for example, parents whose rights are terminated who shouldn't be terminated it just takes
somebody down there to get the story but nobody s ever been down there. one thing that surprised me a little bit is that because the internet and digital tools and general has been so in powering and you can see this in the literally the effect of the internet on helping to topple governments, and in many ways in the ability to have users and citizens engage in the media it has been a very in powering experience. so it surprised me a little but we found a countervailing shift in the other direction b when you don't have a sufficient accountability functioning in communities it leads to a power shift in the other direction towards institutions and government away from citizens and this is because reporters basically right from press releases and don't have time to dig is a for nstance the que study of baltimore said reported as news is supposed to faster with little enterprising
reporting having the officials version is becoming more portant. we found official press releases often appear word for word in first acunt of events though not often noted as such. a government in this study initiates most of the news. i've talked about newspapers so far in great depth because they traditionally played a special role in the ecosystem of communities and tended to be the bulk of the reporting periods of the contraction of newspapers has especial ripple affect the course they are not the only players and other media have played a central role, and i'm not going to go into quite as much debt but i want to quickly go through a radio used to play an important role providing on the resources in communities and in some ways radio is actually doing really well and writing. national radio, public affairs, news, talk is booming. it's a very vibrant area.
at the same time, local news is not. there were 50 news stations, local radio stations, there are now 30, about a third of the population has the benefit of an all news station. the number of reporters who work for the local stations have been down or as the person who did a study on this said, the number of people when played on the commercial radio news room has been one for quite a few years. tv news. want to talk about tv news because this is a very interesting and in some ways exciting time for local tv news. local tv news is more productive than it has been perhaps ever. the last seven years the number of hours has risen by 45%, and they are increasingly doing very creative things. they are using their multi cast
channels more creatively, they are starting to do more mobile applications, user generated content. it's a great opportunity moment for local tv news. there's still the number-one source of news less about market share but they're still the number-one source of news. they are increasingly an important source of online news and the newspaper contruction creates an opportunity for them to do more ofthe original reporting. technology cuts have gone down so they would be able to hire more reporters and they are relatively rofitable mini relative to everyone else in the community. they are not as profitable as they used to be but they had a pretty good year so the local news is more important than ever, and i really want to highlight that since i spent most of my time in the print world as a journalist i can
admit that there is a little bit of a snobbery on the part of print reporters to the local tv news and i have to say i don't agree with that because i have done circulation journalism and narrow circulation journalism and there is nothing harder and more valuable than coming up with serious substantial reporting and having packaging it in a way that is available and accessible to a very wide range of people and they do that investigative reporting and news that is really the heart and soul of what communities want and need. the next slide is interesting and is basically this is basically the volume of local news minutes. on one axis, left access and then the market size on the bottom axis and it's not surprising is that as you get to smaller markets there's less local news being produced.
and the economics have become more challenging. of course there's a lot of variation as this points out in a local news. the many that are seizing the moment and doing very exciting things, but some are not. and i do believe that some local tv news operations are not seizinthis opportunity. so we have a few problems. the old phrase if it bleeds it leads is still true, maybe even rse than ev. the beat system. most of the beat system like newspapers, less and less is that true which means there's less expertise being developed. the study of the l.a. market showed the results of the phenomenon was i think a pretty shockingly small amount of time being spent on the sickly important information.
specifically, they said that a little over one minute of a typical half-hour nescast was going toducation, health car, government, important topics like that. i think possibly one of the most alarming things that we saw or something that we call pay for play and these are basically situations where a station will allow an advertiser to dictate comment. it's an advertiser that literally says yeah, you can have an added deal and all you have to do is promise you only interview people from our hospital or that you were kafka story list that we have created for you. in one show they actually were charged in, half the guests to appear on the show. things like this, you know, this is not the majority of stations buy any means. but nonetheless it is a serious problem, and we had mixed evidence on whether or not it was merely persistent or growing
it's a big deal. others that worried us it's that the amount of tv news that was produced and is being produced is up by 35% they did this while cutting staff on average at tv stations. in some ways there are legitimate efficiencies built into the system that might have allowed them to do that. the term is one man band, and that means you used to have a crew of reporters and a sound video person if it was a network show it might be a three-person or four person crew and its as a result of the technology of reporter can be the videographer and the camera person and sound person as well and in some ways this is a fantastic development. i talked to reporters who said this is grea for one thing i don't have a whole crew with me so i can get into city hall in a way that is less conspicuous than i used to. itakes me more mobile and go
more places and the number of people said this could be a fantastic development because instead of having 20 reporters and 20 crew, we could have 40 reporters that's not what has happened. instead of 20 reporters and 20 crew we of 20 reporters or maybe 18 reporters and as a result e reporters are doing more doing the reporting and the shooting and the audio and filing for the website and tweeting. in some cases this works well. i want to make it clear i am not actually of the view this is an inherently bad thing and i don't think many stations used the savings and efficiencies that have gone from this disease the opportunity that they had in the local markets. i've offered some criticism was of local tv news but it should be said even the ones i have been talking about arriviste
doing localprogramming. we look at the question of are there other stations during local programming at all? to was a limit t how granular we could get on this but we did for three different analytical approaches take a look at this and they all kind of came out in the same direction, which is about 21% of stations do no local news. if you add in the stations that do for 30 minutes or less, that is about one-third of the stations. now, i am offering no comment on whether that is good, bad or indifferent. i think it's somewhat depends on the situation. it is not necessarily obvious that we would all be better off if ery station in america did local news. bu it is nonetheless an interesting phenomenon and one of importance to the fcc to understand those that all stations to local programming. swift and talking about a contraction of the old media.
so two points. first of a two years ago when you talk about the old media, traditional media is a bifurcation between the old guys and you guys. not that the newspapers and tv stations and adio stations are doing innovative things online, too it's just as much as they are printing so that is a distinction that is getting blurred and despite the use of the phrase and the second thing is this is just part of the story. the contraction, if they happened but they were being filled and went by the growth of the new media we would be in great shape so that was a central question is we made a tremendous amount of innovation on activity. where is the trend in the gap and where is it not falling under the cap we can spend the entire time talking about the incredible bounty of innovation that his seventh as a result of the alternative summarized and i think we all have a sense of
them but lower barriers to entry, the vast amount of space on line has led to greater diversity of the voices of increased debt for many types of coverage. there's ometimes this i think idea that the internet is a good at providing a way for people to mouth off with uninformed opinions, internet provides opportunity for tremendous debt. technology h reduced the cost of gathering news, prducing news and a disturbing news. in some cases substantially. whether you're talking about computerized databases that enable someone to do a story in two hours that might have taken two weeks previously with cost publishing images or video or the most obvious one of all, which is you can use a search engine to find things out that used to take three days to find out. citizens are in power and i think it is very telling that if you think about are the most searing use images of the 1960's and 70's from the vietnam war
and some images come to mind. there were images shot by brave and courageous professional photographers. the most searing image of the sort we have now is this image of a iranian martyr being shot because she was protesting hot by someone's cell phone, and this is the potential power of user generated content. we've also seen an explosion of new web sites and those that get the most attention, the huffingtonpost.com of the daily collar, politico, there are many others really also very exciting stuff happening on all local level. texas tribune, based citizen, chicago news cooperative, these are names i think you are going to hear more and more. these are entrepreneurs concerned about what is going on in the community comes all the
gap and tried to move to fit it. some are for profit, some are non-profit, but the have brought tremendous energy. some are even become self-sufficient and profitable. as i said earlier, these are hatchery's, these are tools that are no longer just limited to what we call the web native businesses, they are bleeding into all sorts of different media. maybe one of the area's most is hyper local news, it's kind of a buzzword. well it is a word that had to be invented because it didn't exist before. at least it didn't exist in the same way that it's happening now. that's because the media models for such that in the happiest days of newspapers they couldn't get a granular down to a house by house block by block level. it's not economic. you have a weekly in things like that. but hyper local information has
gotten more vibrant than it has ever been. a lot of them are not big commercial enterprises, they are sick enterprises and they are not profitable, but they don't have to be. this is a sort of civic enterise a thousand points of journalism sprouting up in communities around the country. in 2010 as a result of all these changes, a major milestone was achieved which is this is the first unit people of the news on the internet and through the paper newspapers. and if you look at the charts, which is an age breakdown, the left chart is the youngest cohort and the right chart is the older co-worker you can see which way this is heading. so, that is he story of abundance. but one of the counter intuitive things we found is that despite this abundance, it turnsut you
can have an abundance of media outlets and a shortage of reporting. so again, to return to baltimore, where the most in-depth stu was done, to search looked and felt there's an enormous number of proliferation ways people can get their news, blogs, radio stations, newspapers, they counted 53 outlets that are doing the news, but then they did an interesting thing, they did a contt analysis they looked at the articles and the series on the tv news and they said what was the source of reporting and discover most of it came from the "baltimore sun" and one of the tv stations. as we said before the "baltimore sun" is doing less than they used to be so to use a metaphor of one scholar referred to this as the iron core of reporting. it's the iron core that can then be sculpted by affairs and the media food chain but if the odierno core is shrinking there
is less to work with. by the way it wasn't just a spew sty at from this, there were several different studies looking for several different ingalls that came to the same conclusion. so we can to the conclusion that on this one area of the local accountability reporting so far the new media isn't filling the gap but this was driven home to me i was at a conference put on by the foundation of which has been taking a tremendous lead in funding and stimulating innovation and they brought together the leading local news web sites, the top most influential innovative and most well-financed of the new operations, and they were discarding what they were doing and how many reporters there are and then i counted them up and was 88 reporters. that's pretty good until you consider the fact 15,000 reporters have left newsrooms in the last decade so it gives a
sense of scale. the energy is there, the excitement, the quality, the innovation, the scale was not. another study from the institute said that there has been a drop of $1.6 billion a year on spending from the newspaper newsrooms. fountions have been trying to make out some of the difference by pouring money into it and in fact one study said they put $180 million over five years. but that tells you something. $1.6 billion per year out 180 million over five years experts in this area including folks who are think our web e evangelists who have high optimism for the nature of the web to conclude there are gps that are not being filled. michelle who did a comprehensive survey on the study's said a
tired ideas will replace the traditiol news media is wrongheaded and it is past time that academic research on the reports reflect that. mr. dyson who was a pioneer and internet investor said start-ups are rarely profitable by and large no thinking person who wanted a return would invest in the news startup i hope she's wrong, she opes she is wrong with that as her honest assessment of the current situation. and why is that? some of it is what we refer to as the great unbundling and this is something we were not really conscious of before but the internet made us conscious of it. when your body and a newspaper you worry essentially subsidizing an elaborate scheme developed by the newspaper. you're buying it because you might have wanted the box scores or horoscopes or in your case you wanted the tilled international coverage. but perhaps your body and for
the back scores better absolutely to become actually subsidizing the city hall reporter. now you don't have to do that. you can go straig to the website that just as the box scores and by the way it's a bitter experience. the change minute by minute. i have a moment theater day i was looking at the box score in the newspaper and i kept staring at it waiting for the score to ange because i had gotten used to that. it's a better experience on line. there's another cross subsidy that was happening or bundling which is the advertising side. the ad executives was quoted and i was not able to determine whether this was apocryphal or not he is quoted as often my people tell me i'm wasting half my advertising budget but they can't tell me which half. now he knows which half. now the precision of the ad targeting, the precision of advertising metrics enables the advertiser to know how many people were looking at the had
and clicking on the had, whether it's the right demographic, how many people have clicked on the data are buying the product it enables advertisers to be very efficient so it has tremendous benefits for advertisers. but it is one of the main factors that has led to the decline in ad rates. rates are on line a fraction of what they are offline. in fact if the rates on line with the same as they are in the print newspapers we wouldn't be having this conversation. the problem would be solved. revenue would be at such a level that would more than pay for the journalism that we've been talking about. so, with lots of discussion why is this, one of the issues is something economists refer to as news in the public good or a free riding problem and the issue how is you can get news without paying for it. that's true you can benefit from a news without paying for t. one of the six samples we had in
the report is the news of server did a fantastic series about major flaws in th provision system where people are getting out of jail and probation to orderly and there were several hundred people who died as a result of the provision system so they spent several months during this study, the uncovered, the governor fixed it and so now there are people walking around the streets of a rally who are not did who would have been probably the they don't know who they are. there is no way of knowing who they are and what's more is they didn't have to subscribe to the newspaper to have benefited. from what the newspaper did. this is tested basic fact of the way the news is publicood works. it's not a.g. need to put in the bottle but it's an explanation of why it's hard to make these models work. advertising is disconnected from content because it used to be advertisers wanted to be next to
the contnt because it was a proxy for reaching a certain type of audience. he wanted to reach women aged 25 advertising mademoiselle because you knew that demographic read that. now you can go directly to the demographic without having to put your ad next to a piece of content. it's true for search engines and i think a very remarkable chart shows the percentage of online advertising search engines in 2000 was 1% and now it's 47% and the same is true for social media and things like that it enables avertisers to go to the consumers without puttinghe ads of the content. it's good for advertisers and consumers. it just means less revenue for the media outlets. i've mostly talked about the commercial media, and one of the most interesting thingsto me about this is learning more about what has been going on i the nonprofit media center to
beat the nonprofit media sector has become a much more diverse and very devolving innovative sector and really is a very important part of this puzzle. we even think of as being part of this little public access channels, public access channels realize their original mission which is to provide a platform for people to speak out and being taken up by the intnet so they are trying to evolve. they're doing digital literacy and local accountability. journalism schools used to teach jonalism through a book come true pedagogy in the classroom. they are increasingly adopted what they refer to as the medical school model which is to say why don't we teach journalism by giving this into this is great for students but also the communities. you have thousands of journalism
schools on the ground and in the communities and they are not just giving abstract exercise website careerbuilder websites people read. foundations who start to play a major role, no power fm stations which already are important playerand our hope is the passage of the recent law and the actions from the fcc will make them even more so. the nonprofit news websites we have spoken about a very exciting. i talked about the local ones, there is important national nonprofitswhich saw a gap in what they saw was insufficient investigative reporting going on at the national level as a result of these attractions so they created something within the first year they won the pulitzer prize so there isn't an inherent get in quality and then come on commercial it can be done in any form.
and i want to pause for a second on something i wasn't aware of which is the state public affairs support these are basically c-span at the state level. i mentioned before that as spending by states have gone up the number of state house reporters has gone down. there are 23 states that have the state stands and the jury in depth and quality but the good ones are basically doing what c-span does. the show the legislative hearings and the shows the floor and they do candidate debates. and things like the local tv news would do more. but in only four cases are they being funded by the cable operators in the way that the cable industry funds c-span. and in quite a number of circumstances they are funded by the state which in some cases worked out okay but i have to tell you i don't think it is the best model in the world to have
the stte funding coverage of the ate. public broadcasting. obviously the anchor, the biggest player and then on the media world as public tv and public radio. we've run into great that what they do, some of the structural issues, how they are evolving, emendous innovation on line in the public media space as well to break it down a little bit further on the public tv side there is real strength and educational programming, national public affairs, everything from the front line of newshour, firing line to date myself a little bit, we would say that we think there is not that much local programming on public tv. very few public tv stations to local news. we were not able to get a solid number of local programming but it seems that isn't what they do for the most part and really economic limits on that.
public radio is trying to do quite a bit more in the local news space. from 2004 to 2,009 the number of public radio stations reporting the carried local news or talk rose from 525 to 61 so they're actually trying to step into the gatt is the sea in the market to and especially the gap we talked about before where commercial news radio is not prevalent in a lot of many parts of the country we have also seen an exciting development which is increasingly the collaboration between the commercial media and nonprofit media. i used to think of these as a sort of parallel universe that operate separately from each other in some cases antagonistic way to each other, and now we are seeing some very interesting sending out at relationships evolving. one for a simple, knsd, channel
four, nbc in chicago, we want more in-depth work, meanwhle the exciting new start-u in a scene diego was doing great work so they worked out a deal, voice of san diego gas, a few times a week and a segment called san diego explain and another one called a san diego fact check. it makes the newscast better and it is a huge value to the voice of san diego that gets fantastic exposure. they can then go back to the donors and look at the impact we are having and we are seeing is actually quite a lot nd it's -- i think it is potentially a model five years from nowwe may look at and say this became a really significat element in this ecosystem. to work it does require some nonprofits thave a critical mass of revenue. it requires them to have
functional business models. so, where does this leave us? the diagnosis to oversimplifying this is - i local, better than ever come of local, municipal level really struggling, national we really haven't talked much about and it is quite a dynamic sere we have our complaints about particular national media and things we like or don't like but i believe it is ery dynamic and very vibrant. we are seeking business models tickle on the national level in the ways the on local levels and so i really didn't come away worried about it in the same way as the others. international is a mixed bag. on the one hand you have clearly some of the players we used to rely on for internatnal news argon or have pulled back. the regional newspapers like "the chicago tribune," the l.a.
times, "boston globe" used to be very importat players in oversees coverage and basically have packed up for the most part and do much less. the networkso less. but on the other hand, we have way more people on cable news to the international coverage than we used to. npr has increased come bloomberg has increased, and probably more important as one person put it, the typical citizen has more information at their fingertips about the rest of the world from the internet than a network tv producer did ten years ago. and you can watch bbc and al jazeera and there are other ways you can get information. it's a mixed bag. ..
and i'm not going to go through all of them but i wanted to mention a couple. a few stacks was a program set up on cable programming. he was supposed that lead to position about the 15% of programming and independent. actually currently less than 1% is usd. the satellites that aside, operators and the maoist past helping to enable satellite. congress said the icc was set aside somewhere between 7%
satellite for educational programming, much in the same spirit of 25% of the commercial commercial -- of the broadcast airwaves from educational programming. the congress set aside between 4% 7%. fcc chose were because the satellite industry with a fledgling industry backed men and women to make sure it would get off onto a cd. at this point, programmers are turned away because the satellite operators have hit the cap and ejecting other programmers. we looked at the fairness doctrine and concluded as i believe all of you have the fairness that turn would undermine news instead of improving news and would chill speech. and so even though this was a topic that it already -- opinion saturday been expressed on, we
decided to weigh in on at least saying from the point of view of th topic we're looking at, we think that there is no case for reinstituting the fairness act. it would be a bad idea. we came across this fact that came to light recently, that there are shards of the fairness doctrine still on the books. did not make a lot of sense to us that the policy was dead. to have bits of the fairness doctrine on a book of living laws. so i'm glad to see that it's being cleaned out. sponsorship identification. these are the laws and rules the fcc has that basically say the tv station simply like to a pay for play arrangement, like we talked about before. they are latched to do it. they do have to disose it. the problem is they disclose it quickly, on the air and you have to look really carefully and be a very attentive viewer.
and they are not disclosing online. noncommercial broadcasters. the a lot of the issues of whether it's a commercial product testers could have better business models if they have less restrictions. we go into some thoughts there. there were ways in which i thi the cpb, the corporation for public broadcasting would like to have more flexibility so that ey could better incentivize collaborations and innovation and less duplication and more local programming. they agree with the id that they took my local programming, but to some extent they are hemmed in by the rules that govern them. something else came to us, which is brought to our attention by the religious broadcasters. religious broadcasters have asked. they pay to have the ability to spend some of the time, up to 1% of their time raising money for charities. perhaps raising money for a soup kitchen in their community or
global hunger charities that fits very much with their mission and it also provides useful information. currently the fcc provides waivers in the case of extraordinary circumstances like a tsunami or hurricane. i frankly had a hard time understanding the justification for why the fcc would want to be in a position where he could say okay come you have a waiver for a catastrophe that involves rain and weather, but a famine killing a million people in africa, no, that doesn't get a waiver because it's not a natural disaster. last but not least, brought in. obviously i think you've heard about right and in other capacities at the fcc. i wanted went to tennis to the the topic we're focusing on. and i look at it from two different ways. one is a negative way, that if you were to summon any community
that has on the ne hand the speakers contracting and not doing that he used to do, but maybe some really good things i might to counterbalance them and yohave the worst newspaper, but you're not online, you're worse off. you have the worst of both worlds. from an economic point of view, it's also important because a lot of entities trying to develop successful usiness novels, the more people viewing them, the more likely they'll be able to sustain the business model. the scale they need to succeed will be approved as the universal brought in. and the final fcc thing i wanted to talk about is a very important one, which is the historic public obligationf broadcasters aired we spent a lot of time and patience looking at this. as you know, there was an effect and has been since the very beginning a quick prayer quote
that taxpayers provide the use of the public's airwaves to broadcasters in exchange for a commitment that they serve the communities. this is a pack of broadcasters, almost a broadcasters only embrace. they very much like this arrangement and they support this but to pull. and i should say even during deregulation, even liberals receive regulated in the 1980s, the principle still remained was not abolished. that broadcasters have purchased the deal is supposed to provide response to issues of concern to the community. so how's this for now? in the last 75 ars, the fcc is granted the estimate of 100 license renewals. and only four cases was the license renewal denied because the license fee failed to meet the public interest obligation -- programming
obligation. the last 30 years, no one license has been denied on these grounds. they are required to have what are called issues program list that is supposed to be the mechanism for enforcing the current obligation and stations but in this file, and a cabinet, on paper, a list of what they think a significant issue sorry. the fcc has been fairly vague about what do we mean by a significant issue? which we mean by programming? so, people -- stations have gone to be creative in some states on how they define it. for instance, when station we saw their issues program list, with the listed in the area of they were serving important community leads with america's next top model casting call, an open casting call for cycle 14 of america's next top model on july 11 at 7 sushi ultra lounge,
sponsored by senators heron lakes and it went on and on like that. some stations had very detailed memos describing very significant public affairs programming debut, i've obviously picked out one of the more amusing ones. there's actually a broad range. but it's a broad range because stations really don't know what is expected of them. and part of this -- i don't want to sound like i'm basically saying this is the fcc staff that was screwing around this whole time and if we just been on the ball we could have done this. you know, i think he might make an argument at some points there might've been for many policy here are. but the biggest issue is there is a real dilemma. there is a real dilemma, which is on one hand you have this real concern. on the other hand you have the
first amendment. companies get into a situation of getting prescriptive enough that you can have a very easy to enforce rule, you start to a situation where someone at the fcc is going to have to decide what is important legitimate programming? at the back off if they were not going to get that detail, but we want to have certainly brought principles, then u.k. fake and he gave and weight as a key ature of the program issues. in short, i think this system is broke. the public is system currently has the fcc is brken. we also talk about non-fcc area. i am only ing to talk about two, even though we go into a number of them in the report. two in particular want to mention. tax issues. one thing that came back a number of times from websites was, you know, we are trying to create websites, but we are very
confused about whether we are going to get dean by the irs and shut down the website because i wanted to take advertising. when they are told and to take it, the others shouldn't. he was very defeated at the irs was shut down. he's a two-person operation, didn't have the money to have money to the whole operation chilling with irs reporting so we stopped. this is not an example of current law fostering innovaon a recommendation, part 3. first, just to review what we said, obviously we said the media landscape is very vibrant, but a couple areas of concern. some of the rules intended to advance the public interest arafat is. i would add another which is that technology has evolved in a way that increases potential potency as transparent as a policy tool. we are going to talk about the end of that. another point which is i actually do not think the government is the main player in
this drama. i think what we do is very important. there were obstacles the government should remove. i think fairways policy can encourage innovation. the resources it has been well spent, which ought to be well spent. i still don't think that the government is the main determinant of what is going to happen. if so, let's get it right and must make it esier for i think in some cases to really inspire people trying to solve this problem. point number one is that emphasize online disclosure as a pillar of fcc media policy. this is a number of different implications. over time, frankly, the paper file should be a pang of the past. it's called for public inspection file. it is time we made it for the public to inspect it an easier way. putting it on the internet is a way that can actually take this policy that was debated in the rst place and give it life and
effectiveness it is really not have it. at the same time, i think it is also time to eliminate some rules that are either buried in some, potentially burdensome for discouraging the samebehavior whereafter. so, we are recommending that the c consider terminating the localism proceeding, rpealing the amdment said the fairness that train, maybe a party taking care of that one. they should cross that one off. and replacing the enhanced disclosure rule. enhanced disclosure rule is something the commission passed a few years ago with a good principle behind it, which is that, you know, instead of having detailed program rolls, let's have serious disclosure. but it was overly burdensome in and of itself and it require much and also wasn't done in a way that was -- really took advantage of the internet has
things have really changed. we are at a point now where we can make this much more effective. so we are suggesting replacing the enhanced disclosure rule for something else, which is a streamlined web based form online, which broadcasters would sell out to have a shorter list, buimportant list of important information. most important is the amount of programming you are doing about your community. i think it also should include things like new sharing arrangements, partnership arrangements, how the multicast channels are being used, website accessibility for people with disabilities, whether their website is accessible. and i think this is really a great opportunity to do something about to pay for play arrangements i type about before. these types of arrangements are not illegal. they are already prior to be
disclosed. what we are suggesting is any time a sponsorship i.t. rule is required to be disclosed on the air, it should also be disclosed on the internet, which will create a permanent record searching by anyone in the community, citizens, watchdogs, competitors will be able to see what stations in a community or country are doing this. also believe that the fcc should agree to the proposal to religious broadcasters and other noncommercial broadcasters that do not receive funding from cpb be allowed to air or use up to 1% of their time for raising money for charity. and they should disclose that, too. they should disclose it so people can see it's being used well, but this see like a sensible thing. the same sort of disclosure operators, there should be online.
i think it is also time to look at the program and the least access program in greater depth to see whether they are eally for filling needs they were sent out to congress. the next categories make it easier for citizens to monitor government by putting more proceedings, documents and data online. we talked about importance of disclosure and transparency at the fcc. so, this goes way beyond the fcc. there is a real exciting movement for governments in general to put data online. this is fanastic and tremendously important. it makes it easier for citizens to get useful information, makes it possible for citizens to hold institutions accountable and it lowers the cost of journalism. when you have more data online, things that would've taken a lot of time can be done qckly by reporters. so it makes sense in many, many differt ways. it should be done in different formats to make it easier for
analyzing. it actually has a essential creating jobs. when you put the information out, they look at and say i can create. i will package this data with this data and sell it to people to create an even better thing. this is happening now and will continue to happen the more we put this information out. on a more old media idea is to go back to the states now. every state should have a statement. every state should have a state-based system so people can watch the legislative session of the state legislature watch the hearings, watched debates and be more informed about their communities. there are a lot of different ways of doing this. once some states that public tv station where is the stamp. in some cases it is the cable operators. in wednesday, only wednesday, satellite operators are operating in general i hope that the commercial operators would
approach this in the way they approach c-span. they view that is one of their civic achievements. i think it would be an equally signal achievement they did the same thing on the state level. we recommend congress look at whether it are incentives that could be given to the operators. for instance, we rew out as an idea perhaps they should get a regulatory relief on their release access requirement if they sport a state c-span. or if they support a local cable news chapter. the third set of recommendations is ithink the really interesting one. consider direct an existing government advertisers towards local media. the federal government, last time this discounted spent $1 billion on advertising for things that whate'er recruiting, public health announcements, fety, things like that.
test of the national media, entertainment media for the most part and cared towards important functions. so we thought, is it possibly could be done in a cost to play that would achieve the goals of these rketing campaigns, but has a target to local news media because of the serious problems we have in the american communities of oakland is media. and it turns out there was a fascinating proposal sent to us by the local broadcasters are basically said yeah, you know, 10 years ago this understandable someone who wanted to do a national ad was more efficient and affect it. but now there are ways were to elegy because businesses has developed you can do a national ad buy to local tv here turns out e newspaper industry is done the same thing. you want to buy an added 100 newspapers across the country coming back to call newspapers. you can go to one place. same thing on the internet. so we are recoending that the
government look at the possibility of targeting the ad monetoward local media. it has to be done in a way that doesn't undermine effectiveness of the campaign. this cant become primarily and media helper program. it's got to be a program geared toward achievi goals that the agency. but if it can be done in a way that helps local media, that would be fantastic. it has to be done in a way that s a rocksolid local law because you do not want to go back to the 1800 when andrew jackson was doling out advertising contracts to his favorite newspapers. this can be done because their networks that are very blind and they think it's very solvable and something we should turn to. nonprofit. i'm not going to go through these recommendations come up with quite a few in the report that basically says the private sector is important to me should really make sure we are not
importing the innovation and the nonprofit site here. do you i think folks that are more expert in tax matters than we are should take a good hard look at this and look out tax rules can be clarified to make it more likely to nonprofit can get traction. i believe foundations should put more money to this area. philanthropists, individual donor should put more monewe should not look at it as something you do with status and being for th cause you care about. will make because you care about more effective. cpb, we recommend they be given more flexibility so they can target more loclly and be more innovative than fund more innovation. the community media centers can continue with innovation they are doing and we really would hope that patrick centers that really are doing this, that are really trying to adapt to the new world and come up with really powerful ways of serving
communities should not be cut off by state governments or cy governments. they are too important. low-power access, same thing. i can access. i guess ion't need to go into great detail about the importance of universal broadband, but i want to underline again because it is something that really is almost a prerequisite for everything i screwtop about. finally, as we go through this transition, we really need to make sure that the historically underserved communities that are sometimes left out of media evolution are not. and you know, there are a number of different approaches to this. we suggest in the report one of them, for instance is tt congress should consider reinstating the tax certificate program that was pretty affect the flow is therefore encouraging ownership of small businesses, including minorities and women. so to summarize, it's a really
important moment of opportunity. i'm the one hand, you have this very, very vibrant media landscape. at the same time you have serious gaps and we believe that if we take the right steps and avoid taking the wrong steps in a way that can preserve all of these strengths, reserve the innovation, was the same time addressing these problems we've talked about, we really will end up with the best media system we've ever had. thank you very much. >> steve, thank you very, very much for all the work that went into that, for the thorough report. i'll have a couple of comments. first let me ask my colleague. >> well, a lot to talk about.
i promise i will be relatively brief. thank you, first of all, steve, for your energetipresentation of the report and for all the hard work you put into it and i'll have more to say about that later. obviously we have some very serious problems here in the issue is, what are we going to do about them? let's begin with a basic truth. the future of our country's media is an issue thatoes to the heart of our democracy. a well-informed public. a well-informed public. a well-informed public. a well-informed public agreement. to make the compact work, it is imperative the sec play a vital role in helping to ensure that all americans have access to diverse and competing news and information that provide the greatest for democracy is churning mill. for most of the past 30 years, the commission has turned a blind and sometimes hostile i
towards this responsibility. application is no longer an option. it will come as a surprise to few here this morning but this just-released staff report and company recommendations are not entirely doubled response for which i hope and dare to dream. instead, the overarching pollution of the staff report seems to be america's media landscape isostly vibrant and there is no overall crisis of news or informaon. but it is a crisis when is the report says, more than one third of our commercial broadcasters offer notice what the weather to their communities of license. america's news and information resources keep shrinking and hundreds of stories that confirm our citizens go untold on a date undiscovered, were his favorite day when hundreds of new strains and tens of thousands of
reporters are walking the street in search a job rather than walking their feeds in search of a story. i think it goes beyond local news. i cannot say that i share the conclusion that national and international news is in good shape. the shrinking resources put into investigative reporting that you talk about the diminishment of investment and nationally in washington and overseas faith and tell a different story, which leads to off into the substitution of entertainment for the hard news that people really need. where is the urgency? the real urgency for the commission to weigh in and really grapple with the shortfalls that you document in this report.
enlightened pocy that promotes the public interest is basically glossed over as having been tried and failed. let's look for example at the claim that policies like broadcast relicensing failed and therefore need to be replaced with something new or perhaps pay nothing. i agree that our current licensing process has failed and is primarily because beinning 30 years ago the commission white from its books most of the public interest guidelines for consumers and advocates had won after long, tough struggles of media reform. licensing approach became one of sending us a postcard every eight years in the renewal is a slamdunk certainty. no questions asked. as you point out, the sec has not taken the license away from public interest nonperformance for the 10 years i've been here for the 10 years before that.
where does the commission issued warnings or impose a probationary period giving a poor performing licensee a chance to clean up its act. the point here is not to take license as a way, but she is the public interest processes available to us to in court greater emphasis on local news and information. it can b done. when the majority of meaningful rules will dismantle it in the early 1990s, we were told there was little impact on viewers. excuse me, that turnout demonstrably not to be the case. before releasing any more rules, we should pause to recognize the yacht training of tv no longer an toaster is one chairman in the fcc put it back in the early 1980s. when the actions of government weekend to force the state, there's less of a check on government health. the report and presentation course the assignment on the next 10 or 15 years in this country will be an area for state and local political corruption.
that is frightening. vigilant journalism can discourage that from happening. ly if we take action now. yes, the fcc has a role to play. one of the three pillars underlying interest is globalism. localism is about making sure the citizens and local communities are supplied with in-depth programming about public and civic affairs that they have available,programming to reflect the needs, interests and cultures of diverse people living there and that those views have some opportunity for expression on the airwaves. local means plus program homogenization. more local mosque in music and community news originated in the market for its broadcast, rather than being imported fro faraway studios controlled by absentee owners. in the continuing era of media
industry consolidation, we have coverage of local music, local talent, local sports, local diversity communities, local political issues in election campaigns of odds making are more the exception of the rule. the staff report does recognize problems in local news and information than the lack of accountability you much to its credit this underscores poin i've been making for years. instead of calling for stepped-up commission, direct commission action, but too often tinkers around the edges. for example, urging philanthropy is to find better ways to do their business, asking congress to change tax code and suggesting the government to act more advertising to local media. and rather stunningly, i thought the staff report recommended shutting down a penny and localism proceeding. i participated in dozens of
hearings in hundreds of meetings on the stockade. i have traveled to hearings and town hall meetings across the country to learn directly from tens of thousands of citizens what they think about their local and national media. they listen to folks fire tonight in session that sometimes lasted as long as nine hours. have had notices of inquiry notice of proposed rulemaking on this proceeding. we have done the analysis. we've made proposals and now it is time to act. i remarked after the localism npr and cannot for some of his proposals could and should be modified. no question about it before they became final rules. this could be quickly and easily accomplished and makes more sense to me than walking away from a huge and still relevant record. the staff report also delves briefly into media ownership and correctly alludes to some of the harmful effects of consolidation
or less local news, few to reporters a diversity. and the recommendations, there is hedging about what they're consolidation we are living with today, although local independent stations broughtup by make immediate interest has been good or bad. the report suggests some additional newspaper broadcast mergers could well be beneficial in some circumstances. the policy prescriptions here as elsewhere in the staff report to track the diagnosis. keep in mind the paucity of resources dedicated to accountability. i hope the commission that some coming quadrennial review will weigh much more seriously than it has in the past, to have caused by media consolidation has inflicted on america's news and information infrastructure. diversity is another pillar in the public interest. i'll put this simply. in spite of occasional instances of progress in recent years, media's overall grade in covering, reflect and comics
waning and mirroring america's amazing cultural diversity is tried for. diversity of viewpoint, diversity ownership in doing what we see on tv and diversity in who runs the companies, all of these are worse than edia than most other american industries. the staff report seems aware of a serious problem here. you alluded to it. what is lacking our recommendations for strong, implementable programs that begin to make aifference for generations of media and just as. as a starting point, i repeat my suggestion some month ago that weak tea at the face one of the recommendations of the diversity advisory committee at every meeting for the next year. the staff reports primary policy prescriptions as disclosure. but more and better information online with consumers and advocates can readily access and good things will happen. i am all for disclosure and i
was happy more than two years ago when my colleagues and i voted for enhanced disclosure item which would provide significantly more program information than what is currently available. since then, the item seems to be stuck somewhere in the kind of limbo.take could relate to come the stranded somewhere between the fcc and the office of management and budget. why don't we resolve to get it on., to whatever fine tuning is needed and vote next month's agenda meeting on the revised order of for this notice of proposed rulemaking to finish the long pending job. let's so remember that disclosure is a means to an end, not an end in of. as disclosure brings to public life actions that require retries, where is the redress to be found? somewhat doubt whether it is to be found in a commission that
has sworn off public-interest rules and guidelines. why would consumers by thereupon the internet looking at public fires if there is so little confidence their effort will be rewarded with remedial action. over the years, some hardy souls have gone through paper files to petition the commission to deny relicensing, all to no effect. what is the incentive to move that hapless process online? also on the disclosure fun, i continue to believe the sooner we can ensure fuller disclosure of political advertising sponsorship, the better off our democracy will be. voters have a rigt to know who's really behind all those glossy and sotimes wildly misleading ads we see on tv. concealing from voters than a gnat brought to us by the citizens for a more beautiful america is really sponsored by cabal of cable companies polluting the water we drink. it is not just nondisclosure.
it is deception aimed at buying elections. we need to fix this in the fcc has been a good girl. i suggest the commission tia tonight and then the next two months in this list was made full disclosure of political advertising. the digital age, as you point out holes in the same promise for expanding the scope of our democratic discourse. the staff report recognizesthis in the present commission has focused tremendous energy on both broadband deployment and adoption. let's recognize upfront that they needed time where paved with bro and breaks and stacked with good news and information is not going to happen on autopilot. right now the vast majority of the news we read on the internet is produced elsewhere traditional media newsrooms. interesting neand information innovations have developed on
the map, although it would take some exception to the new site and the low, low, single-digit as addresses really go. the more important part is what happened to the on the internet is the model for the mass or the momentum to sustain the resource hungry journalists and that informed electorate requires. an open internet is not the entire solution for robust 21st century journalism. it's a tougher problem from that. i for one don't believe we'll get their accents and public policy solutions. we have never had successful dissemination of news and information in this country without some encouraging public policy guidance.
going back to the earliest days of the young republic on washington and madison and jefferson saw two of the newspapers were financially able to reach readers all across the fledgling young republic. they didn't see it is violent of the first amendment that they wrote. and the supreme court more recently has not seen as violent of the first amendment to strip is we are told by the preservation of a vibrant marketplace of ideas to sustain our democracy. the same purpose of expanding the information infrastructures, what gave rise to broadcast licensing much closer to our own. so i don't see any reason why we should forsake america's workable past and deny her own history this point.
there's more to be said about the staff report and i will be talking about it in the days ahead. but rather than paing the contents of a particular report, i intend to spend most of my time encouraging the commission to take up thi charge of responsible public interest oversight and to do everything it can to encourage the news and information and diversity that americans have a right to expect from their media. at the staff eport touts generated dialogue towards that end, it will have served a purpose. if we can learn from history traced in the staff report, much of it very good, we will be able to craft stronger puic policy proposals. if the commission can move swiftly had on some of the good ideas offered and there are indeed good ideas offered, we can reap real benefits from it. i know very well that compiling the staff report was not an easy
task. in fact, the undertaking was enormous and cognizant and appreciative of theork stephen and his team put in the report. and i hope steve and his colleagues, for whom i have tremendous respect will take the comments i've made today in the spirit in which they are intended so we can move beyond this report after we read and digested to an action plan making the fcc central to solving the challenges we are talking about. launching a rededicating ourselves as pristine enhanced disclosure and diversity and localism in political advertising andedia ownership in reinvigorated public interest licensing will put us on the road we need to travel. i also want to assess the commission should ta directly to the american people about all of this. in full commission hearings in various parts of the country. i suggest to my mr. chairman,
three and the months ahead to see how well citizens across the land think they are being served by her present news infrastructure and to elicit their ideas for the future. i'm unfortunate enough to have this listening for 10 years and they never come back from such cversations without knowing more than when i went out. let's hold these hearings, talk with citizens can't expeditiously enhance the record and take actions by the end of the year. there is real urgency here. i am cognizant of the fact that the fcc can't solve all of the problems with this report describes. but it can address and help resolve many of them. these issues mean a lot to me. i believe they mean a lot to r
country. i have been outspoken about them and sometimes blunt. i know and i intend to keep speaking out about them in the months and if needed, the years ahead. this nation faces dark and threatening challenges to the leadership that brought us in the world successfully through so many dire threat in the century just past. now we confront fundamental new uncertainties about revival of our economy, where new jobs will come from. how we will prosper in a hypercompetitive global arena, how to support the kind of education our kids and grandkids will need to thrive, indeed to survive in this diffcult time, how to open the doors of opportunity of every american, no matter who they are, where they live or particular circumstances of their individual lives. we've had a lot to get on top of that the country.
and if we don't have the facts that we don't have the information and we don't have the news about what is going on in the neighborhood and the talent and the nation and the world around as, our future is going to be very vastly diminished. that's why so much rides on the future of what we are talking about today. and i'll say it again how these issues get decided will deeply affect our country's democracy and our country's future. i cannot and i will not leave these issues where they are. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner copps. commissioner mcdowell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, thank you. you and your entire team that looks like the cast to the credits for sosa b. demille to you should at the very beginning. before all of your absurd to
unmask him a really significant amount of information and analysis about the current state of the media information marketplace. i look forward to reading your voluminous report in greater detail. i've been chewing on it since i got the draft a few days ago. i also look forward to thinking further about how the developments and trends to identify the new small role in affecting just one corner for broader media landscape. at the outset, i do want to applaud you for your guidance of the process that led to the report and for your own very thoughtful nuanced and responsive leadership style and enjoyed our meetings and discussions on this. next, for the sake of those of you may not be familiar with how the commission works. i've only been here five weeks and am still figuring this out. distress of the report is simply vast. which the generated by a hard-working group of agency
staffers has no binding effect. in other words, the report does not establish new fcc rules. it does not repeal any old rules. it does not even formally propose adopting new rules were discarding old rules. rather, the report contains a set of recommendations, only some of which are directeto the commission that mankind hope she proposals for new rules to come our od rules to go. if and when that happens, forced the agency will launch proceedings that began as the lie require with notice and comment opportunities that afford interested parties an opportunity to wigh in with their own perspective facts and analyses before the fcc adopts any new or amended regulations. so now that i'm done with the legal disclaimer, no applause. look at some later. this one contains statements and a substance with which i agree
and some with which i disagree. the responses i will share at this point are all preliminary cause i have several hours of reading left to do. i would expect to read a person takes issue with reports characterization of media and information marketplace that is vibrant, competitive, innovative and rapidly devolving. the facts supporting those conclusions have been right in front of us for years and they should no longer be ignored when it comes to making reality-based public policy. i also shared the reports general optimism about the future and welcome recognition of the government's limited ability as both a practical and legal matter to affect neither the operation or output at tomorrow's successful media and information platforms. more importantly, the government should keep its heavy hand off of journalism. journalistic freedom, as steve pointed out, is the primary protection of the bill of
rights and full disclosure, both my parents were journalists. with respect to the reportsf specific recommendations, will come as no surprise to fcc watchers that i agree with several suggestions given my own past statements on many media issues correct for example, through the enhanced disclosure form, calling it overly complex or just putting it mildly. i cast the only dissenting vote against creation of the four may may 2007 and anything we can do to hasten its mise would serve the public interest. they also agree with closing the localism proceeding without further action. pending proposals in the doctor for government mandated community advisory board from a 24 hour manning of broadcast stations and detailed accounting of local music content are indeed overly bureaucratic, unworkable and unnecessarily burdensome to quote the report.
there also impractical, unneeded and cass examples of regulatory overreach. those are my words. and of course, i endorse the reports call for a for nominating remnants of the so-called fairness.turn that still litter our ruleboos are the long-standinopposition to anything resembling the unconstitutional policy was no secret. accordingly, i call upon the commission to complete the emanation at the end of the year coming merely offering a recommendation today has no legal effect. in that spirit, commissioned by that time also should finish out the regulatory elimination proceedings dscussed not only matcher magenta chassis june 6th letter to chairman upton of the commerce committee but in many 19 speeches while. i would also like to consider the elimination of the outdated newspaper broadcast day and in their upcoming quadrennial review over media ownership
rules. my hypothesis is that the ban caused the unintended effect of reducing the number of voices, especially newspapers and scores of american communities. given that however, the demise of american newspapers have been written about for quite a long time. tombstones have been written for quite some time. this reminds me of a book that i keep in my office and i'll just read you a couple quotes from it. the first quote is the printing presses on the way to obsolescence. yet journalism marches on. it goes onto say that journalism migrates into new areas of communications. its practitioners who are on the move, the commerce and information flourishes and quickened its tempo. new skills developed in the major problem for newspaper journalists is to keep their readers are migrating, too. this could have been written
today. i found this in my mother's library. she passed away in 2005, a few months before i was appointed to its defeating americanews ether. very clever container with a fading. you have to ask yourself, when was this published? 2004? was a published in 1976, the year after the newspaper ownership fans are put into effect? was actually published 51 years ago, back in 1960. and my point is these issues have been around for a long time as the debate continues that journalism does mark john and continue to live. i have some reservations about other wreck nations in the report. for instance, while i appreciate calling for a new online quarterly disclosure record for broadcasters, stuffed rafters attempting to craft a more streamlined and useful obligation, continue to wonder about the need for mandate in the first place.
after all, not exactly broadcasters or the business of trying to hide her on-air content from the public hear the government want to know what is being broadcast, it can turn on the tv or the radio out of the big brother implications of that also concern me. i'm also not convinced there is a new pricing policy justification for potentially increasing the satellite tv sign for noncommercial content from the current level of 4% of satellite operators capacity to some higher percentage. many reports recommendations, as steve is violated, not corrected at the sec at all but it had intended to start debate in action elsewhere, including among private-sector entrepreneurs, nonprofits as well as other sectors of government from the federal level to local lawmakers. passionate debate ignite easily in this arena and i ense that these are subjective in this regard authority been achieved. i will watch with interest to see which numbers catch fire beyond our out regulatory
balance. and just to reiterate, please keep in mind the fcc actually has not done anything today. [laughter] what we have before us is a report with a few recommendations. it is up to the four of us to turn the more constructive recommendations into deregulatory action that better fits a competitive and dynamic marketplace. so let's get going with that. thanks again to steve and everyone on the report team, especially including alma mater, duke university. a shadow for giving us so much to think about. thank you, mr. chairman. >> steve altman and his team are to be commended for the amount of time and energy that went into publishing this report and the chairman is to be thanked for commissioning these findings. the issue covers here fall into many categories. some new, some timely comes some
sad and yes, some scary. the findings and recommendations contained in these 465 pages that include said noss will hopefully begin conversations of new and innovative ideas for both improving and saving our existing media landscape and platforms. i am hopeful we all take advantage of an incredible opportunity to get a constructive dialogue going. when i served for4 years as publisher and general manager of a small weekly newspaper based in charleston, south carolina, i went out of my way to highlight significant people, issues and positive topics of interest that quite frankly were being ignored by the larger and better financed media outlet. times are changed and there are very few people like the old mignon around anymore. medius about environment all around us. but for all of us on the president for the people i used to touch each week been better
served. quality local stories and reporting our precious avenues of knowledge for residents of small towns and big cities and today, despite all of these outlet, they are at risk. this report explores the media landscape detail and i am hong it will shine a strong and urgent light on the state of local media. it touches on causes of a potential remedy that issues of grave concern and all of us, not just the fcc need to consider them very seriously. we must not -- we must not stand idly by and watch the evaporation of our precious news outlet. we face not a broad crisis of the news or content, but something more specific, a shortage of local professional accountability reporting, language and the report states, this is likely to lead to more government with local corruption or schools, a less informed
electorate and even lives lost. the loss of 13,400 newsroom positions in just four years as attention grabbing and should move us to ask, at does this mean when it comes to the in-depth coverage of issues than ocal concerns when it comes to industry, government and communitieat large. others such as gradients state a c-span, targeting advertising spending to local news media and help a nonprofit news operation to succeed re positive steps towards improving local accountability of reporting. apart from local concerns, i am intrigued by many of the other findings in the report, from the coverage of regulatory agencies to services available to individuals with disabilits. one of the more intriguing aspects the section regarding dern media policy and
historically underserved communities. it is essential to introduce as many people as possible to the vast opportunities in modern technology provides and the requirement for tv stations to disclose whether websites are accessible to the visually and hearing in eric is something we should take very seriously. also, information about minority and female ownerships pose a further debate the issues surrounding existing this rarities and i intend to take a deeper dive on this in the months to come. additionally, attaining more accurate information abot racial, ethnic and gender employment at broad stations as they massed and i look forward to a more robust dialogue on that as well. i am also pleased by the suggested focus on communications programs and historically black colleges and universities. the idea of a minority capital institute to help would-be entrepreneurs locate
opportunities for financing is one idea that i look forward to discussing further. numerous recommendations were making more data available online for public consumption are in line with the fcc's goal of greater efficiency and transparency. one of these proposals is to television broadcasters by all and i might form containing essential data as opposed to the current requirement of reporting on 365 days of programming. this could and would reduce the burden on broadcast file paper reports, while providing more transparency are more important information for the public. i look forward to working with broadcasters on this issue as well. the more transparency there is an government, the more confident people can feel about what their government is doing for them. it is my hope that this report will also pave the ways to more discussions about what we can do
to help making online filing easier simpler while still giving the public easy access to this important informaon. i am eager to listen and be part of thisdiscussion that flows from the release of this report. it highlights very clearly that all of us have the capacity and e opportunity in our personal capacities to be influencers and change agent when it comes to the state of our media. i hope that the commission will continue to find ways to work with the private industry and local entities on many of the recommendations and concerns that the report highlights. i am confident that we can make meaningful stres towards improving our media landscape on the local level and filling the gaps routines that work so well in the past and the people are looking foin the prent. i want to again thank you, steve
and your team for your tillage over. there is a quote that i am not sure, but it struck meoday as i was listening to the omment. journalism is the first rough draft of history. if we believe and embrace the quote, then the publishing of this report has the capacity to serve as an incredible conduit for enhanced community and civic engagement. and the presenting of multiple examples in which we can nd will read more about, options and opportunities, all of these things highlight the diversity and dexterity of every single market and their ability to involve and best serves the communities, their people and all americans.
thank you or image. >> thank you, commsioner cliburn. steve intime, thank you again for the achievement this report reflects. i want to thank each of my colleagues for their thoughtful comments. in particular, i want to recognize commissioners said terry for his long-standing commitment and passion in this area. any of the issues and recommendations highlighted in this report are directly related to topics on which commissioner copps has long been educating the public and h fellow commissioners. the amount ..
and opportunities of today's landscape and tomorrow. i think it is. and different levels of optimism of news and information, entrepreneurs both new entrants and traditional using new media platforms can achieve for open and universally available internet and whether business models will emerge and strengthen and on this i am timistic. cautiously but optimistic. these points and the fundamental fact the only thing certain
about a future in this area is on going to change to focus on the steps including achieving universal broaand for all americans ensuring low entry barriers for news, information entrepreneurs, using public information online and it is easily available to consumers, citizens and reporters and enabling the business models that can sustain a vibrant and strong news information industry d the 21st century. these and fielder approaches outlined today are preferable in my opinion to ones that involved a heavier government and particularly in the area of speech and content. it more strongly reflect the law of the first amendment and i believe more likely to achieve the objectives than the past approaches which will certainly well-meaning have proven ineffective as the report shows and a number of respected commentators who have been involved in these issues for
decades have concluded. despite the differenc that exist, i believe we all share the same goals. a vibrant free press and an informed and enlightened citizenry pay central roles in our democracy in our economy. the report issued today is on the core principles. it's important for many reasons reporters but i would like to highlight three areas. first, the report makes clear that new technology is creating a new world of opportunity to keep the public informed in ways couldn't even imagine just a few years ago. digital innovation has made the gathering and distribution of news and information faster less-expensive and more space. with the internet connected to have access to goods, personal prting press or even tv stations new communications technologies are connecting more people in more ways and more places and cite the u.s. and
out. twitter, facebook, mobile phones and other new technologies are connecting and empowering citizens and journalists around the wold helping open closed societies and paving the way for democracy and freedom. in the u.s., we see more and more news on the entrepreneur is pursuing thir vision online and on the mobile of creativity and confidence. empowering individuals of tools to give us breakthroughs like per local news as we've discussed. in many cities to be confined news on your individual neighborhood or st. even in the heyday of newspaper this type of clock information coverage wasn't available. buthe nation's history we've never had a greater opportunity to realize the founders' vision of a free society, bolstered by a free press and informed
citizenry. the contribution of the report is its focus on the opportunities of new technology. had the second is its focus on the challenge. foremost is the disruptive impact the internet and economic pressures have had on local news gathering. as we have heard newspapers have cut back staff and something impossible ten years ago shut down the material number. local broadcast news continues to play an important role with some stations increasing the commitment to their community seizing the platform opportunity but many other tv stations have cut back or offered no news or limited local content. with a multitude and emerging gap in the local news coverage that has not yet been fully filled by other media, this matters because if citizens don't get local news and information, the health of the
democracy suffers. professional jounalists to provide a final check against corruption in both governments and business. the lescol the local reporting we have, the less likely we are to learn about government, schools that field children, hospitals that miss st. patients, factories that pollute local water to the accountability and tom esters and said he would rather have newspapers without government and a government without newspapers. the technology has changed, but the point endures to read the third contributi to the report is it is a thoughtful and practical initiative to help address the challenges that identify it. in crafting recommendations the reports start with the overriding and correct recognition of the first amendment circumscribes the role for government can play in improving local news. but also recognizes the only thing certain about the future in this area is on going to change and technology and markets.
but steve walden and the team didn't throw up their hands and say there's nothing to be done, nor would it have been the right answer. while government is not the main player in the drama, there are areas where government can make a positive difference and steve developed a creative set of recommendations for the government, for the private sector and the nonprofit sector that can collectively have a big positive impact and make it possible for cedras duty to citizens into entrepreneurs to solve the problems to do so. the report's recommendations as we heard focus on several areas. on achieving universal broadband access for all americans, on ongoing vigilance to ensure low entry barriers to information for entrepreneurs and entrance incling preserving the internet freedom and opnness. on streamlining and removing obstacles the traditional news providers seeking to distribute the news and information on multiple platforms with strict new and innovative partnerships
in a dillinger the development of business models that can sustain new information and the 21st century. on ensuring that the media policy works but historically underserved communities. on government transparency encouraging the development of ideas like states. on using public information from paper online in a way that is easily available for consumers become citizens and reporters there's more room for progress by agencies of allevels of government 70 to federal, state and local and much benefit that can be had with accelerated progress and moving information from paper to longline we have an example of that in the first item this morning this report identifies additional areas for progress for example there's data and information that the fcc asked broadcasters and others to disclose the information is being disclosed in paper form generally in
filing cabinets at the stations themselves. in a broadband internet world that just doesn't make any sense. the report recommends accelerating the move from paper disclosures to the line would be eventual goal of making all public information available online some things are harder to and more costly on covers are forcibly taking into account the goal should be clear and correct. in the internet age we have to be moving in this direction. the general call to move from pittard is closer to digital it makes imports a recommendation of what exactly we ask broadcasters to disclose. but to suggest we tasted could change course and rather than creating programming course for broadcasters rather than implementing the overly burdensome we create a streamlined web based system will more effectively and efficiently provided to the communities more information for example the sensations are
allowing advertisers to dictate news coverage in the arrangements the public should be able to find out about that and be able to find out about on line. they're doing far more coverage of the community and others the public should know that too. the report calls this a shift of emphasis to it is for the shift because i thinit not only is more respectful of the first amendment but also because would be more effective than what the agency has been trying for the past decade. the technology of the internet makes it possible for the disclosure based public policy approach is to be far more effective than ever before let's use them. another streamlining recommendation involves the will of religious broadcasters to play elping charities and communities around the world including times of crisis proposing increased flexibility for charitable fund-raising. the report also states we should be viglant about relieving barriers to innovation and online on to the north and news gathering information sharing the barrier costs ensuring more
public information is available on line not only help citizens directly and also reduces the cost of reporting and journalism akaka research reports and previews dewitt tichenor reporter weeks a month to be done in a daze or faster. another entrepreneur should the news and inflation areas of america's broadband to plummet and adoption gaps the access to information gets back to the early years of the public. 1930 to newspapers accounted for more than 95% of the week to read by the postal service and es commissioner copps pointed out receive a discount for postage. the primary news delivery mechanisms in the past is bigger radio television were all universal. the emerging news delivery mechanisms of the future broadband of course should be too. doing so what have multiple benefits. bringing the vast information that's all the information that's on the internet to all
people and anoer benefit is the pottial for improving the business model for all in japan or some. -- on knorr. adoption and the united states from where we are today is a 50% increase in the on-line audience. the larger the online market, the greater the scale, the more likely a key online business can succeed. the public information online would help promote a broadband adoption, more broadband subscribers and larger broadband base for advertising. even other measures to increase broadband adoption would help prove our online business models for news and information on to the doors, stirring new innovation and increasing broadband demand this is a virtuous cycle that will help the businesses in the u.s. and help all others participate in both of a democracy and our economy.
steve walden and his team have produced an incredibly thorough and thoughtful report. one that is done a huge service by a deepening our understanding of how technology has affected the information needs of communities that provides a road map for a wide variety of players including the fcc to understand the media information landscape that can take sensible actions to fill important gaps. this issue is essential for the health of democracy and i look forward to working with my colleagues to act on its recommendations. with that, i think to begin on >> both chambers of commerce -- both chambers of congress are in session next week. on tuesday, members debate and then vote on two judicial
nominations in new jersey. then they will begin work on an economic development bill with 2tes scheduled to begin thaat p.m. eastern. you can follow the senate live on c-span2 and the house on c- span. there will be a debate and a final passage vote possible early next week. you can watch the house live, as always, here on c-span. next, remarks from defense secretary robert gates on nato operations and the future of the transatlantic alliance. he believes nato faces a "dim, if not dismal future," and points out the weaknesses in libya. >> thank you, mr. secretary general, jaap, for that kind introduction.
and my thanks to giles merritt and the security and defense agenda for the opportunity to speak here today. this is day 11 of an 11-day international trip so you can understand why i am very much looking forward to getting home. but i am glad - at this time, in this venue - to share some thoughts with you this morning about the transatlantic security relationship in what will be my last policy speech as u.s. defense secretary. the security of this continent - with nato as the main instrument for protecting that security - has been the consuming interest of much of my professional life. in many ways, today's event brings me full circle. the first major speech i delivered after taking this post nearly four-and-a-half years ago was also on the continent, at the munich security conference. the subject was the state of the atlantic alliance, which was then being tested with the resurgence of the taliban in afghanistan. today, i would like to share some parting thoughts about the state of the now 60-plus year
old transatlantic security project, to include -- where the alliance mission stands in afghanistan as we enter a critical transition phase, nato's serious capability gaps and other institutional shortcomings laid bare by the libya operation, the military and political necessity of fixing these shortcomings if the transatlantic security alliance is going to be viable going forward, and more broadly, the growing difficulty for the u.s. to sustain current support for nato if the american taxpayer continues to carry most of the burden in the alliance. i share these views in the spirit of solidarity and friendship, with the understanding that true friends occasionally must speak bluntly with one another for the sake of those greater interests and values that bind us together. first, a few words on afghanistan. i have just returned from three days of visits and meetings with our troops and commanders there, and come away impressed
and inspired by the changes that have taken place on the ground in recent months. it is no secret that for too long, the international military effort in afghanistan suffered from a lack of focus, resources, and attention, a situation exacerbated by america's primary focus on iraq for most of the past decade. when nato agreed at riga in 2006 to take the lead for security across the country, i suspect many allies assumed that the mission would be primarily peacekeeping, reconstruction, and development assistance more akin to the balkans. instead, nato found itself in a tough fight against a determined and resurgent taliban returning in force from its sanctuaries in pakistan. soon, the challenges inherent to any coalition operation came to the surface - national caveats that tied the hands of allied commanders in sometimes infuriating ways, the inability
of many allies to meet agreed upon commitments and, in some cases, wildly disparate contributions from different member states. frustrations with these obstacles sometimes boiled into public view. i had some choice words to say on this topic during my first year in office, unfavorably characterized at the time by one of my nato ministerial colleagues as "megaphone diplomacy." yet, through it all, nato - as an alliance collectively - has for the most part come through for the mission in afghanistan. consider that when i became secretary of defense in 2006 there were about 20,000 non- u.s. troops from nato nations in afghanistan. today, that figure is approximately 40,000. more than 850 troops from non- u.s. nato members have made the ultimate sacrifice in afghanistan. for many allied nations these
were the first military casualties they have taken since the end of the second world war. frankly, four years ago i never would have expected the alliance to sustain this operation at this level for so long, much less add significantly more forces in 2010. it is a credit to the brave isaf troops on the ground, as well as to the allied governments who have made the case for the afghanistan mission under difficult political circumstances at home. over the past two years, the u.s. has completed the dramatic shift in military priorities away from iraq and towards afghanistan, providing reinforcements to allies who courageously had been holding the line in the south. these new resources - combined with a new strategy - have decisively changed the military momentum on the ground, with the taliban ejected from their former strongholds. while president obama is still
considering the size and pacing of the troop drawdown beginning in july, i can tell you there will be no rush to the exits. the vast majority of the surge forces that arrived over the past two years will remain through the summer fighting season. we will also reassign many troops from areas transferred to afghan control into less- secure provinces and districts. as the taliban attempt their inevitable counterattack designed to increase isaf casualties and sap international will, now is the time to capitalize on the gains of the past 15 to 18 months - by keeping the pressure on the taliban and reinforcing military success with improved governance, reintegration, and ultimately political reconciliation. given what i have heard and seen - not just in my recent visit to afghanistan, but over the past two years - i believe these gains can take root and be sustained over time with proper allied support. far too much has been accomplished, at far too great a cost, to let the momentum
slip away just as the enemy is on its back foot. to that end, we cannot afford to have some troop contributing nations to pull out their forces on their own timeline in a way that undermines the mission and increases risks to other allies. the way ahead in afghanistan is "in together, out together." then our troops can come home to the honor and appreciation they so richly deserve, and the transatlantic alliance will have passed its first major test of the 21st century -- inflicting a strategic and ideological defeat on terrorist groups that threaten our homelands, giving a long- suffering people hope for a future, providing a path to stability for a critically important part of the world. though we can take pride in what has been accomplished and sustained in afghanistan, the isaf mission has exposed
significant shortcomings in nato - in military capabilities, and in political will. despite more than 2 million troops in uniform - not counting the u.s. military - nato has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 40,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more. turning to the nato operation over libya, it has become painfully clear that similar shortcomings - in capability and will have the potential to jeopardize the alliance's ability to conduct an integrated, effective and sustained air-sea campaign. consider that operation unified protector is -- a mission with widespread political support, a mission that does not involve
ground troops under fire, and indeed, is a mission in europe's neighborhood deemed to be in europe's vital interest. to be sure, at the outset, the nato libya mission did meet its initial military objectives - grounding qaddafi's air force and degrading his ability to wage offensive war against his own citizens. and while the operation has exposed some shortcomings caused by underfunding, it has also shown the potential of nato, with an operation where europeans are taking the lead with american support. however, while every alliance member voted for libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission. frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can't. the military capabilities simply aren't there. in particular, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance assets are lacking that would allow more allies to be involved and make an impact. the most advanced fighter aircraft are little use if allies do not have the means to identify, process, and strike targets as part of an integrated campaign. to run the air campaign, the nato air operations center in italy required a major augmentation of targeting specialists, mainly from the u.s., to do the job - a "just in time" infusion of personnel that may not always be available in future contingencies. we have the spectacle of an air operations center designed to handle more than 300 sorties a day struggling to launch about 150. furthermore, the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the u.s., once more, to make up the difference. in the past, i've worried openly about nato turning into a two-tiered alliance -- between
members who specialize in "soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks, and those conducting the "hard" combat missions. between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of nato membership - be they security guarantees or headquarters billets - but don't want to share the risks and the costs. this is no longer a hypothetical worry. we are there today. and it is unacceptable. part of this predicament stems from a lack of will, much of it from a lack of resources in an era of austerity. for all but a handful of allies, defense budgets - in absolute terms, as a share of economic output - have been chronically starved for adequate funding for a long time, with the shortfalls compounding on themselves each year.
despite the demands of mission in afghanistan - the first 'hot' ground war fought in nato history - total european defense spending declined, by one estimate, by nearly 15 percent in the decade following 9/11. furthermore, rising personnel costs combined with the demands of training and equipping for afghan deployments has consumed an ever growing share of already meager defense budgets. the result is that investment accounts for future modernization and other capabilities not directly related to afghanistan are being squeezed out - as we are seeing today over libya. i am the latest in a string of u.s. defense secretaries who have urged allies privately and publicly, often with exasperation, to meet agreed- upon nato benchmarks for defense spending. however, fiscal, political and demographic realities make this unlikely to happen anytime soon, as even military stalwarts like the u.k have been forced
to ratchet back with major cuts to force structure. today, just five of 28 allies - the u.s., u.k., france, greece, along with albania - exceed the agreed 2% of gdp spending on defense. regrettably, but realistically, this situation is highly unlikely to change. the relevant challenge for us today, therefore, is no longer the total level of defense spending by allies, but how these limited -- and dwindling -- resources are allocated and for what priorities. for example, though some smaller nato members have modestly sized and funded militaries that do not meet the 2 percent threshold, several of these allies have managed to punch well above their weight because of the way they use the resources they have. in the libya operation, norway and denmark, have provided 12 percent of allied strike
aircraft yet have struck about one third of the targets. belgium and canada are also making major contributions to the strike mission. these countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment, and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution. these examples are the exceptions. despite the pressing need to spend more on vital equipment and the right personnel to support ongoing missions - needs that have been evident for the past two decades - too many allies been unwilling to fundamentally change how they set priorities and allocate resources. the non-u.s. nato members collectively spend more than $300 billion u.s. dollars on defense annually which, if allocated wisely and strategically, could buy a
significant amount of usable military capability. instead, the results are significantly less than the sum of the parts. this has both shortchanged current operations but also bodes ill for ensuring nato has the key common alliance capabilities of the future. looking ahead, to avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance, member nations must examine new approaches to boosting combat capabilities - in procurement, in training, in logistics, in sustainment. while it is clear nato members should do more to pool military assets, such "smart defense" initiatives are not a panacea. in the final analysis, there is no substitute for nations providing the resources necessary to have the military capability the alliance needs when faced with a security challenge. ultimately, nations must be responsible for their fair share of the common defense. let me conclude with some thoughts about the political context in which all of us must operate. as you all know, america's
serious fiscal situation is now putting pressure on our defense budget, and we are in a process of assessing where the u.s. can or cannot accept more risk as a result of reducing the size of our military. tough choices lie ahead affecting every part of our government, and during such times, scrutiny inevitably falls on the cost of overseas commitments - from foreign assistance to military basing, support, and guarantees. president obama and i believe that despite the budget pressures, it would be a grave mistake for the u.s. to withdraw from its global responsibilities. and in singapore last week, i outlined the many areas where u.s. defense engagement and investment in asia was slated to grow further in coming years, even as america's traditional allies in that region rightfully take on the role of full partners in their own defense. with respect to europe, for the better part of six decades
there has been relatively little doubt or debate in the united states about the value and necessity of the transatlantic alliance. the benefits of a europe whole, prosperous and free after being twice devastated by wars requiring american intervention was self evident. thus, for most of the cold war u.s. governments could justify defense investments and costly forward bases that made up roughly 50 percent of all nato military spending. but some two decades after the collapse of the berlin wall, the u.s. share of nato defense spending has now risen to more than 75% - at a time when politically painful budget and benefit cuts are being considered at home. the blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the u.s. congress - and in the american body politic writ large - to expend increasingly precious funds on
behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. nations apparently willing and eager for american taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in european defense budgets. indeed, if current trends in the decline of european defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, future u.s. political leaders, those for whom the cold war was not the formative experience that it was for me, may not consider the return on america's investment in nato worth the cost. what i've sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance. such a future is possible, but not inevitable. the good news is that the members of nato, individually, and collectively, have it well
within their means to halt and reverse these trends, and instead produce a very different future -- by making a serious effort to protect defense budgets from being further gutted in the next round of austerity measures, by better allocating and coordinating the resources we do have, and by following through on commitments to the alliance and to each other. it is not too late for europe to get its defense institutions and security relationships on track. but it will take leadership from political leaders and policy makers on this continent. it cannot be coaxed, demanded or imposed from across the atlantic. over the life of the transatlantic alliance there has been no shortage of squabbles and setbacks. but through it all, we managed to get the big things right over time. we came together to make the tough decisions in the face of dissension at home and threats abroad. and i take heart in the
knowledge that we can do so again. >> if you missed any of secretary gates' remarks, we will show his speech again at 8:00 p.m.. after that, a discussion on job creation in the u.s. and a new study showing that 21 million jobs need to be created by 2020 in order to get back to pre- recession employment levels. following that, a discussion on ways to create those jobs. then the european parliament president takes questions from representatives in the european union. earlier today, house minority leader steny hoyer held a town hall meeting in maryland. he discussed the republican budget plan which he believes would and medicare for seniors and future generations. medicare for seniors and
future generations. this is an hour. >> good morning. we have had a lot of debate in washington, as you know. i am going to sit down. if you want to come forward, you can do that. if you cannot hear me, let me know. i have a microphone. c-span is here. they are taking pictures. we will see what happens. i did not bring any ice cream. we had wonderful ice-cream yesterday at simple pleasures.
you were there. a number of us were there. it was great. i appreciate all of you being here. can everybody hear me? all right. does everybody want to hear me? [laughter] the senator used to tell a joke i love. he was giving a speech for about 250 people, and somebody in the back of the room raised their hand and said, "senator, i cannot hear you." immediately, somebody in the front row jumped up and said, "i can, and i will trade places with you." [laughter] i am pleased to be here at evergreen. i have been here before, and had an opportunity to visit with some of you before. thank you for coming this morning. i know it is a little early, but let's get started. last year, as we know, and you
know, we adopted the affordable care act. the affordable care act effort is to try to extend health care coverage to another 30 + million americans to make sure that they have access to affordable, quality health care and affordable is key, quality is key, and access is key. we have the best health care in the world. here in america. the issue is whether or not we can afford it or get it. so, we have worked very hard to try to make that the case. this legislation was important to seniors -- all americans, but particularly seniors because it made improvements to the medicare program. some of you are probably aware of those improvements, but i want to go over them. seniors in the medicare doughnut
hole now get discounts on brand and generic drugs as a result of this discount. the doughnut hole is between $2,000 and about $6,400, in which there is no compensation from the federal government under the existing prescription program. however, we changed that so that -- we reduce the cost by 50% this year, and we will phase it out by the next decade. so that you will have the opportunity to have a prescription drug availability that you will be able to afford. by the way, i want to tell you liz murray is here. she is one of the most knowledgeable people in the house of representatives on health care. if we get to questions and i cannot answer them, she can.
potentially, the doughnut hole will be closed entirely, so that that gap will no longer exist. seniors no longer pay deductibles or copays for preventive care. why is that important? we want to encourage people to get preventive care. clearly, preventive care is cheaper than critical care. preventive care -- preventing people from getting sick -- is a lot better investment than trying to get people well after they get sick. so that it is like having that inoculation for smallpox or something, and you do not get that. it is a lot cheaper to get the shot. seniors now get a free annual wellness exam. seniors now get a free wellnes'' exam. you will not have to pay a coke
paid for your annual checkup, your wellness. -- a co pay for your annual welcheck up, you're wellness. if you have some problem, we want to detect it early. that will save us as a government and as a people money, and it will also keep you healthy and save you money as well. that wellness exam is to prevent medical problems before they get more serious. it also saves medicare money and improves the quality and coronation of the care you receive, all of which is designed to try to bring costs down. the costs that we are incurring for health care -- not just in medicare or medicaid -- but in our own private insurance, and businesses, in families, is not sustainable. the costs are rising at a rate that will not be affordable for
any of us, for government, for families, for individuals and for businesses, if we do not bring those costs down. the congressional budget office, , nonpartisan analyst determining the consequences of passing the affordable care act said that we will save about a quarter of a trillion dollars in this decade on our health care costs and a trillion dollars plus in the next decade on our health care costs as a result of the reforms that have been adopted in the affordable care act. it also made important payment and delivery system reforms that will save medicare money and will improve the coordination. the delivery of health care in america now is in essentially done on a procedure basis, as
you know. the procedure is done. the provider is reimbursed. as opposed to an outcome basis. quantity not quality. value not volume. that is what we're talking about. doing ishat we're trying to get a pavement reimbursement system that is the -- a payment reimbursement system that is focused on the opportunity to keep people well and to intervene in their health care in the most efficient, effective, cost-effective way. the result of all these changes, according to the office that runs the medicare program is, as i said, the by the end of the decade seniors who -- seniors will be paying less in annual premiums than if the affordable care act had not been enacted. care act had not been enacted.